Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris C. Kemp (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. One of the keep "votes" was issued by a now blocked user. Another comes from an account with previous COI issues. With that in mind, the arguments for deletion appear to be strongly backed up by policy. Although this discussion is somewhat borderline, I think consensus is clear enough. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Chris C. Kemp
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

COI issues, sources only mention him in passing, sources do not reference the fact being cited, little improvement in 3rd party sources, writing style makes me believe there is some sockpuppetry going on here User:Velvetsmog (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Chris Kemp is a well known and respected member of the NASA family, and plays an important role in bringing NASA and the US government into the 21st century. He is a regular speaker at US government cloud computing seminars and leads the government's efforts in cloud standards. (Note: I originally put up his article. After the first nomination for deletion I've worked with the nominator to update the 3rd part sources in this article (e.g. spacenews) so I am a bit surprised its being nominated again). Navarenko (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: This user is the author of the article, and while not quite a single purpose account, the only other articles they have contributed to are that of the subject's director, their employer and blatant advertising for their primary project. Seems overwhelmingly likely that this is a sockpuppet of the subject themselves. WikiScrubber (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(For reference, here is the result of the first nomination.)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Only blogs and passing mentions do not amount to notability this time.   (HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM.) JBsupreme (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I see enough references to him in Google News: Chris C. Kemp and Chris Kemp NASA to indicate enough coverage for notability purposes. -- Jayron  32  01:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – Being NASA's web council chairman and CIO of NASA's research center appears to assert notabilty. — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  01:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Being NASA's web council chairman and CIO of NASA's research center didn't assert notability in the first AfD, according to editors. 76.104.199.0 (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough coverage in reliable sources to be notable. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Which coverage are you referring to specifically? The nominator clearly stated that passing mentions are not really coverage of the subject.  JBsupreme (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this profile article at spacenews for example? Navarenko (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - yes, he gets plenty of mentions on Google, but the coverage is remarkably trivial - there's virtually nothing that amounts to 'significant coverage in independent reliable sources'. 'Weak' because there are some references nonetheless, perhaps only enough for a stub article. Robofish (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – I still believe all of GlassCobra's comments from the original AfD hold: "Kemp is not the CIO of NASA, he's the CIO of one research center that belongs to NASA; quite a large difference. COI concerns, sources only mention him in passing, not significant enough coverage. GlassCobra 22:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)". How have these been addressed? With references from spacenews? 76.104.199.0 (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think whether he's the CIO of NASA or the CIO of a NASA center has much to do with the relevance of the article. He's an important figure in the Agency and certainly worth having an article on wikipedia. Innovation usually tends to come from the trenches. Navarenko (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per my reasoning from the previous AfD; as the IP above mentions, the issues from last time have not been addressed. (As an aside, why was this re-brought to AfD instead of deleted by G4?) We should also take borderline BLP concerns into consideration. Glass  Cobra  14:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete and Salt per nom, per previous AfD, per various policy violations including verifiability, notability, neutrality, suspected conflicts, possible sockpuppetry, per interference with AfD process (keep vote above), per blatant advertising and per piss taking in general. WikiScrubber (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.