Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jorge N. Amely Vélez


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Jorge N. Amely Vélez

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable scientist. He has some nice patents, but that is it. No non-trivial third part material available to sustain a biography about him. damiens.rf 13:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep- Just because some people haven't heard of him doesn't mean that he is not notable. He developed methods and apparatuses for timing events within an implantable medical device capable of performing many concurrent processes. He also authored a method to help prevent defibrillator output stage short circuit failures in implantable devices.I would say that he is the Puerto Rican Thomas Edison in the medical field. Tony the Marine (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * His work is fabulous! But, did he received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources? The article fails to show that. --damiens.rf 19:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - The patent references in the article speak for themselves. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, they don't. They are primary sources. While they prove the patents existence, they say nothing about how important or influential his work was. --damiens.rf 17:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - Here is a site of his patent, The "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TIMING EVENTS WITHIN AN IMPLANTABLE MEDICAL DEVICE", which can be viewed by those who maybe interested and which tells us all the importance of his inventions in the medical field: [file:///C:/Users/Soy%20un%20Campeon/Downloads/US20020107550.pdf] Tony the Marine (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk  17:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - the most appropriate guideline for this person is probably WP:NACADEMICS which he seems to fail. Especially, he is not a fellow of IEEE. Any thoughts, Tony? Kraxler (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The article's sources are: a link about the existence of a scholarship program (but not about Amely Vélez receiving it); patent listings; and a bibliographic entry for Amely Vélez's book. None of these do anything to prove notability. Searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, JSTOR, InfoTrak, and ProQuest turned up no reliable, arms-length sources. Does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:SCHOLAR. To quote WP:GNG, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Worldbruce (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per above it fails WP:BASIC, WP:SCHOLAR and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2015 (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.