Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alyssa Carson (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. There is wide agreement here that the subject has sufficient coverage to meet WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Carson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Alyssa Carson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This biography was deleted two years ago, with a bit of controversy. I recalling !voting "delete" as there wasn't a good amount of sourcing, but I appreciate there's been more since, so a second discussion is probably a good idea. Have at it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, grudgingly. There is sustained coverage over about two years in various high-quality sources (e.g. Newsweek). Everyone calls her an astronaut in training, but I am pretty sure she would need six years of science-based education at an Ivy-league institution and then some military training before she could even apply to become an astronaut in training with anyone who actually owns the keys to a rocket. It's all inflated bullsh*t, but it's covered in good pubs.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Over two years of sustained coverage (a lot more if you count the handful of articles out there about Carson from 2014), so not WP:BLP1E as was argued by some in 2018. Plenty of sources to easily meet WP:GNG. One of the issues from the last nomination was that Carson "hadn't done anything" but she has since self-published a book and developed some space luggage, so there's that. Another problem from previous AfD was Carson being under 18 but time has solved that one for us. Can't see a reason to delete other than people just not wanting the article to exist. Samsmachado (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Coverage in Forbes, Teen Vogue, Newsweek and The Advocate — reliable sources that are pretty different from each other in tone and audience. It may have been deleteable two years ago, but I don't see why you'd want to delete this version. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to more sufficient sourcing available than two years ago it looks like. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, several in-depth profiles in media so passes GNG.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉]) 12:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is kind of a perfect example of why we have deletion discussions. She's written about in RS, but most of the sources are generic, human interest-type stories that repeat the same basic facts about Ms. Carson's life. Ms. Carson's actual notability is tied up in speculation, plans, hopes, desires, etc., in a way that is different from the vast majority of BLP articles. I hope Ms. Carson achieves every one of her goals, but she doesn't, in my opinion, meet the threshold for notability. Caro7200 (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Caro7200, do you have any policies to cite to back up your opinion (ie. something from WP:NOT as everyone else seems to be in agreement she meets WP:GNG - unless you disagree and think she does not meet GNG) or is it just an opinion? Just clarifying so that when this AfD is eventually closed, the admin can weigh your !vote accordingly. Samsmachado (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Caro7200, I agree the content is all about a fabricated myth that she is in training to be an astronaut. She's doing personal training to be one, but nothing official. But there is lots of coverage of that myth. She's a product of the media, maybe like Kim Kardashian, who as far as I can tell is extremely notable for doing nothing much.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean this condescendingly, but the last thing I want to do is criticize an optimistic 19-year-old. But this is really weird--do we describe college sophomores who are majoring in biology and who plan on going to med school as doctors-in-training? The Southern Living article describes her as an individual who is "a college freshman studying astrobiology at Florida Institute of Technology and is said to be the world’s youngest astronaut-in-training." Is said, as in they don't care enough to actually substantiate the statement. Even the Newsweek article includes a correction that explains that Carson has no formal affilitiation with NASA. And, as with every AfD discussion, the admin can completely ignore my argument if she or he feels that it adds nothing to the discussion. Caro7200 (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Spanish version of this page was just deleted (again). Nothing against her, but as others have commented before, she is only a product of the media, and her father trying to make her famous. She has had a few talks, attended a lot of camps (which are like summer camps, where you pay to assist. Really, check the PoSSUM academy website please... https://projectpossum.org/science-programs/possum-space-academy/), but that does not means she must have a Wikipedia page. Look at the references on the website, most of them are talking about her being an "in-training astronaut", or things like "teen might be flying to Mars", "teenage astronaut", etc. Which, honestly, there is nothing to validate that statement... besides, those references claiming she is an astronaut in training, next generation of rocket women", etc., are intentionally misleading. I have known a lot of people who actually believe she WILL be going to Mars, or that she IS training to become an astronaut, all this due to this kind of references. I vote to remove, because I feel all of this is misleading, and this kind of misleading content should not be on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.94.171 (talk • contribs)
@70.184.94.171: can;t we figure out a way to describe the media inflation? I added something to the lede saying how her story has been reported widely. What about adding something more, like "In the media, Carson has frequently been called an astronaut in training despite not being part in any astronaut trainng programs that lead to launches."? I am trying to figure out how to word that without being POV.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ThatMontrealIP: Removing all misleading information is doable. However, if we remove all that speculation, media sensationalism, etc... would the remaining information be relevant enough to be part of Wikipedia? 70.184.94.171
There's no need to remove the media coverage. There is significant an in-depth coverage of her hope to be an astronaut. The media created that, and it meets GNG easily. What I am saying is we could possibly talk a bit about that media myth creation.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For example, can we use snopes.com as an RS? They say yes she is "training" to be an astronaut, but also "Carson is not in training with -- or being prepped by -- NASA to become an astronaut, or to take part in the first human mission to Mars." POlitifact also cheked the inflated claims, calling them false: "NASA spokesman Sean Potter told us that NASA "has no official ties to Alyssa Carson" and conclluding that "A headline claims NASA is "prepping 17-year-old Alyssa Carson to become first human on Mars." Carson certainly wants to go into space. And that may happen. But she has no official connection to NASA." ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@70.184.94.171: The article (as it stands) makes no claims that NASA is actually preparing Carson to be an astronaut. (Many thanks to ThatMontrealIP for their hard work improving the NPOV side of things.) Isn't it important then to have this article to clear up misinformation for the "people" that you reference? Don't they need a wikipedia page to give them correct information about Carson? Are there any specific parts of the page specifically that you feel are misleading? Because these things could almost certainly be fixed. If you identify what parts of the article you feel are misleading, then we can determine what is left and see if that is indeed notable. Samsmachado (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Samsmachado: All the astronaut in training, and many of the references... ThatMontrealIP has been modifying the article and I'm glad about that (Thanks). As I said before, I was talking a lot about the references used in the article, many of them are extremely sensationalists. Also, with all due respect to Alyssa, what has she done besides being covered in the media due to the facts several users have discussed here before (i.e., claims that she will go to mars, that she is an astronaut in training, assisting to paid space camps not affiliated to NASA, etc), and speak what she hopes to accomplish? Her Wikipedia page has already been deleted more than once in several languages before due to this exact kind of discussion (on which they decided to delete her page), and very recently like 2 weeks before her Spanish version was deleted. Don't get me wrong, as a space enthusiast myself it would be awesome she actually make her dream come true. However, I honestly believe that she has not done anything that merits this website. I guarantee you that hundreds of kids would love to go to all those space camps, but their families can't afford it. Her "success" is mostly due to the propaganda of her dad, and speaking as if assisting to all summer camps is a merit itself (but you just need to pay a fee to be admitted). 70.184.94.171
  • Delete and salt. No significant improvement since last time. Certainly no pass of WP:Prof and sources are too flimsy, exaggerated and promotional for WP:GNG. Still no significant achievements to her name that would warrant notice by Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. @Xxanthippe: No one is claiming Carson falls under WP:PROF. The bigger consideration is whether she meets WP:BASIC/WP:GNG and does not fall into WP:NOT. In terms of your claims about the sources let me present the following:
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
The Daily Advertiser Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY A whole article in local paper that meets publishing standards in terms of who it allows to write things
Huck Magazine Green tickY Question? Green tickY Green tickY Question? An interview, so dubious independence
Teen Vogue Green tickY Question? Green tickY Green tickY Question? Interview, so not totally independant
CBS Green tickY Question? Green tickY Green tickY Question? Interview, but from national news source so is almost certainly independant
Space Coast Living Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Poor publishing standards (see: https://www.spacecoastliving.com/publish-your-blog/)
The Advocate (Baton Rouge) Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY A whole article in local paper that meets publishing standards in terms of who it allows to write things
Southern Living Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY National magazine with decent standards
Rocket Women Green tickY Question? Question? Green tickY Red XN Blog, but pretty legit seeming blog
Stylist Green tickY Question? Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Same problem with interviews as before
TNW Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Tech news site, they do speak to Carson but the article is not interview style and is rife with scientific commentary about the future Mars mission
Newsweek Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY They don't appear to talk to Carson at all. They're quoting the Forbes source.
GMA Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Discusses Carson's appearance in a Super Bowl ad (which isn't mentioned in the article)
Forbes Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Focusses on her 'entreprenurial' endeavours, talks to Carson but not in an interviewy way See Puzzledvegetable's comment for issue of lack of editorial oversight. Samsmachado (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Total qualifying sources 7 There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
I count 8 for sure reliable, notability-contributing sources. Anyone may feel free to disagree with my source evaluation, but you better give reasoning. Samsmachado (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your heroic work and formatting skills in constructing this table. All it shows is promotional public relations flim-flam, likely all based on the same press release. It is worth looking at the first AfD for further views. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@Xxanthippe. The sources show coverage 6 years. (2014 source) Are you saying that Forbes is using a press release from 2014 to discuss an invention that wasn't made public until 2019? (Most of the sources are from 2018-2020, but that's still extended coverage for 2 years making it unlikely they're all from the same press release.) (WP:SUSTAINED) But, let's address concerns from the first AfD (some of which I addressed earlier):
  • WP:BLP concern over privacy, Carson's age (she was a minor during last AfD discussion) - she's 19 now and she and her dad worked on the last iteration of the article clearly showing they don't mind the article's existence
  • WP:BLP1E. Clearly not 1 event as she has written a book, designed space luggage and tested space suits, and appeared in a super bowl commercial in addition to the 'one event' of attending space camp
  • WP:CRYSTAL: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." And it is properly referenced. The article does not claim she is going to Mars; it only says that the media says she might.
  • "But she hasn't done anything." Well, the media doesn't agree there. It's pretty unlikely that someone would sustain 2+ years of media coverage in a wide array of reliable sources despite not doing anything. I agree that going to a bunch of space camps isn't 'doing anything' but she has written a book, designed space luggage, tested space suits, appeared in a super bowl commercial, given TEDx talks, and spoken at the MER (Mars Exploration Rover) 10 Panel. She hasn't gone to Mars but that doesn't mean she hasn't done stuff.
  • WP:109PAPERS. As per what I said earlier, coverage over 6 years so it's unlikely that this is all from the same press release. This argument relies on the sources being "temporary". Which they're not.
  • WP:PROMO. A big problem was Carson and her father's direct involvement in the previous article. That aside, ThatMontrealIP has been doing some tremendous work removing anything even remotely promotional, so I think we're over that concern.
  • Source quality. To quote JohnPackLambert from last AfD discussion: "This article is in no way "sourced well". Much of what it says is sourced to either primary sources, or not sourced at all, or cited to sources that do not say what it claimed. Additionally, the secondary sources are not the in-depth, reliable coverage we look for, especially for biographies of living people." I have already shown source quality, but everyone is more than welcome to take issue my assessment.
  • WP:SENSATIONAL Yeah, the part about her going to Mars has no basis in fact, but plenty of the sources acknowledge this and our WP article doesn't say it. They call her an astronaut in training because she is training herself, not because she is involved with NASA training. Again I'm going to make the WP:SUSTAINED argument because to say that the same person getting fluff pieces for 6 (or 2, if you're stingy) years is unlikely.
  • WP:TOOSOON. Yes, this article would be better if she goes to Mars. BUT (as is mentioned in the TOOSOON essay) Carson meets GNG and there is independent coverage to back up the article's claims. And, as I mentioned earlier, she has done some stuff.
Anything I missed? I don't see how any of the previous AfD claims apply except PROMO which is being addressed. Samsmachado (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. With respect to Ms. Carson, her book is self-published, 44 pages, and reads like it was written by, well, a teenager. As far as her luggage, I have no idea how much she actually contributed to its design and manufacture--and neither does any other editor. As far as the tone of the human-interest-type stories about Ms. Carson, that, sadly, says more about the business of journalism than it does Ms. Carson's notability. I still think this is an article about a teenager who wants to become an astronaut. Even with the addition of Snopes, etc., why does this exist? It seems more like an article about the lengths parents will go for their kids, which should perhaps be the real subject. Caro7200 (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why does this exist? Because this woman has been getting coverage in the media for 2+ years and there are more than enough sources to meet GNG, meaning there is a high likelihood that the public needs/wants reliable encyclopedic information about Carson. In terms of your question about her contributions to the luggage, please see the Forbes article. WP:AUTHOR has nothing against the quality of a book or whether it was self-published (not that Carson meets WP:AUTHOR, I just don't think we should be devaluing her work). Samsmachado (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Xxanthippe, I think looking at this article through the lenses of WP:NPROF is the wrong perspective, as she is not an academic. I am looking at Carson as an athlete, model, or social media personality. I don't quite understand why media is covering her, but it is.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 16:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The media is covering her because she has aggressive public relations support. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Samsmachado It's not about devaluing her work, just like it's not about overvaluing her work. 70.184.94.171
This will be my last comment--as I wrote above, I don't want to be seen as "picking" on a 19-year-old. I read the Forbes article, and didn't find any details about Ms. Carson's actual contributions; the closest was this: she helped "develop visual prototypes." I think Eostrix makes a good point that Ms. Carson may most accurately be described as a "personality." Caro7200 (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Samsmachado: Note that Forbes.com articles written by contributors, rather than staffers, are not considered reliable sources per consensus developed by 12 different discussions. See WP:FORBESCON for more info. According to Forbes, "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." This can be viewed by hovering over the question mark next to the writer's name, and it is placed there becuase those articles are not subject to editorial oversight. I believe the table should be updated accordingly. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 15:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Samsmachado (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in the interests of balance, I tracked down enough sources to be able to add this to a new "astronaut training" section: "Despite being frequently cited in the media as an "astronaut in training",[12][13][14] Carson is not affiliated with any national space program.[15][16] NASA has publicly stated that the organization "has no official ties to Alyssa Carson",[16] and separately that "although Ms. Carson uses ‘NASA' in her website name and Twitter and Instagram handles, we’re not affiliated at all."[17] In 2019 Newsweek corrected a headline that had implied that Carson's training was affiliated with NASA.[18]ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BASIC. It doesn't matter if she's achieved nothing at all: reliable sources have taken note of her, thus she's notable. (Had she flown to Mars but not received national news coverage, I might lean the other way.) pburka (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BASIC as explained by others above. TJMSmith (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:BASIC, covered by independent sources over extended period of time. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Has enough coverage for a stand alone article. Alex-h (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per pburka's, somewhat funny, albeit relevant reasoning. I will also note that I see fairly sustained coverage from a wide-variety of reliable sources as mentioned above. Additionally, WP:GNG is clear on three criteria, e.g. significant coverage, reliable WP:PSTS sources, and independent coverage. Donna Spencertalk-to-me⛅ 17:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the references definitely meet WP:GNG. However, please ping me when the notability guidelines are overturned or if WP:NOT starts excluding articles about young women and I shall reconsider. Thincat (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. During the course of this AfD the BLP has been edited to remove trivia and now properly includes the corrections issued by NASA and Newsweek about the subject's allegedly illegitimate use of the NASA logo and connections. I think the present version is more balanced, but it now reads as an attack page. In some jurisdictions of the world the use of deception to gain a benefit is regarded as a criminal offense and it seems that the BLP can implicitly be construed of accusing the subject of doing this. It could be that some of the Keep votes did not appreciate that the current version of the BLP could result in public exposure of the subject's behavior. I see this situation as a case of a vulnerable young person being exploited by older people and not fully understanding the consequences of their actions. I think that the article should be deleted under BLP policy and WP:Do no harm. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    • I removed an awkward reference to NASA from the lead, but I don't see how anything here could be perceived as an attack. I'd never heard of this person before and I think the article portrays her in a fair and positive way. pburka (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that these fact-checks [1], [2], [3], that another editor dug up, portray her in a positive way? Xxanthippe (talk) 07:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Those aren't attacks, either. Besides, do you believe that deleting this Wikipedia page would have any effect on Snopes or Politifact? pburka (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment by article subject's father
  • Comment. This is Alyssa's dad and have sat on the sideline watching this discussion. The hypocrisy here is unreal. There are several other kids on Wikipedia that call themselves astronauts, have not done near what Alyssa has accomplished and nothing has ever been discussed about their entries. This is at least the second time you have attached my daughter. And with no knowledge of what you are talking about. Many of the comments and discussion here are so ridiculous and come from people that do not know us or what we have done. They make accusations that are not true and no evidence of such. Alyssa has earned everything she has accomplished and there is no aggressive team pushing any of this and no rich parents buying her way to anything. Actually Alyssa is the most humble kid you will ever meet and cares less about being famous but wants to train to go to Mars to help save the human race. Before you make your snide comments and discussions do research and see all the good this kid has done and actually a bright light for her generation to help change the world too. Check her LinkedIn page if you want to see everything she has done. As someone mention about other celebrities that have gotten fame for doing nothing, this kid has worked her butt off to build her resume and inspire kids around the world. Everything that has been written about her and companies that have hired her for ads, speeches and inspirational talks have all been organic. We have never pursued and marketed Alyssa. Alyssa has never told anyone that she works for NASA but we do have several relationships with the higher ups at NASA. And yes got permission to use the NASA name years ago. Again do your research and find that NASA is not the only place training is done. She has also trained with CSA and ESA. Alyssa has done real astronaut training and not at space camp. And again do your research, space camp is affiliated with NASA. I'm so glad that you people want to attach a kid over the years that has done so much good and not wanting anything in return. Great job. This is why kids get slammed and told by people like you that they can not accomplish their dreams. My advice, my want, take her off Wikipedia, leave her off and keep all your negative crap to yourselves.2602:306:C4AF:9150:712E:158F:F900:FC5E (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IP, thanks for your comment. We have specific notability guidelines that determine what gets kept and what gets deleted on Wikipedia. That is all this discussion is about. Anything in the article is supported by published sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I take the above hidden comment to be a Delete vote under Wikipedia:BLPREQUESTDELETE and I support it. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Feel free to uncollapse that section if you like; I collapsed it because the article subject's father is not going to have a lot of sway in a deletion discussion. BLPREQUESTDELETE doesn't apply to public figures, and since she has actively sought media attention she is not a low profile individual. Quite the opposite. I'm not really seeing what the big deal is here; she has given dozens of interviews and actively sought media attention. People who get media attention often get Wikipedia pages. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct to say that she has been an active seeker after media attention. However, I am reluctant to hold that against her because I am not certain to what extent she has been mistress of her own fate and to what extent she has been influenced by others. My concern is that if this BLP stands, it will be a millstone round her neck for the rest of her career. That is why I advise Delete on compassionate grounds (at least). Xxanthippe (talk) 07:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@Xxanthippe: I understand and recognize your compassionate point of view here. But it is incorrect to say we are doing harm, as we are not publishing anything new here. We are just doing what we do in every article: summarize the sources. Her story is extremely well documented in dozens of reputable publications. The only negative side is that this article might have longer longevity that those news pubs, but that is not a deletion consideration. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the subject requested deletion I might well go delete. However, my reading of the "This is Alyssa's dad ..." comment is that it is the remarks in the AfD discussion(s) that are being criticised more than the article itself. Once social media have gone out of fashion we'll be in a better place.Thincat (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments. Alyssa Carson, so-called youngest member of NASA, is notable enough that an article about her would be deserved. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NASA has told Newsweek that NASA has no formal affiliation with her. [4] Xxanthippe (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. The page has been quiet for a while and I take the opportunity to ask contributors how they view the ethical issue involved. The version of the page brought to AfD contained not a single source critical of the subject. However, scrutiny by contributors to the AfD brought to light several [5], [6], [7],[8],[9] media reports that implied that the subject had given misleading information to media outlets which disclaimed the promotional "fake news" (the phrase that they used) that they had unwittingly published. This detrimental information has now been properly included in the BLP by the editor that discovered it to make the article WP:NPOV. An accusation of generating fake news for self-promotion is not good for anybody's reputation and may prejudice entry into occupations where high ethical standards are required. For a normal adult this would not bother me: people reap what they sow. The ethical issue is that it appears that the subject is a vulnerable young person who appears to have been heavily influenced by others. She may not have understood the harm done to her reputation by the actions of herself and others. I think it would be best for Wikipedia not to rub salt in the wounds and delete the BLP on compassionate grounds under WP:Harm. User:pburka and others make the point that nothing that Wikipedia does will alter the existence of the detrimental material in the sources. True, but Wikipedia is one of the most widely read sources on the web, much more so than the individual media sources referred to. I see no cause for Wikipedia to join in the chase and function as a public pillory. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@Xxanthippe: is there some published evidence that the subject is a vulnerable young person who appears to have been heavily influenced by others? What you are suggesting is a sort of parental "best for you" intervention to remove the page, as there is no policy-based reason to remove the page. I applaud your sensitivity to the subject, but the page meets GNG, and she is willingly continuing to appear in the media. She looks perfectly happy to do so: Here is the GMA article about her SuperBowl ad in January 2020. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I echo Pburka and ThatMontrealIP's comments that this is not a case of WP:HARM as nothing in the article is not widely documented in the press. Further, the age of majority in the US is 18 so I would require a request from the subject herself (ie. not Carson's father) to even consider BLPREQUESTDELETE (which may not be applicable due to Carson being a highly public figure). She's young but she is 19 and I respect the right of a 19 y.o. to make decisions about herself. Further, I think most of the misrepressentation and harmful discourse has been in this AfD discussion (ie. people claiming Carson has "done nothing" and alleging that she is only garnering coverage because her dad is paying for it) rather than on the page itself. Carson, to my knowledge, has not been misleading the media in any way other than by using NASA in her usernames (which she has official permission to do); the media has been misrepresenting Carson to a certain extent by claiming her official involvement with NASA space programs and ignoring her very real contributions and achievements. These are just my opinions on the ethics of this BLP, so I would love to hear other's thoughts. Samsmachado (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the risk of circularity, I agree with Samsmachado: there's nothing harmful in the article. If there have been any hints of defamation, they're in this deletion discussion or in reliable sources referenced by the article. pburka (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per @Samsmachado:'s table, it does have enough wp:rs to pass wp:sigcov. Dtt1Talk 13:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Closing admin needs to take note of the faulty relist by @Synoman Barris: without even giving a reason. The discussion before the relist had healthy participation and policy based arguments, clearly enough to conclude the AfD. In case it wasn't conclusive, an admin should've relisted it instead. This relisting trend is wasteful. - Harsh (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a slam-dunk but there is now just too much non-trivial RS here (per the article) do be a delete. The July 2019 Forbes piece (albeit a senior contributor) is pretty much SIGCOV. WP:BASIC says: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. She meets this criteria now. Britishfinance (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alyssa_Carson_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1142167080"