Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alyssa Carson (4th 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 keep. Consensus is that she's notable... for being covered by media on account of her self-promotion. Oh well. Sandstein 12:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Carson[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was deleted on July 2018 for violating the Rule 4 of Wikipedia's Deletion Policy (advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content).

It has been rewritten in June 2020, but still without any relevant nor encyclopedic content (a self-published book is not enough).

This article is basically a self-promoting page about a girl who dreamt to be an astronaut, and her dad had enough money to try to realize her dream. They tried to sell the image of her being an astronaut on training for an official mission to Mars (source 1, source 2, source 3), but later the uncorrelation with NASA was revealed and covered multiple times by the media (source 1, source 2, source 3).

So, since this article is basically about a girl who attended some cool summer camps with the "space" word in it (like thousands of other people in the world) and studying astrobiology (like millions of people in this world), I think that it should be deleted in respect of the rule 4 of Wikipedia's Deletion Policy, event if it meets the WP:GNG, because nothing in this article is relevant or encyclopedic content.

PS: Before voting, just take a look at the revision history of the page to see what a mess this article is. It also shows that some users are not super partes in their stances and there might be some kind of collaboration with the subject of the article itself (possibily violating the WP:COI). Theory made probable by the fact that during the first cancellation a former Wikipedia admin declared himself ready to resign in case of deletion. An oversized reaction, to say the least. --Darius Alnex (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (grudgingly), whilst she is not notable in the sense of having done or experienced anything particularly exceptional, she has received a truly exceptional amount of coverage - which is the crux of the general notability guidelines. COI issues can be addressed without deleting. --Paul ❬talk❭ 17:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is overly promotional bunk that does not belong on Wikipedia. She is not known for attending space camp a lot of times, or visitng a lot of space centers, outside of her own mind and the press releases her family has churned out. Wikipedia is not a platform for every young person';s press releases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IMHO, Rule 4/WP:PROMO would only apply if the content of the article was not thoroughly backed up by sources. The subject meets GNG and has had coverage over an extended period (2014-2020). There are few things in this article that are not widely covered in a variety of sources. Does the page have issues? Yes. But should it be deleted? No. Samsmachado (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This user, as shown in the revision history of the article in question, its probably affiliated with the subject of the article itself, so IMHO his vote should not be taken into consideration.--Darius Alnex (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Got any proof of that? It seems rather unlikely that a Canadian undergrad who specializes in Canadian feminist theater -- and is conscientious enough to disclose a COI about a medical condition -- is affiliated with an aspiring astronaut from Louisiana. Please see WP:AGF. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: This user created the page from zero after the first deletion in June 2020 (why?), then added awards and filmography on July 2020 (very local awards and very specific tv appareances), then corrected her father's name on February 2021, and heavily fought trough all the deletion attempts. Like you said, since we're not speaking about Billie Eilish, it's a strange connection for a Canadian undegrad to have with a Louisiana astronaut wannabe. Hard to believe that some WP:COI is not happening here. --Darius Alnex (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: This display of bad faith upsets me. I have no COI here and would declare it if I did. I simply hate to see the accomplishments of young women be excluded from Wikipedia because of the bias of older men (the majority of wiki editors) against young women. Her father's name was spelled differently barely a paragraph apart, so I changed it after googling which one was correct. I added awards and TV appearences because that is something I do standardly in my work on articles about women in theatre. I have created many pages about total strangers, many of whom you'd have stronger ground at arguing a COI for (ie. being in the same country). I had simply seen coverage of Carson appearing on my newsfeed and thought 'that's a cool young woman who should be covered on Wikipedia'. Samsmachado (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: If the person in question was called Alex Carson it would have been the same. "I simply hate to see the accomplishments of young women be excluded from Wikipedia"... which accomplisments? She did nothing. She paid to attend space camps and her dad paid some blogs to spoke about her. Is this encyclopedic material? If you think so, vote "Keep". I don't think it's enough, and that's why I applied the page for the deletion. About the allegations, your behavior (and the one of another user, also Canadian) was suspicious, and it was worth pointing it out to the community. After that, vox populi vox dei. The community will decide what to do. --Darius Alnex (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment: You are welcome to launch a formal investigation into my alleged COI; you will find I have none. Otherwise, this verges on harassment. I can appreciate that you do not think her achievements are enough. Plenty of people shared your opinion in the previous AFD and you are free to think as you will. However, more people (or at least people with stronger or more policy-informed arguments) decided she was encyclopedic content less than a year ago. Samsmachado (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was in Newsweek and a CBS News story, enough to be notable, but I agree she just barely attains notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. There seems to be a committed effort by otherwise-infrequent editors to try to debunk or delete this article, despite it being well sourced. She might be notable only because of self-promotion, but she is notable. Like it or not, reliable sources have reported on her. pburka (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: To clarify my position, I do most of my edits without logging in, since I'm not interested in having a career as a Wikipedia editor. And they're usually made to correct vandalized articles that I'm reading. I don't have anything personal against the subject of the article, since I'm not even from the same continent of her. I'm just an astronomy enthusiast who doesn't think that a wannabe astronaut should have a Wikipedia page until it actually became an astronaut, in accordance with the WP:TOOSOON policy. --Darius Alnex (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - If anything is too soon, it's this nomination. This article was already debated and kept in July and again in August. What has changes in the last 6 months to merit yet another discussion? pburka (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - That I found a probable WP:COI violation. Most of the subject of the article appearences seems to be paid posts on blogs, so it's not unlikely that a couple of Wikipedia editors (and back in the days a former admin of Wikipedia) could have been paid to keep the page alive. I do realize that the "evidences" are circumstantial, but I think that this is a topic the community of Wikipedia has the right to discuss. Besides the fact that the entire article is no way near to have any encyclopedic interest. --Darius Alnex (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - These weak accusations might be a bit more credible if they weren't coming from a WP:SPA. Is a reddit or 4chan forum coordinating this? pburka (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        My edit history speaks for myself and it's coherent with my previous message (you can edit vandalized pages without logging in, you cannot delete one without logging in). Also, I'm not an English speaker, so you can find most of my edits on the Italian Wikipedia. If reddit or 4chan was involved you would have seen more than 3 "delete" messages. I just don't think that a wannabe astronaut has the right to have a page on an online encyclopedia and IMHO it's an offense to all the people who actually works at NASA, who are real scientists and have really achieved something. That's why I applied the page for the deletion. --Darius Alnex (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Textbook WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Your personal opinion about who has the right to have a page on an online encyclopedia and offended feelings are not policy. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Rule 4 of Wikipedia's Deletion Policy gave me the power to launch the deletion process. The voting will decide if the article is encyclopedic or not. Also none of the example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT matches what I said. I started the deletion process because IMHO there's nothing encyclopedic in someone who tries to become an astronaut (especially if the sources seems to be paid posts). Or at least this is the idea that I have of "encyclopedia". And in the first deletion attempt it was the idea of the majority of the people. --Darius Alnex (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        "It isn't encyclopedic" and "AfD is a vote between the majority of the people" are also examples of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions; it would be a good idea to read that page so you do not produce several more. You are free to nominate an article for deletion. Others are free to say that you have not provided a policy-based reason to delete an article, and in fact have inadvertently provided one to keep it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment The first AfD was back in 2018 (also initiated by the current nom), and the article has been rewritten with better sourced since then, as evidenced by comments and "keep" conclusions at AfDs 2 and 3. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is still largely promotional content that does not have a place here. Sources are largely routine appearances and interviews of her own self-advocacy, not encyclopedic content. She's garnered herself an over-the-top resume but not notability. Reywas92^Talk 20:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The entire argument here seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Per above, the subject passes GNG, and just because you don't like that the coverage exists doesn't change the fact that it does. Even your stated rationale for non-notability -- that the NASA stuff was "revealed and covered many times by the media" -- is itself a demonstration of GNG.

For that matter, the page doesn't even read as particularly promotional. The bulk of it is objective facts, and a significant portion is dedicated to the aforementioned debunking of the NASA branding. That is not something a promotional piece or press release would include.

(I have no affiliation with the subject of this article and indeed had never heard of her until several hours ago -- I trust nobody will twist those words into "well, you've never heard of her, obviously she isn't notable." If you check my edit history, what you will find is a great deal of slashed promotional writing.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this was closed as Keep twice last year. What has changed since then? Per the sourcing in the article and the explanations in the other 2 AfDs, WP:SIGCOV is met. Concerns of PROMO and COI can be fixed through editing. TJMSmith (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, given there is WP:SIGCOV. Also, WP:DINC, and nothing seems significantly different in terms of notability since the last AfD. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - one would have thought 37 references would be enough (CBS, Newsweek, The Independent, ...). Oculi (talk) 12:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she may have an unusual claim to notability, but clearly meets WP:BASIC Redoryxx (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think what she has done is of great importance, but the article clearly establishes Wikipedia notability. I don't understand the comment that "nothing in this article is relevant or encyclopedic content". The content is clearly relevant to the subject; it describes what she has done. Whether or not it's "encyclopidic" is a judgement call, but I don't think it clearly violates WP:PROMOTION. PopePompus (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2021 (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.