Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alyssa Carson (3rd 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 speedy keep. No point of this AfD. It was AfDed before. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 12:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Carson

[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)

Previously deleted self-promotional article which remains self-promotional. To date, her achievements have only been recognized by her and her family, not NASA beyond acknowledging family trips to all NASA visitor centers.

She has been mentioned or even the subject of many magazine, newspaper, and blog articles, she has also received some attention from TV. But none of these address the topic in detail, instead reprinting a list of firsts published on her website bio or the Mars One bio.

The claim of notability as an "author" is dubious considering it was a single self-published book. The awards listed are non-notable.

I hope she achieves all she's been claiming for many years, but until then, her primary claim to notability is shallow media attention. It's still WP:TOOSOON MadeYourReadThis (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. We just had an AFD for a basically identical version of the article, which closed 20 days ago. Nothing has changed since then.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as well. Not cleanup, but the first sentence should be rewritten again as simply American space enthusiast and college student or something... Caro7200 (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Notability cannot be lost. Extensive AfD discussion that closed within a month of this new one decided Carson was notable and that the article should be kept. Nothing has changed since then. All of the nominators reasons for deletion were addressed in the previous AfD. Samsmachado (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability cannot be lost but neither can it be gained through puff-peices in otherwise reputable media sources nor can it be gained through a self-published book. The preivous AFD centered heavily around the number of those sources and their reliability but failed to adequately address the depth of those discussions. The only thing that changed since the AFD prior to that was that self-published book. This young woman continues to receive coverage, most of it incorrect, most of it likely through her own and her father's promotional skill. Wikipedia should think twice before becoming a part of that promotion.--MadeYourReadThis (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was a very long discussion in the last AfD, a mere 20 or so days ago. There were at least 17 participants. The clear consensus was keep; to quote the closing admin "There is wide agreement here that the subject has sufficient coverage to meet WP:BASIC/WP:GNG." It's a bit of a time-waster to nominate this again.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has anything changed since last month? pburka (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SNOW. - hako9 (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sorry that you missed last month's discussion, but we shouldn't go through the same discussion again. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before taking what has been written about this young woman as gospel, take a look at her Linked In page which coverage has been based on, makes claims such as a masters degree from the International Space University in Strasbourg France, while this article in on the NASM website describes that experience as "auditing classes for two weeks". This subject needs more scrutinay that it was given during the last AFD.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeYourReadThis (talk • contribs)

Sure, we could do background research on what her Linkedin page says, and speculate on whether he father is behind the publicity. Or we could just look at all the published sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The last AFD just ended and was pretty clear. I'm not sure what User:MadeYourReadThis is thinking here, but the consensus was clear at the last AFD, that this met GNG. One is tempted to IAR and delete it for so many reasons ... how is this not a pointy nomination - particularly without a DRV? Nfitz (talk) 03:24, 4 August 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.