Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alyssa Carson

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Alyssa Carson}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alyssa_Carson Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Alyssa Carson}})

This article is about a girl who dreams to be an astronaut, and her dad has enough money to try to realize her dream.

However, while the article sais that she's training for an official mission to Mars, the truth is that she's only attending a series of camps with the name "Space" on it, and she's not associated in any way with NASA, other than "paid camps" for kids and teens of course.

So I think that this page should be deleted in respect of the rule 4 of Wikipedia's Deletion Policy, since this is an article written by her dad to give visibility to her daughter's dream, which is surely not an encyclopedic content. Not yet. Darius Alnex (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. Rule 4 of Wikipedia:Deletion policy is: "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)". But this article is about a person who has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and therefore meets the general notability guideline and has encyclopedic content. To determine whether the content is encyclopedic, we need to see the content itself, not who writes it, or on what purpose. Article Alyssa Carson was deleted by KrakatoaKatie on the ground of G5 (created by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block) on 31 July 2017, undeleted and userfied to User:Trebprod/Alyssa Carson by KrakatoaKatie on 1 August 2017, ‎and moved back to Alyssa Carson by Kudpung on 2 August 2017 (see their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KrakatoaKatie&diff=793813275&oldid=793686633 relevant discussion]). The edit history indicates that this page was probably created by a paid editor (see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody), but has been cleaned up and improved. --Neo-Jay (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. The article and its subject clearly meet all criteria for inclusion. I was involved in the exposure of the disgusting antics of this Orangemoody-style editor who created the article with the express intent of introducing defamatory content about this female minor and then to extort money from the parents to remove it. The parents suffered significant stress and appealed to us for a solution. The original creator was found to have created a series of drafts about women ostensibly for the same purpose. The re-write/clean up was posted to User:Trebprod/Alyssa Carson by {{U|KrakatoaKatie}} for the parents' 'approval' as a gesture to assuage their distress and to keep what is clearly a worthy and notable Wikipedia article.
  Equally clear is that the {{U|Darius Alnex|nominator}} has not done sufficient research before posting this AfD. Admittedly, with only 15 edits to Wikipedia, he is not authorised to view the deleted and suppressed content, or to be privy to the off-Wiki discussions between CU {{U|KrakatoaKatie|Katie}} and myself and investigations leading to the exposure of this individual, the results of which however, are at User talk:Manc1234. I'll say again what I said then in order to keep the vile content under wraps: {{tq|I'll lay my admin bit on the line in support}}. Nominator please withdraw this AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

::"{{tq|I'll lay my admin bit on the line in support}}" With all due respect, Kudpung, the work you have done in cleaning this article up through trying circumstances (to put it as mildly as possible) appears to have clouded your judgement as to whether it's actually a good idea in the first place. A number of longstanding editors, besides me, have now !voted "delete", and I don't think any of them did so to piss you off. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

:::{{U|Ritchie333}}, I am am not in the slightest bit concerned at being outvoted - it's extremely rare at AfD but consensus is consensus. The recreation of the article was an IAR for reasons that you are not privileged to see. I'm far more concerned at 1) your taking my comments out of context and 2) your unnecessary and subjective assumption that one would consider the voters are doing so to piss [me] off. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC).

::::I think you misunderstood what I was getting it - I was more concerned that somebody might take your accusing the nominator of bad faith and hold it against you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

::Comment Admins can't view the diffs either. They've been suppressed/oversighted. A while back admins were given the power to essentially oversight diffs, and when that's done, other admins can't see them. I can see that edits were made, but I am unable to view the 36 deleted edits. Enigma^msg 22:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

:

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep as obvious WP:GNG with prejudice against dubious nominator. Daask (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment There are few content issues.Firstly she is not even 18 years to be formally associated with NASA secondly they will not select a person 25 years in advance that is proposed in 2033 .The term “trainee astronaut" is POV" .She is not a NASA astronaut trainee or affiliated with NASA in any formal way that I am aware of except having visited NASA and participated in space camp (which is not run by NASA by the way) They don't identify future astronauts outside of the standard selection process.Unlikeone and say they training to be singer or Football player one can train at home not sure about being an “trainee astronaut" The comments were posted two NASA employees [https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-NASA-is-planning-on-sending-Alyssa-Carson-to-Mars-and-that-she-might-be-the-first-human-there here ] not saying that is reliable it echos my own point of view .But these are content issues ,I have raised the tag .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk)

• Comment The current article doesn't actually say why the subject is notable.Accesscrawl (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• delete per WP:BLP This fails my child prodigy test in a big way, particularly so given the sprinkling of tags contesting the accuracy of the claims made. She does not have adult accomplishments; she only potentially may eventually have them, and that is all that she is known for. We have of late deleted a number of these articles, and we need to delete this one: we should not be publicizing a kid who stands an extremely high chance of not living up to the potential being claimed for her, and this consideration should trump the relatively limited publicity which is about all there is to work with. Mangoe (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP per Mangoe. The subject is not over 18 years and hence is not formally allowed join astronaut training to be called a “trainee astronaut".The claim is WP:EXCEPTIONAL and only a few thousand at the most in over 7 Billion people in the world can claim be in actual Astronaut training.It is WP:CRYSTAL but it is a exceptional claim which hinges more towards inaccuracy. If she formally joins Astronaut training it can be recreated and only then can she be called a “trainee astronaut" .Further almost the references are about future aspirations and plans are more News and cannot see any achievements or rather she has really not accomplished anything noteworthy to be Notable and think the subject has no enduring notability of subject at this point unless she gets selected by NASA etc which is not in her hands .There are no admission or entry criteria for any of the Space Camps she attended, nor for participation in the NASA "explore space" passport program . She is only a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alyssa_Carson&diff=849922359&oldid=849839903 space enthusiast] at this moment as rightly changed by another editor.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete this is a promotional biography of a minor who wants to be an astronaut. The best claim of an SNG is WP:ENT, but I doubt that is met. I fundamentally disagree with the claim that GNG requires this type of article be kept, and also disagree that any fallout of the Orangemoody affair can justify keeping this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Strong delete Wikipedia is not a place to cover ever enthusiastic, aspiring teen who has a passion for one subject or another. The mention of her connection to Mars One sends up a red flag "this is a scam". Events potentially 15 years in the future do not merit coverage in an article. If we put up every aspiring and academically strong high school junior it would overwhelm us, and just add to presentism. At some point Ms Carson may be notable, but that point is in the future, not at present. Not everyone who is mentioned in the media onslaught becomes notable. A while back we had a much more covered individual who had been put forth by his mom as one of the greatest physicics minds ever. This reminds me of that case, but not quite as extreme. If Carson ever actually goes into space, she will be notable. However youngest x, or first person to visit all 14 NASA visitors centers just do not cut it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• delete per WP:BLP - there are some references there, but looking at her achievements, notability, and impact, her main claim to fame is *wanting* to go to Mars. She hasn't actually *done* anything notable, that I can see...so yes, WP:CRYSTAL Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. All of the references I can find discuss hypotheticals and aspirations, not notable accomplishments. Newslinger (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Article is overly promotional in nature, but it is sourced well. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 19:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. I did a news search and the top hits were the triple whammy of The Sun, the Daily Mirror and the Daily Mail. With not much else other than the same story repeated in 109 other papers, this is a textbook WP:BLP1E. I appreciate the arguments of the first two !votes in this debate, but not having an article per the BLP policy helps the subject and their family by not plastering the information all over the internet until the end of time. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Neher (2nd nomination) for past precedent on this sort of thing - specifically the closing remark "Especially when dealing with a BLP of a minor, consensus on BLP concerns are a substantial issue.") Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment 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. Additonally, the secondary sources are not the indepth, reliable coverage we look for, especially for biographies of living people. They are light weight human interest artixcles that basically add up to "this teenager might go to mars, so we will write about her, because that is way eisier than writing about people who actual have impacted things, or even than writing about the various plans to go to Mars and analyzing how likely they are to happen." Extraordinary claims need good sourcing, but if you look behind the mirrors, you see this is one of lots and lots of people who have not done anything, but get a little coverage as potentially about to do something. We do not create articles on such people. All the more so when they are under age 18. Beyond this, being overlyy promotional is a good and stanrd reason to delete an article. All the more so in this case since there is no substance behind the promotion. If we look at the claims this becomes clear. She was the first person to visit all 14 NASA visitors centers. Why even mention this at all (I am not convinced the claim is well sourced either). Why is this so special. She also went to muktiple space camps. This is a summer camp for teenagers, and despite the movie does not involve actually going into space. It has been pointed out above these are not NASA sponsored, and this is another place where the article is not only overly promotional, but down right deceptive. She was at Sundance in connection with a film that we lack an article on. She also is claimed to be the youngest appthe International Space University, although even being a graduate is not a sign of notability. The article is built on weak articles, blog posts, primary sources and even a citation to twitter. Nothing comes even remotely close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment To get a feel for the level of sourcing we have, look at this [https://www.ie.edu/university/news-events/news/ie-university-students-bring-together-200-young-talents-65-countries-international/]. Carson is one of 200 people here, and just happens to be mentioned. She is called "the 13 year old who will be the first person to step on Mars' soil in 2033". Say what? For all we know, she will not even live until 2033. This is just plain rubbish.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I think we need to be very vigilant in stopping Wikipedia from being used as a platform to build up people. We need to be very vigilant in fighting conflict of interest. If it is true that the subject or a close family member was involved in creating the article, we should delete the article for that reason alone, and wait until someone unrelated to the subject feels they are notable to create a more balanced article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• The only one of the space camps she went to that I can find any info on is US space camp, in Alabama. According to the article on that camp "more than 750,000 campers have graduated since 1982". So having gone to that camp is no sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment This remains the only page in Wikipedia that even mentions the Advanced Possum Academy. It somewho is not even worth mentioning in the article on Emory Riddle University. The thing is this is a program designed for college and high school students. It is only at most 5 years old. So, Carson is not particularly younger than other people accepted into the program, and it is not a very old program. Add to this that our one source on this was built on a telephone interview and is a pop magazine that does not focus on acuracy, or even making sure they use consistent verb tenses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - I came truckin' on down ready to send this one straight into the crapper. But, nope, this one passes GNG based on sources showing. Whether we SHOULD have articles about privileged tweens with dreams of becoming astronauts is entirely another discussion. Carrite (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Well, if there is a question of if we should have articles on privalaged teens whose families pay excessive money for them to go to exciting sounding camps and galavant around from university campus to university campus at programs designed to take the money from these privalaged people, why is it a yes to have this article? This does not pass any logical reading of GNG. Where is one reliable sourced, indepth article that is more than an airy puff piece?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete- as per incontrovertible analysis by John Pack Lambert and Pharaoh of the Wizards. A lot can happen in next 15 years when she is actually scheduled for space traveling. Plain case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:BLP1E. 9 out of 10 BLP1E cases make a convincing case of GNG, thats why we have BLP1E policy. Her other achievements don't make her encyclopedic enough to hold a stand alone page in an encyclopedia. Hitro talk 11:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Scheduled by whom? Her own self-determined personal goals as far as I can tell.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - meeting GNG (if this article really even meets it) doesn't mean that we have to have an article, particularly if it's overridden by things like a WP:NOT criteria or BLP/BLP1E, especially in the case of a minor. This is one of those cases. ansh666 23:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Also various criteria against self-promotionalism, and articles being overly promotional are grounds to delete an article, even if the underlying subject meets some flawed, overly broad, capture another 100 million bio articles all on living people, reading of GNG. Wikipedia is already overly presentist, without us having fluff articles on people who are still minors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete: I had a whole nice chunk all written out, but my Internet is on the fritz (as it always is). Suffice it to say that circumstances change, people change, and lives change. No matter how winsome Miss Carson may be, she might not be the first astronaut on Mars for some myriad reason or another. Moreover, we editors of Wikipedia should not engage in WP:PROMOTION of a possible astronaut trainee candidate; nor are we a WP:CRYSTALBALL: whether she makes it to Mars is not up to us, and we ought not boost her name above that of others. I don't mean to be blunt, but I'm also not too sure her accomplishments are all that notable yet: compared to Jean Piaget, Maria Gaetana Agnesi, or Joan of Arc at the same age, for now she's long on talk, and short on action. (Likewise, her infancy minority is a major issue, especially as this is a BLP.) Anyway, we can re-create this article if and only if she becomes notable for something other than being a possible trainee candidate. In short, per John Pack Lambert, Ansh666, Mangoe, and Power~enwiki. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 01:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Piaget had actually published in zoology by age 15, although there is no sign these publications would be anywhere near enough to show notability if he had been killed by a bus at age 16. Carson has at best spoken about space and space exploration to other children, a turn of phrase used in her super promotional Mars One promotional guide, never mind that Mars One is a scam to get people who want to travel to space to part with ludicrously low amounts of money to make some Dutch guys a little more well off, and has exactly zero chances of ever actually sending a human to Mars.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Reads like PR puff. Not enough notable achievement yet for WP:GNG, but best wishes for her future. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC).
• Comment This is probalby another case of "many adults or too easily swayed to rush to madness by a teenager doing math they can't". A key point is this line from the article on United States Space Camp. "Space Camp was founded in 1982 as an educational camp program for children using the United States space program as the basis to promote math and science to children." Space Camp is not really about going into space, or training astronauts. It is about training youth in math and science, and uses a fun space theme to trick them into learning these subjects.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment This article makes a big deal about Carson going and studying at the Space Camp in Izmir. A key thing to remember is the longest space camp program at Izmir lasts 6 days. Yes, 6 days. The more I learn, the more laughably ludicrous this whole thing becomes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Lot of news coverages. Easily passes GNG. Lot of latest news coverages in google news including this as latest https://www.mirror.co.uk/science/teenager-alyssa-carson-could-first-12904011 Farahpoems (talk) 05:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• That article is so flawed it is just plain a lie. Paragraph 2 says she is "currently training to be an astronaut", but in fact she has not been accepted to any actual astronaut training programs. Plus, training for things is not the same as being admitted. The first paragraph has too many conditionals to be useful. In fact, to me the biggest conditional is I am unconvinced that the 2033 NASA expedition to Mars has enough plaining in place for us to have started talking about it as if it is a sure thing. The next paragraph says that she has visited all the NASA visitors centers. I am like what? Can we next great an article on someone who has visted all LDS visitors centers? Or maybe someone who has visted all major science museums in the US? This is the most ludicrous reason to create an article on someone. Yeah right, NASA is going to choose someone to be the first person to go to Mars because they have visited all its visitors centers. I know people today are shallow, absorb information quickly, and do not deliberate on it, but this is super hallow writing. Then the next paragraph shows this is largely based on a previous interview with Teen Vogue. So basically this is all part of magazines and other publications trying to be trendy with teens because they focus on trendy teens. Except this really is trending more towards a show "if you do enough self promotion, someone will write about you." I refuse to have as a rule for GNG "If you got a feel good fluff article in Teen Vogue, you have encyclopedic notability." This is the most flawed and failed reading of both GNG and the general notability guidelines ever. Wikipedia is not the place to rehash every future gazing article ever wrtten on a minor who has done nothing at all of any note. We do not write articles even on people who have written very deeply reasoned PhD dissertations. We don't write articles on high schoolers who have done nothing but go annually of more than annually to 6-day "sapce" camps that focus on teaching math and science, not space piloting skills. If we really do go to Mars in 2033, it will be much more based on the work of engineers who develop multiple needed innovations to make such a trip doable. If there are engineers who have developed such, they may be worth having an article. Not 17-year-olds who go around getting fluff coverage in Teen Vogue, so it can jump on the STEM band wagon so that teens who have never even tried to solve a differential equation, and 12-year-olds who constantly give up on doing math operations involving fractions can pretend they have some STEM knowledge. In paragraph 6 the article claims because she has graduated the Advanced POSSUm program she is qualified to go into space. What? I have read the information from that program, and it does not claim it is training people to go into space. It trains people to be involved in actual real research in high atmosphere studies. It also admits both high school and college students. So Carson being the youngest I want sourced to more than breathless vapid articles. Beyond that, unless every graduate of that program is notable, this is of no merit. "Once astronauts arrive at Mars they’ll have to contend with an extremely hostile environment. There’s no ozone layer, so they’ll need to be shielded from lethal doses of solar radiation." That is one of the most useful things the article says, it was not at all related to what Carson has done, she is not the one who figured this out. The article also neglects to tell us if anyone has solved this problem. If yes, then that person is notable. If no, than who ever can solve it will be notable if we send a mission to Mars. That article is a 13-paragraph example of how magazines do not think teems can read more than a little per paragraph. She is also learning three "extra" languages, Chinese, French and Spanish. Well, being multi-lingual is not a sign of notability. THe last 4 paragraphs are the most substantial, say nothing about Carson, and actually indicate that the notion that she may go to Mars in 2033 is hardly based on anything more than teenaged hype. There is nothing of substance here, and its repeat says a lot more about the poor state of journalism and the lack of actual journalistic research and the ease that self-promotion can manipulate journalistic systems than anything of substance. Carson has done absolutely nothing of true note. It cheapens the acomplishments of actual women astronauts, women scientists and women engineers that people create such vapid articles about someone who has done nothing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - Per ignore all rules. This is a GNG keep on the face of it, but there is absolutely no way that an article about a young minor whose sole claim to fame is well publicized participation in space camps should be the subject of encyclopedic coverage. Nothing good can come of this article. Carrite (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• :This isn't an IAR argument. We really need to get away from this notion that meeting GNG means a subject must have an article (or must be kept at AfD). That's really not supported by the guideline. Sure, it's usually a good indicator of suitability, but it's hardly the only consideration in play. ansh666 19:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment It is a long standard of GNG that interviews do not add to notability. The "articles" about Carson are really just interviews disguised as something else. They do not represent examples of 3rd-party sources, but of lazy journalists writing vapid articles to appeal to a negotiation of what they think teens want, and the hype for STEM, but hyping someone who has gone to multiple math and science camps, which have the sexy souding name "space camp", and ignoring anything of substnace about this, showing a general lack of indepdence, or fact checking. These are not actually 3rd-party sources that add towards GNG, they are disguised interviews that can not be used as the basis of a reliable article, and are actual show that the subject does not currently pass GNG ever, so a realistic reading of the sources and GNG clearly shows that Carson does not pass it at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Salt Deny. This sort of thing needs to stop. I have thought about starting WP:PRODIGY for some time now, and it really needs to be done, but I haven't carved out the time. This is just another in the list to add to the pile. Writing articles on living prodigious children is simply not something Wikipedia should be doing without a MUCH higher bar than the normal and weak "notability" rules. The media is just too culpable in WP:SENSATION. jps (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• I am not sure how Carson even counts as a prodigy. She is more of a super hyped person than a prodigy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• After considering a WP:BLPMINOR in the past, I'm happy to simply apply WP:IAR in the rare situations like this where there is a biography of a minor without any claim of importance or significance. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

:::What course of action are you advocating? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC).

• Delete Contrary to some claims, there are not a ton of high quality sources in the article. The fact that the most notable thing she did was be in a camp is telling. Not enough notability to keep. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete self-promotional with no real accomplishments. There seems to be an effort to make this person go viral with ridiculous posts about how she is "expecting to earn a Ph.D. in astrobiology" while not even completing high school yet. IZ99uni (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete I'm sorry, but this is just silly. Attending a bunch of space-themed summer camps is in no way a notable event, nor is going to all NASA Visitor Centers. If that was the standard for notability, then all boy and girl scouts should get an article too. Also, this "Advanced Possum Academy" seems to be just [http://projectpossum.org/science-programs/possum-space-academy/ a five-day program that was started in the Fall 2007 with an admission cost of $3900] with no actual requirements for admission. A Google search also shows that there are only mentions from external sources of this program are simply just a long series of blog articles regurgitating that Alyssa Carson was the youngest person to attend it. There is simply no established noteworthiness to this program. As far as I can tell, her only possible claim for notability is that she received coverage from news websites and blogs for wanting to be the first person to land in Mars. To be blunt: so what? The Daily Mail is literally flooded with off-beat/general interest articles covering (and sensationalizing) stories from regular people. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 11:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Not entirely relevant, but frankly it seems fairly obvious that there is a bit of self-promotion going on here. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 11:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Media references are fluff and have no depth. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete I hope she achieves each of the goals she has reiterated to each audience and reporter. Until then it is WP:TOSOON. This appears to be a very driven young lady who is either herself or has a parent or someone else who is very skilled at promotion. Wikipedia is not a place for that promotion. She, and apparently her family, are very adept at promoting her. Her father is the owner of [https://www.bbb.org/baton-rouge/business-reviews/tv-stations/pelican-broadcasting-network-in-baton-rouge-la-10001277/reviews-and-complaints Pelican Broadcasting], a local sports cable channel and radio station in her hometown of Baton Rouge.

:Citation overkill (do we need 2 citations for the sentence identifying the high school she attends?) brings notability into question. The laundry list of media appearances is questionable as well. These are red flag seen in similarly promotional articles.

:The primary claim to notability here is this young lady's enthusiasm for spaceflight, her (and her father's) well traveled drive to experience as many camps and workshops as possible, and above all her goal of becoming an astronaut and traveling to Mars.

:Media coverage is numerous but lacks depth and substance. Each article or appearance repeats the same bullets from her bio along with a few quotes. She has no affiliation with NASA. As others have noted, is not part of any NASA astronaut training program. NASA is very \specific about affiliations. Even NASA contractors are very careful about not even implying an affiliation that is not there. The blue flight suit is a costume and the helmet a toy available at any NASA Visitor Center gift shop.

:Her participation in various Space Camps is also unremarkable. 750k have attended the camp in Huntsville, AL alone. Returning multiple times is not unusual. "Ambassadors" for the Mars One program promote this commercial venture, nothing more. Mars One also does not have the best reputation within the aerospace community. Her (and presumably her family's) promotional skills were probably very attractive to the Mars One program.

:While she did receive some attention from NASA, this was not for anything on her resume but instead for being the first to complete the NASA Passport program. While this may have an impressive sound, it is a tourism promotion program similar to one created by the National Park Service. Participants receive stamps for each NASA visitor center they travel to. She was recognized as the first to visit all 14 centers across 9 states and was rewarded with a trip to the National Air and Space Museum to share her goal of traveling to Mars. This does little to establish notability here.MadeYourReadThis (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I also see this article has been translated to the Arabic, Catalonian, Spanish and Portuguese Wikipedias, presumably from earlier versions of this article with even more factual errors including the claim that her occupation is "astronaut". Results of this discussion (either way) should be noted on those pages as well.MadeYourReadThis (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Promotional piece. She has not done anything notable yet. If she accomplishes any of her "dreams", she will one day become notable. Attending various space camps does not make one notable. Plenty of references, but the references don't actually assert notability if you read them. Enigma^msg 22:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete This article is grossly self-promotional in nature when you read it critically and it is misleading. The articles cited are feel good puff pieces with little journalistic integrity. I don't want to parrot what has already been said stated above in regards to the quality of the references. There is nothing notable about her achievements at this point in time. This article lacks any real substance. "She is also the youngest applicant to International Space University." Even if she was noteworthy, this fact most certainly is nothing more than pointless trivia. In any group, *someone* has to be the youngest, and being the youngest applicant isn't an achievement in this case. She isn't the youngest by a significant amount of time either. While I sincerely wish her the best of luck in her future endeavors and I hope that one day she will be notable enough to reinstate this Wikipedia page, as of now she has yet to achieve anything truly unique and notable.

:There are so many high schoolers with ambitions, which is great, but there are too many hurdles in the near future that statistically a large portion of those kids will not overcome. Just consider all the college freshmen who are "pre-med" until they take organic chemistry: there is not a great deal of difference between those freshmen and Alyssa. Obviously her family is successful in promoting her giving the barrage of media attention she's getting, and that's good for her, but Wikipedia should not be part of that promotional platform. This article seems to primarily serve as an instrument of faux credibility in promoting her to those media outlets. These kinds of articles are a threat to Wikipedia's integrity.Bearpics (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.