Alyssa Carson (born March 10, 2001) is an American space enthusiast who has attended numerous space camps and has visited every NASA visitor center.[1] She has been profiled by a variety of news outlets, public interest publications, and interview shows as an unofficial astronaut-in-training.
[...]
While frequently described by the media as an "astronaut in training",[20][10] Carson is not affiliated with any national space program.[21][22] NASA has publicly stated that the organization "has no official ties to Alyssa Carson",[22] and separately that "although Ms. Carson uses ‘NASA' in her website name and Twitter and Instagram handles, we’re not affiliated at all."[23] In 2019 Newsweek corrected a headline that had implied that Carson's training was affiliated with NASA.[9] Snopes.com also has dedicated a page to clarify such claims, which says: "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."[24]
I need one of these for myself. I know hella rocks and will probably be the lead of the smithsonian or something if I become a geologist someday.
edit: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alyssa-carson-87b874152 Can someone with a Linkedin account confirm that she doesn't actually have any work experience whatsoever? I think that part might be hidden for me but I only see bullshit awards, her own org about wanting to be an astronaut when she grows up, volunteering one day per year at space camp, and inspirational articles from 2018 about how she wants to be an astronaut when she wants to grow up. There's no "internship at [legitimate company]" which is a required class for any BS degree at my university.
There have been multiple votes to keep this article around, the majority of voting users voted to keep this multiple times over a period of years.
Several users pop up in this debate multiple times.
This article might be the best argument I have ever seen against wikipedia.
(For re-nomination for speedy deletion due to WP:G11.) This page is not unambiguously promotional because it does not list any achievements of Carson's that are unsourced, it does not advertise for any product/service, and it has no external links except for the official website in the infobox (so cannot be external link spamming). Per WP:WEIGHT, "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". Everything is cited. The sources back up all claims made in the article.
Also, the article was not intended to be promotional. I have no connection to Carson and merely made the article because I had seen a plethora of articles about her (ie. more than enough to meet WP:GNG). To the best of my human ability, the article is written with NPOV.
Furthermore, even if the article was written in a promotional tone, the arguments I have just made show that the article is not so overly promotional that it could not be fixed. And according to WP:G11, "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." Samsmachado (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I have no connection to Carson and merely made the article because I had seen a plethora of articles about her (ie. more than enough to meet WP:GNG).
Oh, so it’s just some stalker. Not surprising, a lot of wiki jannies creep on women. One guy wrote a page for a random, small-town beauty pageant winner that was longer than the one for Hitler and SUPER detailed.