Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candy Carson


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Candy Carson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No notability on her own - what notability she seems to have is totally tied to her marriage to Ben Carson. Keep in mind, notability is not inherited. Foundation work is only with her husband, books written were co-authored with her husband. If not deleted outright, could be merged with her husband's article. No notability apart from her marriage to Ben Carson. A nice lady, it would seem, and I wish she merited her own article, but it just doesn't appear she has any notability on her own. Fails WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep We keep articles on people with far less coverage and who don't have 4 books and a 5th about to be released. Which Carson do you think wrote the books - the one doing brain surgery and flying around giving speaches or the double Yale major with the MBA back in the home office? As for coverage start with       and if you want to know more I suggest buying her 5th book  because one of her books spend weeks on the best seller list. She passes just on WP:AUTHOR "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work..." and based on the multiple profiles published on her going back for years. Legacypac (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * In answer to your question about who I think wrote the books... that's not for us to judge. What is up to us to judge is whether she has an article because of who she is married to (WP:INHERITED) and if she meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines (WP:GNG).  If not married to Ben Carson, we wouldn't know who she is.  Coverage doesn't equate notability per Wikipedia guidelines.  Based on all that, from what I can see, this article should not exist.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  03:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Her name is on the covers, which you dismiss. Go apply your logic on this community college teacher Jill Biden or Donald Trumps 3 wives or 5 kids, all of whom have stand alone articles. Legacypac (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Jill Biden is the Second Lady of the United States as wife of the vice president. Not a good parallel.  Trump's wives have had notability on their own apart from him.  Also not a good parallel.  Look, I know you're pissed because an article you created is up for deletion, but if she doesn't meet GNG, she doesn't meet GNG.  It happens.  No need to take this personally and get testy about it.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  03:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm annoyed that an editor of your experience has such a loose grasp of GNG or BIO is all. Is there bias on your part because if she was not married to Ben Carson and was just some person who was portrayed in a Cuba Gooding Jr movie, wrote 5 books and got on the NYT Best Seller's list, and co-founded and run a famous national scholarship program there you would support inclusion of this bio. 04:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, it's quite obvious you're annoyed. That said, my experience has shown me that NPOV editors don't get so annoyed over AfDs like this.  If they disagree with the nom, they just say so and move on.  Your comments above would be insulting if they didn't invite a chuckle as a result of the dramatic tone to them.  Further, I find it amusing that, in spite of what I said in my nomination comments, you are accusing me of having an anti-Candy Carson bias.  I just don't see how this article is worthy of inclusion.  If not deleted, it should be merged with Ben Carson.  But I'm more old-school-what-an-encyclopedia-really-is than a lot of newer editors, so... Here we are.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Books. Media spotlight during presidential campaigns. Solid sourcing. Why is this at AFD?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? Look at the article, re-read WP:GNG and WP:INHERIT, and that should tell you why. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm all about sources. There are multiple profiles of her in major news media. Coverage like this happens to formerly non-notable people for many different reasons. I don't make judgments about why it has happened.  It has happened, so, as an article topic, this passes  WP:GNG   And do be careful of WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:INHERIT can be trumped by sources. We have articles on Richard Nixon's mother, and on sundry United States presidential pets.  As well as on many, many spouses who have come to public attention via marriage.  What we guage here is the caliber (duration, depth, prominence) of that attention in RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's not trumped by sources due to the fact that the media attention she's receiving wouldn't be happening were her husband not running for the nomination. Further, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, therefore media coverage isn't a valid litmus for GNG, either.  Add to this that your argument re:other articles existing equates WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument and what do we still have?  An article that shouldn't exist. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  19:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BLUDGEON. Settle down. It's only an AFD, not World War III.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Accusing me of Bias for putting together a short article from indepth coverage in multiple major media pretty inappropriate. Do I have a bias for ISIL cause the last two article creations were on ISIL? Try this- Google Candy Carson and look how G suggests 'Candy Carson bio' 'Candy Carson Biography' and 'Candy Carson Wikipedia' which is strong evidence people expect a Wikipedia bio article. The media attention has increased because of the Presidential run but remember She's been a real life charactor in best selling books for decades, been a best selling author for years, been portrayed as a lead character in a movie, and I even found a TV documentary that covered her along with her husband and mother-in-law from 1991 - all of which predate any Presidential bid.   Being related to a famous person DOES NOT mean we through out GNG.  I created the article because I searched WP and was very surprised to find no article on her, but 2 or 3 other articles that mentioned her. Legacypac (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Mentioning bludgeon to me again? Once wasn't enough?  I have no reason to settle down, because I'm neither excited nor upset.  I don't understand why Legacypac is so upset.  But, I guess that's a discussion for another place and time.  I stand by my feelings this article should be deleted or merged.  Candy Carson's notability stems from her husband's notability, ergo, inherited applies. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  00:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's let some other editors weigh in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably keep I'm sure being married to a major political person has helped with the number of media stories about her, but she also seems to have a notable writing career in her own right. On the basis that she has been noted in the media and other secondary sources, I think therefore it is hard to argue against her inclusion on WP:GNG grounds. Yes, I appreciate notoriety is not inherited, but in a situation like this is it quite hard to separate different aspects of her life. Maybe people even read her work because she is married to a politician, who knows. JMWt (talk) 10:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep She's written several books. That makes her notable as an author. She's also the subject of numerous media stories. True, her notability originated because she is married to a prominent political figure, but Colin Hanks' notability originated because he is the son of a famous actor, and he has developed his own career. WP:INHERIT doesn't mean that we can't create articles about people whose notability began because of their relationship to a prominent person. Joseph Clay, Jr. (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Reader's Vote 52,700 some readers in the last 30 days say Candy Carson deserves a BLP. For a new article with few links to get close to the 60,000 reads at the current first lady is impressive  Legacypac (talk) 07:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

After giving WV fair warning on his talk page, I've struck his baseless attempt to paint me as an official representative of the Carson's. I still expect an apology. Legacypac (talk) 02:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:TPO, you do not have the right to ever change or remove or strike the comments of other editors, regardless of the reason (apart from utilizing WP:DENY in the case of a vandal or sock account). My comments were meant tongue-in-cheek, .  At the time I wrote the comments, I was certain I had placed a "smiley" after them so you would know I was only kidding and trying to add some levity.  I only apologize for leaving out the smiley face, but not for making the comments, as they were done completely in good faith and with no malintent at all.  I am sorry you took them the wrong way and certainly regret you have obviously been extremely upset by what I said.  You are very obviously Canadian (as stated on your User page) so it's not possible for you to be PAC-connected.  Like I said, my comment was strictly meant to be humorous and nothing more.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  02:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your apology is hollow for you restored the personal attack I struck (and have restruck as is my right). Being sorry I was upset does not mean you are sorry for falsely painting me as a COI editor. Legacypac (talk) 02:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Note That Wikipedia has an enormous number of articles about individuals notable for being spouses of politicians (categorized by state) Typical example: Chloe Merrick Reed.  The political spouse does not have to write books, have a significant career or do anything.  He or she just has to be profiled in major media, (think Todd Palin).   WP:GNG gauges notability according to the existence of sources that are reliable, significant, verifiable, etc.  It does not matter what a subject is notable for.  We are only here to judge whether sources that support notability exist.  In Candy Carson's case, they do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.