Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline Karason


 * 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. WP:SNOW. No point dragging this debate out any longer; extensive reasons have been given for deleting the article, which have quickly found unanimous agreement by everyone except the now-blocked article author. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Caroline Karason

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article is an autobiography about a person who does not meet inclusion guidelines for an article on Wikipedia. The references in the article are not significant coverage from independent reliable sources, and my own search does not turn up any either. Whpq (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Please see my reply to you below as to why I disagree. Wikipedia editor 'Significa liberdade' also agrees that 'Caroline Karason' is notable. SilhouetteCastle (talk) 10:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC) — SilhouetteCastle (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment You've misrepresented what @Significa liberdade said. They said: Removing the WP:A7 is not the same as agreeing that the subject is notable "This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability."

- WP:A7 Philipnelson99 (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Philipnelson99 I disagree that I have misrepresented @Significa liberdade
 * @Significa liberdade believes 'Caroline Karason' to be notable.
 * In this, 'Articles for deletion/Caroline Karason' no one has identified an unreliable source within the 'Caroline Karason' article so this coupled with the speed at which the 'Red Charcoal' article was deleted by @Whpq when the final 'Red Charcoal' article held no resemblance to any published article, and because of how @Whpq quickly created this 'Caroline Karason' 'Article for deletion' within minutes of deleting the 'Red Charcoal' article which was clear of both G12 and A7, leads me to be believe that @Whpq deliberately does not want there to be an article for 'Red Charcoal' and/or 'Caroline Karason' which seems more like a personal issue even though I do not personally know the identity of @Whpq.
 * @Significa liberdade found 'Red Charcoal/Caroline Karason' to be notable (see below) and nobody else can point out which part in particular in the 'Caroline Karason' article is: not factual, unreliable or not sourced well.
 * Here's the full text on @Significa liberdade Talk Page:
 * 'Hi I disagree with your attempt to delete the Red Charcoal/Caroline Karason page. Please see my reasons on the Red Charcoal talk page. SilhouetteCastle (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 * Hi
 * I have seen your response at 23:05 and I have seen that the reason has changed from G12 to A7.
 * I wrote the page and (also the IMDB page) and the reason why Red Charcoal/Caroline Karason is notable is because the invention that she was not credited for by Reckitt Benckiser while working on Veet was later cited twice in two patents for the treatment of Cancer. Once in 2019 and again in 2021, 9 and 11 years after Caroline Karason invented the product.
 * https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=SKcAz2kAAAAJ&citation_for_view=SKcAz2kAAAAJ:9yKSN-GCB0IC
 * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359705407_Identifying_a_Rapid_In-Vitro_Screening_Test_Method_to_Assess_Dermal_Irritancy_Potentials_Across_a_Range_of_Veet_Formulations_Containing_Potassium_Thioglycolate_Reckitt_Benckiser
 * https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=SKcAz2kAAAAJ&citation_for_view=SKcAz2kAAAAJ:u5HHmVD_uO8C
 * Cancer Treatment patents that cited
 * https://patents.google.com/patent/US10925895B2/en
 * https://patents.google.com/patent/US10463692B2/en
 * As part of the Miss Great Britain pageant in 2023, Caroline Karason also supported Cancer Research. SilhouetteCastle (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 * Hi, SilhouetteCastle! I removed the A7 deletion. To help the page, it would be beneficial to add these references to it to show that Karason meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people. Additionally, it may be helpful to other editors to continue this conversation on the Red Charcoal talk page. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 * Thank you, but while I was adding these references the article was prematurely deleted. SilhouetteCastle (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]' SilhouetteCastle (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but while I was adding these references the article was prematurely deleted. SilhouetteCastle (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]' SilhouetteCastle (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

SilhouetteCastle (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with this nomination for deletion. Here are 6 reliable sources: https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/ms-c-karason-v-the-gateway-learning-community-trust-and-others-3202421-slash-2019-and-3201748-slash-2020

https://www.missgreatbritainofficial.co.uk/gallery_post/caroline-karason/ (I'm even in the group photos and videos on the website)

https://musicbrainz.org/artist/701a2e94-ebdd-4153-a0b8-6cb338692137

www.redcharcoalmusic.com https://redcharcoalmusic.com/about

Amazon = books

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359705817_Assessing_the_Relationship_Between_Instrumental_and_Perceived_Sensory_Attributes_of_Commercially_Available_Personal_Care_Products — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilhouetteCastle (talk • contribs) 03:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

PRS for Music, PPL etc. music

I feel that Wikipedia does not want to include 'Caroline Karason' or 'Red Charcoal'. I have given good evidence and good explanations. I have included a photo but it seems like the intention here is to not include me regardless of how reliable a source I hand in is.

My LinkedIn which i have had for about 10 years also has all the companies that I am connected with and my other social media even has photos of me and the Veet team.

www.carolinekarason.com https://www.carolinekarason.com/

SilhouetteCastle (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is clearly nowhere close to meeting the the guidelines for inclusion. A search turns up a handful of blogs and self-published sites. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete @Philipnelson99 Please provide a sentence within the 'Caroline Karason' article that is not backed up by a reliable source. SilhouetteCastle (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I disagree for the reasons below SilhouetteCastle (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Here I am listed in the Music Producers Guild Directory https://mpg.org.uk/members-directory/

https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/ms-c-karason-v-the-gateway-learning-community-trust-and-others-3202421-slash-2019-and-3201748-slash-2020

https://www.missgreatbritainofficial.co.uk/gallery_post/caroline-karason/ (I'm even in the group photos and videos on the website)

https://musicbrainz.org/artist/701a2e94-ebdd-4153-a0b8-6cb338692137

www.redcharcoalmusic.com https://redcharcoalmusic.com/about

Amazon = books

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359705817_Assessing_the_Relationship_Between_Instrumental_and_Perceived_Sensory_Attributes_of_Commercially_Available_Personal_Care_Products

SilhouetteCastle (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

https://www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/news/people/scores-of-miss-great-britain-contenders-put-through-their-paces-at-chesterfield-hotel-4338635

SilhouetteCastle (talk) 04:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=SKcAz2kAAAAJ&citation_for_view=SKcAz2kAAAAJ:9yKSN-GCB0IC

SilhouetteCastle (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Beauty pageants, Medicine,  and England.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  04:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Please see my reply to you below. Wikipedia editor 'Significa liberdade' agrees that 'Caroline Karason' is notable. SilhouetteCastle (talk) 10:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that this page should be deleted for all the reasons I mentioned above and also because the Wikipedia editor 'Significa liberdade' (she/her) also believes that 'Caroline Karason' is notable. On her talk page it says this: 'Hi, SilhouetteCastle! I removed the A7 deletion. To help the page, it would be beneficial to add these references to it to show that Karason meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people. Additionally, it may be helpful to other editors to continue this conversation on the Red Charcoal talk page. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)'

So its strange that I should receive a nomination for deletion for 'Caroline Karason' when 'Red Charcoal' is the same person and has the same life history

SilhouetteCastle (talk) 10:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

SilhouetteCastle (talk) 10:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

- Here's the article again:

'''As I have mentioned before, another Wikipedia Editor, 'Significa liberdade' already believes 'Caroline Karason' to be 'notable' (see her Talk Page). So please highlight which part/s are not factual, unreliable or not sourced well.'''

SilhouetteCastle (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Admin note I have deleted the reproduction of the entire article from the above comment. The article is the article, and this page is for discussion of whether it meets the criteria to be on Wikipedia; it is not for reproducing the entire article. Lady  of  Shalott  13:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nothing here satisfies notability. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Abhishek0831996 I understand your admin note, however, I disagree about your comments regarding notability as another Wikipedia Editor agrees that it is notable and no one has specifically commented on which sentence in particular they found to be unreliable in the entire 'Caroline Karason' article and it seems that @Whpq nominated this article for deletion more for a personal reason and not because it is genuinely 'unreliable' as they failed to point out which part exactly in the article that they have an issue with. SilhouetteCastle (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @SilhouetteCastle, the issue here is not reliability but notability . Notability depends on the subject of the article and the sources that have covered them, not any particular content . -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 14:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * [edict conflict] Hi, it was my admin note. I have not commented on notability. I will point out though that I think you are confusing notability and verifiability. For an article subject to be considered notable by Wikipedia standards (and rather jargonny use of the term) the subject must have multiple secondary sources about said subject. Lady  of  Shalott  14:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete I am not confusing 'notability' and 'verifiability'.
 * This thread is based on ' reliability ' of sources to which I believe all sources are reliable. No one has specifically mentioned otherwise.
 * @Maddy from Celeste Introduced 'notability' and my reply was that in addition to having 'reliable' sources this article is also satisfies 'notability'.
 * 'verifiability' has just been introduced right now by @LadyofShalott but my response is, that if the sources are 'reliable' then they are most likely 'verifiable' also. SilhouetteCastle (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The first line of this page says "inclusion guidelines" while linking to WP:Notability, so notability was at question from the beginning. Lady  of  Shalott  14:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete @LadyofShalott Ok, but there was an emphasis on 'reliable sources' and by that time @Whpq was already aware that @Significa liberdade already found 'Caroline Karason' to be notable as they (@Whpq) was the same person that deleted the 'Red Charcoal' page and suspiciously and speedily put this one up for nomination for deletion. This is way it think its a 'personal' reason that @Whpq has nominated this article. SilhouetteCastle (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete subject fails Wikipedia's guidelines on the sourcing requirements for articles on living people, as well as the general biography guidelines. Please see WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:ANYBIO. @SilhouetteCastle: please do not reply to this comment; you have nothing new to say, and you will not change anyone's mind by repeatedly posting walls of text in response. If you do reply to me or anyone else, within reason, I shall be forced to seek you be blocked from editing this page for the remainder of this discussion.  ——Serial  14:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete @--serialThis new what I want to say, I think the key question in this entire discussion is why @Whpq did not disagree that 'Red Charcoal' was notable and backed by a reliable sources but believes that 'Caroline Karason' is not when they are the same person and the same reliable sources where used.
 * This whole discussion hangs on this because @Whpqis the same person who deleted the 'Red Charcoal' page and nominated this one the 'Caroline Karason' one for deletion. That is neither reasonable nor fair and you blocking/covering/ distracting from my comments so a lack of reasonableness and sound judgement so if you would like to seek to have me blocked for merely defending myself against and absurd situation then I will do the same to you based on this reasoning.
 * I will not be bullied nor intimidated by you. @--serial SilhouetteCastle (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete I have failed to find any independent reliable sources with significant coverage. Subject does not appear to meet WP:NBASIC. Schazjmd   (talk)  14:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete @Schazjmd Please provide a sentence within the 'Caroline Karason' article that is not backed up by a reliable source. SilhouetteCastle (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @SilhouetteCastle, the purpose of an AfD discussion is to establish notability, not verifiability. Also, you can only provide a bolded recommendation (Delete, Keep, Do Not Delete) once per discussion. Schazjmd   (talk)  15:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep *I have a disability which affects how I write, the speed at which I write and how my text is displayed. Some of my replies have been hidden but here are the main points:

1) Gov.uk is a reliable source

2) @Significa liberdade believes that Red Charcoal/Caroline Karason is notable

3) It is suspicious that the same person @whpq should delete my Red Charcoal page after there was found to be no conflicts in the final version and immediately puts this one up for nomination for deletion

4) @whpq also fails to pinpoint which sentence within the 'Caroline Karason' article that they find to be unreliable

5) I am not misrepresenting anyone I have 'at' @Significaliberdade who is free to comment

6) It is also strange that another user is hiding my very sound arguments behind orange/red banners to make my points seem less credible and to make distractions for everyone.

7) Up til now no one has commented on a specific sentence within the 'Caroline Karason' article that they have found to be unreliable instead I am being silenced for pointing this very important point out

SilhouetteCastle (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: In a deletion discussion, nobody has to comment on a specific sentence in the article. The opinions in a discussion are typically based on guidelines. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete @Philipnelson99 That may be the case, but because of the unfair way that @Whpq speedily put this article up for nomination for deletion within seconds of deleting the 'Red Charcoal' article just after @Significa liberdade believed 'Caroline Karason' to be notable and just I had made amendments that had no violations and that coupled with the fact that no one in this whole discussion can point to a specific passage in the 'Caroline Karason' article that is not reliable yet people are p assionately agreeing for this article to be deleted, looks highly suspicious to me which is why a reasonable approach would be to highlight the passages/sentences that are presumed to be 'unreliable' so that the focus can be on those parts and thus this becomes a sound and fair issue for debate. SilhouetteCastle (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And stop saying "Do not delete", you get one vote only. Also, stop replying to people.  ——Serial  15:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * SC, the question here is whether the article meets the minimum standards for notability, which is significant coverage of the article subject in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. I've replied to the last post on your talk and would be happy to continue to discuss this with you there, but you need to stop bludgeoning this discussion. Valereee (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete @Valereee I disagree, but I have seen your message my talk page and I can reply to you there too. SilhouetteCastle (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The instances of Red Charcoal were deleted due to copyright concerns. As already posted to your talk page, you need to provide evidence to VRT that you are the copyright holder of that text.  Given the issues of copyright in Red Charcoal, it's natural to look at your other contributions to ensure there were no other copyright concerns.  I verified there were no copyright concerns.  But what I did see was that this article did not meet WP:N, aka "notability", aka "inclusion guidelines".  As such, I nominated it for deletion.  In order to have this article kept, you will need to provide sources that cover the subject (Caroline Karason) with some amount of detail, and not just brief mentions.  These sources must be independent and reliable.  What needs to be shown would be coverage about Caroline Karason in things like newspapers and magazines.  Note that the scope and reach of such publications would be a factor in deciding notability.  For example, a profile piece in Vogue magazine would be contribute much more to establishing notability than coverage in a local community newspaper. -- Whpq (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete @whpq I am happy that you replied because I cannot find an email address to provide evidence to VRT. However, i don't think it would be necessary anymore for reasons mentioned below. Also, its interesting that even though you are aware that 'Red Charcoal' and 'Caroline Karason' are the same person you did not have any concerns regarding 'reliability' of sources or 'notability' for Red Charcoal. You were also aware that @Significa liberdade believed 'Caroline Karason' (who is 'Red Charcoal') to be notable. You also deleted the 'Red Charcoal' page just after the final edit which did not include any resemblance to any article. So that's why I believe you then putting this 'Caroline Karason' article up for nomination for deletion and for nomination for deletion for reliability of sources when that was not an issue with the 'Red Charcoal' article is very strange indeed.
 * You have also prevented me from re-adding the Red Charcoal final edit which has no violations which is is also very strange and suspicious as I have mentioned.
 * So will you now allow me to re-create the 'Red Charcoal' article? SilhouetteCastle (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @SilhouetteCastle, this is WP:disruptive. Please do not make any more posts to this discussion unless someone pings you with a direct question, you've made your point. No need to reply to this ping, I just wanted to make sure you saw this. Valereee (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete @Valereee I disagree and I have now replied you on my Talk page SilhouetteCastle (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Both versions of Red Charcoal included copied content resulting in the deletion for copyright concerns. Those copyright issues were the sole reason that article was deleted.  You are free to add text about Red Charcoal in Caroline Karason so long as it is not copied from another source.  However, I do not think that will make any difference to the outcome of this deletion as the lack of needed coverage is true under both the names "Caroline Karason" and "Red Charcoal".  As for recreating Red Charcoal, that would be considered a duplicate topic to Caroline Karason so anything that needs to be said about Red Charcoal should be in the Caroline Karason article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete, does not meet GNG nor is she notable as an academic. -- Mvqr (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete @Mvqr I disagree. But I think the key question in this entire discussion is why @Whpq did not disagree that 'Red Charcoal' was notable and backed by a reliable sources but believes that 'Caroline Karason' is not when they are the same person and the same reliable sources where used. SilhouetteCastle (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I've p-blocked from this discussion. Valereee (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment to SilhouetteCastle, Whpq, and others: I want to make it clear that I did not remove the A7 because I believed Karason was notable. Rather, I decided it was overkill to tag the Red Charcoal page with both G12 and A7. Further, as others have noted, removing an A7 tag does not mean the person is notable. Rather, it can be an indication that a person might be notable. In this case, I wanted to see more RSes to determine notability. If the G12 didn't pass on Red Charcoal, I would have returned to the page, potentially to submit to AFD myself. Significa liberdade (she/her)  (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Additionally, based on some of the comment's SilhouetteCastle has made above, this also seems like an issue regarding conflict of interest. Under the WP:BLUDGEON applies. Again section from Serial at 14:10, 6 December, SilhouetteCastle writes, "Here I am listed in the Music Producers Guild Directory" (emphasis added). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem,, everyone knows you were being misrepresented. The first time might have been accidental, as our speedy criteria can be esoteric, but after they'd been repeatedly told, they were clearly just trolling.  ——Serial  16:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: Now that I've reviewed the sources provided on the new page. At present, none of the sources indicate that Karason meets WP:GNG, WP:NPROF, or WP:NMUSICIAN. As an academic, she has only had 3 citations with 11 articles published since 2008. Patents don't indicate notability. There's only one secondary source (Derbyshire Times), and Karason isn't even named in the article. A prior search for sources turned up nothing better. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence of GNG or other notability, no evidence of the published reviews for her self-published books that would be needed for WP:AUTHOR notability, and the article is still so heavily promotional that I think G12 applies. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: I was unable to find significant secondary sources for her. I also searched for her under her performance name and as an author. Rublamb (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Searches do not provide evidence of notability. Many of the sources cited by the article do not mention her. Employment tribunal papers are cited as sources - but they are primary sources and do not establish notability. I wondered whether this was an article cobbled together from items found on Google, making the assumption that all references to "Caroline Karason" must be to the same person. The only evidence that the references that do name her are talking about the same person is self-published, and therefore does not count under Wikipedia rules as a reliable source, except as a source for what she says about herself. -- Toddy1 (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2023 (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.