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. Both sides of this discussion present strong arguments and I won't hide that my sympathy lies with the "delete" side (and rare indeed are the cases where I disagree with DGG). The walls of text, riddled with quotes, that were dumped into this debate by the "keep" proponents did not make me more sympathetic to their case, either. Despite this, I have decided to close this as "keep", not even "no consensus". The subject of the article is the subject of one book and extensively covered in Ruthsatz's book. Yes, the first book is written by his mother, but it is not published by some vanity press but by the very respectable Random House. Then there is abundant coverage, sustained over several years, in reliable sources like Time Magazine and reputable newspapers. I agree with the arguments that some of those sources look like they do not hold up to the usual journalistic standards, but, unfortunately (in this case), it is not up to us to judge that. The subject has been covered in reliable sources and all that coverage makes for a clear pass of WP:GNG, in my opinion. That WP:ACADEMIC is not met is irrelevant. I am also sensitive to the arguments concerning harm in a BLP of a minor, but given the widespread and sustained coverage in major news sources, I fail to see how a WP bio could cause additional harm. Randykitty (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reliable secondary sources published in the peer-reviewed literature that assess the subject's alleged prodigious ability (WP:SCHOLARSHIP). As a researcher, it is far WP:TOOSOON to have a biography on the subject. Since this is a WP:BLP of a scientist, we generally require high-quality peer-reviewed commentary on the subject, highly significant awards such as a Nobel Prize or Fields Medal, or other evidence that the subject has made a substantial impact to their scholarly discipline (WP:PROF). Just having been on a few talk programs at one point because of his mother's promotion of her book does not seem a sufficient condition for an encyclopedia article about a scientist. There is nothing (yet) of substantial import worthy of an encyclopedia article in the career of this particular graduate student, as would be evidenced by the criteria outlined at WP:PROF. Moreover, the article claims that the subject is autistic, but that apparently lacks independent sourcing (all sources are either based on the mother's memoir, or interviews with the Barnetts), in violation of WP:BLP. And while it would be WP:OR to draw any conclusions of our own from the subject's TEDTeen talk, it is not unreasonable to demand independent sources of a very high quality attesting both to the subject's alleged disability, and to the noteworthiness of his claimed scientific accomplishments (WP:REDFLAG). Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I thought we had come to a consensus to retain a short article per WP:GNG. Nobody disputed the claim that the subject fails WP:PROF. I do not want to reproduce the material that I contributed to the long debates debate that followed the last nomination, other than to point out that there has been considerable interest in the subject, and that our article is still getting 300 hits per day. Viewfinder (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, academics are expected to pass WP:PROF. WP:GNG creates the presumption, not a guarantee of notability. Refer to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. And there seem to be no independent reliable secondary sources either on the subject's prodigious ability, or on his alleged contributions to science. So there is simply no verifiable basis on which to build an article, unless it is a perma-stub devoted to following every minor aspect of the subject's middling and non-notable career. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read Dr. Ruthsatz' latest book please, if you wan't to continue to bring some qualified oppinions about Barnett's autism and prodigy status into the discussion. Barnett is a major case studie of Dr. Ruthsatz and she also in the Book explains about her meetings with young Barnett with details that isn't found in any other published sources. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 05:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources include a 2016 Penguin Random House–published book, The Prodigy's Cousin: The Family Link Between Autism and Extraordinary Talent, that covers Jacob Barnett on pages 99–111, 169, 171, 203, and 212–213.
WP:PROF, which redirects to Wikipedia:Notability (academics), is cited in the nomination statement and by one of the delete votes. Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria states that "Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable."
Not a single one of the sources you gave are reliable sources regarding matters of scholarship. These aren't even very reliable as "news sources": human interest reporting is typically not reliable, per our guideline. Finally, they are not independent of the subject. That requires peer review to assess the subject's scholarly impact, and independent assessment to assign either the "child prodigy" or "autistic" label, either of which seems like a redflag given the content of the TEDTalk. Please present some WP:SCHOLARSHIP here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it does meet scholarship. It cites no primary peer-reviewed case studies on Barnett. It is not published by an academic publishing house. It repeats WP:REDFLAG claims about synesthesia. It has no bibliography. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With no intended disrespect, it is too soon to have an article on Mr. Barnett. The situation with this article is very similar to WP:BLP1E: a person known only for being a child prodigy, but not yet for doing anything with that genius. For non-public figures, we should not be swayed too much by human-interest news pieces, which can be attributed to the 24 hour news cycle and a natural interest in child prodigies. It would be better to wait until the subject has some more substantive achievements before having an article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it were a question only of notability, I would recommend keeping, since it easily passes GNG. For acceptable sources, the guidelines for news organizations is more relevant here than the one on scholarship. The article is discussing biographical details, not the science, and there are articles from reputable news sources supporting them. For example, the Maclean's article is ample evidence for autism. You won't find a scientific paper analyzing a particular individual; I'm pretty sure that would violate ethics guidelines. However, I think that @CBM is right that WP:BLP1E trumps notability here. RockMagnetist(talk)01:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Jacob Barnett doesn't have to disappear from Wikipedia altogether. Some of these sources could be added to his entry in List of child prodigies. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:25,
We have articles about the overwhelming majority of those listed at List of child prodigies, including some of the ones that are not linked. Most of those listed are attracting considerably fewer page views. So there is ongoing interest. If this were a WP:BLP1E case the page view statistics would have declined considerably. They have not. Viewfinder (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect the number of page views that an article is getting is surely relevant to any debate about whether we should retain or delete that article, especially following the citation of WP:BLP1E. Viewfinder (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is obviously nuts -- page view analysis is an absolutely horrible criterion to apply to questions like this, and in particular its inclusion is not supported by policy, guideline, or cultural norm. (Incidentally you will note that I am not taking a position on the deletion question here.) --JBL (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to call something "obviously nuts" and "horrible" without giving a reason. Broadcasters frequently axe programs on the grounds of low viewing figures. But I concede that our policy states that raw hit count is unreliable and agree that it should not be conclusive. I can only speak for myself, but it still astonishes me that someone who has given a talk that has been watched more than 7.5 million times can be dismissed as not notable. But maybe that is because, like the subject of the article we are debating, I am affected by Asperger's syndrome - which is why I am interested in this case and why I feel strongly about the existence of our article. Viewfinder (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:
If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.
Jacob Barnett does not meet any of the three WP:BLP1E conditions:
He is not being covered "in the context of a single event" because being a child prodigy or a physics student at Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics is not a single event.
@Cunard: 2. Being a physics student at the Perimeter Institute is not a separate event. No media source would care about that if he were not an unusually young student, i.e. a child prodigy. 3. I think you're getting too literal with the word "event" - the intent of the policy is clear enough. RockMagnetist(talk)02:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider being a child prodigy an event. But even if it were an event, Jacob Barnett cannot be considered a low-profile individual because of his numerous interviews, his receiving sustained coverage over five years, and his receiving substantial coverage in the 2016 Penguin Random House–published book The Prodigy's Cousin: The Family Link Between Autism and Extraordinary Talent.
Keep Barnett was the youngest person ever admitted to the Perimeter Institute's master's degree program (with an 8% admission rate). This is approximately the same as MIT's admission rate, so it seems to be a significant accomplishment. Jrheller1 (talk) 03:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Student accomplishments, even including notable and reliably-sourced awards, do not contribute to notability under the guideline for notability of academics. Being the youngest in a class of 30 100 or so students in a recently established small inaugural master's program does not even rise to the level of a notable student award, let alone something to guarantee notability under our guidelines. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The masters's degree program at PI was started in 2009. JB was admitted to the 2013 program, so it was the fifth class, not the "inaugural" class. He was not just the youngest. At age 15, he was 6 or 7 years younger than the average age of the students admitted to this competitive, selective program. So, according to reliable sources, he is a genuine child prodigy (the faculty at the Perimeter Institute are certainly reliable sources). It is a waste of time to try to delete this article when there are so many other articles that obviously should be deleted. For example, all of the fictional characters in the TV show the Big Bang Theory have their own article. If someone would try to delete these articles, I would definitely vote in favor of that. Jrheller1 (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jrheller1: It is a waste of time to try to delete this article when there are so many other articles that obviously should be deleted. I don't get that line of argument. At all. If those articles should "obviously" be deleted, then you should file an AfD or ten. That has next to no bearing on this AfD, especially given that the policies are quite different for living academics (and minors to boot) and for fictional characters. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 00:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are essentially arguing in favor of keeping articles on fictional TV show characters, Pokemon characters, and "Bus uncle" and in favor of deleting an article on a genuine child prodigy. To me this seems totally absurd. Genuine child prodigies are very rare. The phenomenon of child prodigies is poorly understood and very important. It seems obvious to me that an article on a genuine child prodigy should be kept. Jrheller1 (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jrheller1: You are essentially arguing in favor of keeping articles on fictional TV show characters, Pokemon characters, and "Bus uncle" Not in the least. I am arguing that "look, there is some cruft elsewhere, so let's not clean up this cruft" is an invalid argument. If I gave enough of a whit about "bus uncle", whose existence I was heretofore blissfully unaware of, to participate on its hypothetical AfD, then on personal taste I'd most certainly vote delete. The phenomenon of child prodigies is poorly understood and very important. This I agree with. All the more reason to hold related articles to a solid standard, which this one does not meet. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 06:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The childhood development of Jacob Barnett was both remarkable and notable. There are sources out there, both lay and academic, which meet our notability and reliability guidelines, which could be used to expand the article. We should be getting them together. It is not about whether we at Wikipedia think that he ought to have been reported and covered so extensively. It is about the fact that he was reported and covered. Viewfinder (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have ordered the new book highlighted by Cunard and OHL, but delivery is likely to take a few days. Assuming this book defeats WP:BLP1E, and that the closing admin does not perform a U-turn and delete the article per WP:PROF (overruling WP:GNG which even some of the article's opponents accept that it passes), I hope to start the search for consensus to re-expand the article. Viewfinder (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I concur with Xxanthippe, we have always judged and based this by WP:PROF and there's nothing there convincing, thus there's nothing to suggest better; it's as if judging a sportsperson by a completely different notability, and this is the case here, WP:PROF is relevant, the others are not, and the news stories listed are simply about the one-time events, no actual significance beyond it. SwisterTwistertalk04:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:PROF is the rule for academics and he does not conceivably meet it. WP:GNG does exist as an alternative, for someone who incidentally happens to be a n academic but whose notability is elsewhere--it's intended to prevent the deletion of such articles as a notable politician who happens to be also an undistinguished assistant professor, which should not be rejected on the basis that's not an notable academic. The guideline is not for the present case, of someone who is a totally non-notable student, but where his mother apparently thinks otherwise, and has written a book about him and has managed to get the attendant publicity for what the press thinks a human interest story. I have always voted to disallow articles about minors whose parents are exploiting them--it's not fair to the child. (The press, havinga different set of ethics, has the habit of just accepting the parent's consent in these cases). DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Several people who want to delete the article seem to think that JB is being "exploited." If he is being "exploited" by his mother, it would not be a bad thing if more parents would "exploit" their children. At age 16 he had a Master's degree in physics from a very selective, competitive program. This is a very good position to be in. Jrheller1 (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not currently notable as an academic (3 papers, low cites). The article can well be recreated when he actually does something worthy of mention. It's WP:TOO SOON. No need to have an article on everyone who might do something noteworthy at some unspecified point in the future. (Being invited to talk shows to promote one's mother's book about oneself is not noteworthy.) — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 06:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no comparison whatsoever with Dingle. Dingle actually published his opinions. The subject of the article claimed to have opinions in a YouTube video. His mother also claimed that he had opinions in a book. However, the opinions themselves were never made public, in the half a decade since he allegedly first had them. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SB, as far as I am aware, nobody is disputing that the book written about the subject by his mother sold well. Further, for better or worse, the claims about him, including the exaggerated claims, were widely publicized and read. Readers want to check out the accuracy of the claims that they have been reading, and Wikipedia is an important resource that is available to them. If, in future, they do not find an article on Wikipedia about a guy who had so much media coverage, I think they will be rather astonished. This brings me back to the view that the article would be more helpful to its readers if it included a sentence on the lines of "media claims that Barnett disproved relativity have not been accepted by scientists", citing this article. Viewfinder (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We do not need to go back that far. We can reach a sensible compromise. The addition of a short and mildly worded sentence, with a reference on the lines that I have suggested, would be sufficient. Viewfinder (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just because some of the sources that have been listed by Cunard contain exaggerations, it does not mean that they should all be trashed as unreliable. Viewfinder (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails both WP:PROF and WP:GNG. That he fails WP:PROF is obvious and, I think, not under dispute. Barnett appears to have no accomplishments of his own except for studying physics at an unusually young age. As for WP:GNG, I'm not convinced that being the subject of human interest stories makes someone notable. People may be of greater or lesser interest, and Barnett is of somewhat greater interest because people are impressed by child prodigies; but I see no reason why that interest rises above the level of trivial. Ozob (talk) 14:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been involved with this article for a long time and am reasonably sure it will be kept because of what I would call "blind allegiance to sources"...indeed, there are numerous sources, but they're all wrong, a fact established long ago at AfDs and talk. The problem with this article is that it is one of those relatively unusual cases that violates the journalistic tenet of coverage. Specifically, we generally assume sources exist because of some encyclopedic reason for coverage. In essence, we take sources as a proxy. Here, the collusion of sensational "journalism" and tireless promotion by his mother led to an edifice of coverage devoid of any arguably justifiable record of accomplishment. It is a case of reporting preceding deed, of being famous for being famous, etc., which is no basis for an encyclopedia article...that is, unless the article is about the collusion and promotion. Therein lies the problem for a BLP...and we've already decided against this option on ethical grounds. As has been observed, Jacob is now trying to make a real go of it in physics, but has not yet come anywhere near standard thresholds delineated by PROF. I think he will at some point. A proper article could then cover his actual accomplishments in detail, with a few side notes regarding his autism, mother's book, and media focus that surrounded his childhood. WP:TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Agricola, I feel equally sure that if the article is kept, you, SB and DE will be back again next year with another AfD nomination with the same arguments that you are using here and used at AfD2 and the review that followed its result. And Viewfinder (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you're questioning my motives. I'm not going to bicker with you. The article continues to have the policy-based problems that myself and many others have mentioned. Agricola44 (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Viewfinder: Re "DE will be back again next year with another AfD nomination": no. I'm not going to re-nominate this because past AfD's have made it abundantly clear that the bean-counters who look at the number of sources and don't evaluate the ridiculously low quality of them generally win these debates. So with no change in the information we have available I see re-litigating it as a pointless endeavor. But since someone other than me has already re-opened it this time, of course I'm going to participate again. Why shouldn't I? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, basically per WP:HARM. He is obviously non-notable (yet) as an academic, so all we have to go on is being a child prodigy. But almost none of the child prodigy material is actually in the article, because the local consensus is that it was so hyped, and in many cases so obviously bogus, that continuing to include it would likely harm the subject's academic career. So we can either have (what we have now) an A7-eligible article that only describes the (not-yet-notable) academic career, or an article based purely on hype. Deletion is preferable to either option. There's also an argument per WP:NOTNEWS: the hype cycle surrounding Barnett-as-child-prodigy seems to have died down and what lasting significance has it had? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This chart doesn't go far enough to the rightNo word in bold from me, I'm afraid, but quite a bit of thinking. I've opined on this article several times in the past and I've never understood why some editors seem to feel it's a slam-dunk "delete". Yes, this is a child; yes, he's being promoted by his parents. I don't see the reasoning that goes from there to "delete". Deleting someone's Wikipedia article might protect them if they were a low profile individual... but this is someone who's appeared in Time Magazine, The Times, The Independent, ABC News, the Huffington Post, etc., etc., etc., all of which sources advertise him as a child prodigy. With all due respect for David Eppstein's ingenious argument above I don't see how WP:HARM#TEST is failed here. And WP:BLP tells us to remove unsourced negative information about living people. It doesn't tell us to remove very well-sourced promotional material about living people, so that line of argument goes nowhere at all. In fact I think that a Wikipedia article serves a useful function in moderating the most hyperbolistic claims, which do appear in reliable sources, but in my view are overstated. We're not Snopes, but in cases like this we can usefully do some of their job.
For example, Time Magazine says here that, at the age of 12, Jacob Barnett has an IQ of 170. That's a bald, unqualified assertion made in a source we'd normally consider to be reliable. Well, the measure at age 12 would be the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, under which the mean is 100, and each standard deviation is 15 IQ points. So mathematically, a test of 170 would put Barnett in the top 0.000153% of the population. IQ scores aren't very precise at that level because there are so few people in that ability range to calibrate them against. Am I prepared to believe that the Time Magazine journalist has seen the results of a 170 IQ test performed by a qualified professional? Frankly, no. I call bullshit.
I'm prepared to accept that this is a very bright young man. But I don't buy 170 IQ --- not for Barnett, not for anyone. Any statistician or cognitive scientist will tell you that what a score in excess of 160 really means is "off the scale".
The problem is that this whole train of thought goes to a place it can't go. Because what I'm actually saying, here, is that I know better than the sources, and there are good reasons why Wikipedians don't get to do that.
I think that if we follow our own rules, then the sources have to prevail and we have to concede that Barnett is notable. But I clearly understand and to an extent I sympathise with the contrary view. It's a hard one.—S MarshallT/C19:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those of us here who have a working knowledge of physics (and maybe you are in this category) recognize that the HARM comes from having lots of absurd articles talking nonsense about besting Einstein and disproving Big Bang that will be detrimental as this person moves into an adult career in physics research. Agricola44 (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I won't pretend to have a working knowledge of physics. I don't feel that I need that knowledge to understand the harm those claims can cause to an academic. The harm would be there whether Wikipedia hosts a biography or not, though; that ship has long since sailed because of his parents' antics and the journalistic decisions that have led to all the sources being published over the years. I've never been able to understand why this argument leads to a "delete" outcome in Barnett's case, in any of the discussions we've had.—S MarshallT/C22:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When entering the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario Barnett was asked wheter he was working with any "projects" of his own, and Barnett's reply was something like, that he entered with a curious and open mind and had no personal projects he was working on - so from Barnett's perspective the case of these "theories" that at some point where so widely distributed by the media is closed. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jacob reveled in every aspect of college. He loved his classes. He liked getting to know the other students and even tutored some of them: the only prerequisite was that they bring spoons to partake in the giant tubs of peanut butter he brought along to snack on during study sessions.
After his freshman year, he worked as a paid research assistant in quantum physics at IUPI as part of an undergraduate program; during this time, he tackled a previously unsolved math problem. Afterward, he and his mentor coauthored a paper that was published in a noted, peer-reviewed physics journal. It's titled "Origin of Maximal Symmetry Breaking in Even PT-Symmetric Lattices."
At fifteen, he enrolled at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario. The Barnetts sold their home in Indiana and moved to Canada, and Jacob is now a Ph.D. candidate. His TEDxTeen talk, "Forget What You Know," in which he urges listeners to stop learning and start thinking and creating, has been viewed more than six million times.
This provides extensive biographical background about Jacob Barnett's secondary and postsecondary experiences and accomplishments and can be used to expand the article.
The book also notes:
...
Jacob's synesthesia memory boost is associated with numbers. When Jacob thinks about a number (say, 3), he doesn't just picture the numeral; he perceives it as having a specific color (like red) and a specific shape (like a triangle). As Jacob once put it during a conversation with a reporter, "Every number or math problem I ever hear, I have permanently remembered." But he has trouble remembering smells and conversations.
The book then notes:
In 2011, a reporter from a small Indiana newspaper wrote a story about Jacob. Two months later, the Indianapolis Star published a lengthy profile on the twelve-year-old scientist who was trying to disprove the big bang theory, and that story got picked up by a wire service. Word of the whiz kid was rehashed in print and plastered all over the Internet. The full weight of the media crashed down on the Barnett household.
...
It was in the midst of this media frenzy that Joanne contacted the Barnetts about her research. Kristine was skeptical. "At first I sort of thought, well, I don't know about that," she recalled. But then Joanne asked if Jacob might like to go to Cedar Point, a Sandusky, Ohio, amusement park jammed with roller coasters. The Barnetts packed their kids into the car and began the five-hour drive to Sandusky, eager to talk to someone who might provide a new perspective on the child who couldn't get enough theoretical physics.
The Barnetts also consented to one more interview. They had been approached by 60 Minutes, and convinced that the reporters and producers there would do a thoughtful piece, the Barnetts said yes. They pointed them to Joanne as a prodigy expert.
[several more paragraphs about Jacob Barnett]
The book chronicles how Jacob Barnett received substantial attention: from a small local Indiana newspaper to the Indianapolis Star, to a wire service, to Glenn Beck to 60 Minutes to being contacted by the book's coauthor, Joanne Ruthsatz.
I honestly don't think that this article was added to Wikipedia in the first place because anyone mistook Jacob Barnett for an academic (at the time), so it has never been a matter of wheter he is/was an academic or not. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And the result then was "DELETE; a cut-n-dry case", according to the closing statement of the first AfD, so whatever the reasons why the article was added in the first place, they were not very good. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 13:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've had no dealings with the "first version" from 2011 you refer to, but the present entry for Jacob Barnett has been around as an article since Feruary 2014. A number of things have happend since 2011 & 2014 that makes an article even more relevant/eligible now than then. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Jacob Barnett is a primary or major focus in two books published before he turned 18 - that alone is unusual for a person that young, and in my humble opinion that alone is more than sufficient to be considered as notable for having an article in Wikipedia in this case. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oleryhlolsson. This is not a case of BLP1E. As Oleryhlolsson points out, this is an important case study. This is an encyclopedia. This is exactly the type of material that belongs on the project. Kudos to all those attempting to save this important article. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per not-yet-proven valuable notability (how old was Einstein in 1905, at what age died Galois, ...), keep for justice wrt the plethora of trivia, DYK, and the likes in Wikipedia. Just vindicating based on my poor common sense, and on me inherently abhorring speedies, because it's a voting. -Purgy (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be responding yet again, but for as long as the "delete trivia" comments continue, I feel the need to respond. Even if, to some or even a majority of readers, this case comes across as trivial, and even if Barnett will never pass WP:PROF, this very widely reported case illustrates what some of us see as a fascinating link between autism and prodigy, research into which could have profound consequences. If there comes a day on which we no longer find room for an article about it among our five million other articles, then that day will be a sad day. Viewfinder (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there is research on the link between autism and prodigy, we should indeed cover that research. But mass media trivia provides a non-existent basis for this research. If there are peer-reviewed case studies of Barnett, then we can certainly cite those. But the current litany of sources does not contain reliable, peer-reviewed assessments either of Barnett's autism, nor of his prodigious ability. WP:BLPs require reliable sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If a professor of psychology who specializes in child prodigy is not a reliable enough academic source then no source about anything should be considered reliable.... Viewfinder (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A professor is not a reliable academic source in and of herself. A paper by the professor, reviewed by other researchers and thereafter published in an appropriate venue, is such a source. Not everything an academic writes is automatically a high-quality academic source meeting WP:SCHOLARSHIP; the vetting process is the important part. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 19:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are not discussing a new scientific theory. We are talking about a person who, according to some, can be talked about by multiple leading publishers and still not be notable... Viewfinder (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The claim is that the subject is notable because he is (a) autistic and (b) a child prodigy. Peer-reviewed case studies have been published about individuals that are autistic, and those who have prodigious talents. An example is Daniel Tammet, who has been extensively studied in the academic literature as an autistic savant, with numerous peer-reviewed studies attesting both his autism and prodigious memory (e.g., Savant Memory in a Man with Colour Form-Number Synaesthesia and Asperger, : Baron-Cohen, Simon; Bor, D.; Billington, J.; Asher, J.; Wheelwright, S.; Ashwin, C.: Journal of Consciousness Studies, Volume 14, Numbers 9-10, 2007, pp. 237-251(15).) However, I am not aware of any peer-reviewed case studies that discuss either the subject's alleged "moderate to severe autism" (but, see his TED talk) nor his allegedly prodigious abilities (again, see the TED talk). Given the false claims that were made about the subject in the past, I do not think it is unreasonable, in light of the biographies of living persons policy to demand high quality sources for each of these features of the subject. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Be very firm about using high quality sources." In this case, a high quality source would be a published, peer-reviewed case study with details about testing methodology. I don't see any evidence that a clinical practitioner has actually examined the subject, and determined that he suffers from any level of autism (let alone "moderate to severe autism" as claimed by multiple low quality sources). Indeed, autistic children are not generally known for their ability to charmingly relate to large groups of people (the aforementioned TED talk), and this would seem to preclude any reasonable diagnosis of autism. This is why we're form about sourcing. If a test were administered, and the methodologies were explicit, then we could say that the subject is a notable autistic. But there are no reliable, credible sources that make this assessment. We also don't know anything about his physics or mathematics abilities, other than the fact that he enrolled in a non-degree program in physics at an unusually young age. That brings us to an article whis notability is entirely predicated on the subject enrolling in a program at a young age. Although impressive, as I've said already, student accomplishments are not a sufficient condition for an encyclopedia article under the relevant notability guideline. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let us look at this issue the other way round. Can you identify a source that disputes the autism claim that Cunard's sources appear to universally agree upon? If not, then surely your challenge to the claim is your own original research and need not be the subject of any further discussion. Viewfinder (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting we do WP:OR and write an article calling into question Barnett's autism and prodigy. But in light of the TED talk and the many false things that were hyped in the allegedly "reliable sources" Cunard came up with, these are WP:REDFLAG, and we need sources of the highest quality that leave no room for equivocation in the matter. That is, we need WP:SCHOLARSHIP, not tabloids. This is completely consistent with the WP:BLP policy, which demands high quality sources, not the barrel-scraping trawl of human interest garbage that you and Cunard are pushing. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Surely if there were any serious question abut his autism, it would have been asked and you would be able to come up with the relevant links. Incidentally I would be interested to debate this issue further with you, but I don't think the debate belongs here. Viewfinder (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're certainly entitled to that opinion. But reliable sources for the subject's autism are required under multiple content guidelines: WP:V, WP:BLP. This is especially true in light of the fact that the person in the TED Talk claiming to be Jacob Barnett does not seem to be autistic in the least, let alone "moderate to severl[y]" so. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've already demolished the claim that Ruthsatz's book is a scholarly work under the WP:SCHOLARSHIP guideline. I'm not going to repeat that. If it were scholarly, we wouldn't be having this discussion: there would be actual peer-reviewed reliable sources that discuss tests that Barnett was subjected to confirming both autism and prodigious talent, including discussions of the particular testing methodology, who conducted the tests, etc. Ruthsatz fails to cite any such testing, by herself or any third party, and does not mention what methodology was used in the assessment. Instead, she merely repeats the same talking points (often with the same wording) that appear in Kristine Barnett's book and the yellow media sources that Cunard and you have been pushing. BLP and WP:V both require high quality, scholarly sources. That is particularly lacking in view of the falsehoods promulgated by the supposedly reliable sources Cunard listed above, as well as the rather glaringly obvious WP:REDFLAGs in this case. I realize you want to be a champion of autism, but there are plenty of articles about notable autistic savants that have been discussed in reliable medical sources. Why not focus your energies on them? Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ruthsatz's book is surely the work of a scholar, and it is not clear to me that its publication by the lay press means that it necessarily fails WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Moreover, WP:BLP and WP:V make no direct reference to scholarship, and our article stands on its general rather than its academic notability. Therefore, even if they do fail the scholarship test, it would seem to me to be unduly harsh to demand that its autism and prodigy claims, which have been universally made in the mainstream press, and which only SB's personal POV appears to be challenging, should be disallowed. But that is not for me to decide. Viewfinder (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1. My comment was: "I do not think it does meet scholarship. It cites no primary peer-reviewed case studies on Barnett. It is not published by an academic publishing house. It repeats WP:REDFLAG claims about synesthesia. It has no bibliography." I'm astonished that anyone could claim this is a scholarly book. 2. WP:V states that "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources", WP:BLP demands that we must "be firm about using high quality sources". So far, no high quality sources have been provided for the exceptional claim that the subject has autism (see TED talk), nor has any exceptional abilities beyond those of an unusually bright teenager. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since this elaborate discussion started under my -still strongly upheld- vote for Delete, I comment that I do not consider an individual as notable, and worth an article about his person in an encyclopedia, for just being the human object in -and be it- several notable scientific studies. I do appreciate research on various human deficienciesspecial needs (for PC) and resourcefulness, but do not hold the human objects of this research to be noteable, until these objects themselves create notability of their personal work (and be it looks). I do not count extensive public relations (TED!) as notable. Information about such persons are righteously called "trivialities", imho. -Purgy (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have had three long and heated debates: AfD2, the DRV which followed, and AfD3. We are still as far as ever from consensus on whether or not we should be covering this controversial subject. Is this situation, WP:Deletion_policy states that if in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators normally will not delete it. Even two of its passionate opponents (DE and Agricola) concede that deletion is unlikely. Therefore, unless several of the article's proponents change their position, I am not going to spend more time arguing here. Viewfinder (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since my name was mentioned, I'll throw in a few more cents. I'm certainly not passionate about deleting this article. Rather, my views are disinterested and based only on policy. I said many times that the stub version would never be a long-term viable solution. I think it must either be deleted (which I advocate) or we must have a complete "warts and all" version. I suspect the latter option will prevail and you can check the version that SB linked to above to see what the article will look like after this discussion. Agricola44 (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
No, that's still a whitewash. For example, we don't typically single-out average papers for discussion and it barely mentions the very items of notoriety and the their supporting sources (Einstein, Big Bang, etc, etc, etc) that would be the sole justification for keeping the article in the first place. If the article is kept, it's got to be complete. Agricola44 (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
It's not a whitewash. For anyone coming to us to check out the story they read about a kid disproving Einstein, it supplied a clear and cited answer. We do not need two long paragraphs. Viewfinder (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly would be UNDUE whitewash because almost all of the dozens of sources on him are of this ilk and, moreover, these articles and the mother's book have generated a secondary literature pointing out these inaccuracies. Agricola44 (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
The article as it is has been fairly stable since January 2015, when we reached an implicit consensus to accept it even though some of us would still have preferred to delete it. I would still prefer to restore a brief mention of the media controversy, with equal weight given to the skeptics, but I think that the full version gives the controversy undue weight. More about the subject's childhood progress would improve what is primarily a human interest biography. But we can continue to debate all this on the article's talk page. Viewfinder (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
May I contradict: The more time elapses without notable professional output, the less notable is the topic of this article. -Purgy (talk) 06:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can only apologize for using terms in this discussion in an immanent meaning, which is not fully sanctioned by some bureaucratic, local "essay". However, I'm clueless how I should handle my personal dislike of this article being in Wikipedia, beyond not using it in argumentation. I do assume you and viewfinder liking this article. Is this allowed in a Deletion Dicussion? -Purgy (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the BLP1E issue as refuted. It's exactly the kind of thing we would expect for a human interest piece given the 24 news cycle. The subject has news coverage as a child prodigy - but the article has no mention at all of anything he might have actually accomplished as a child prodigy. The sources all seem to just be a whirlwind of accidental publicity, not a reflection of any actual accomplishments. When we can write an article about his accomplishments, it will be time to have an article. Until then, I think a combination of BLP1E and NOTNEWS applies. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability as others have said. Is he a notable author of one or more books? Is he an educator? Has he started journals or computer software or any technology? What are his contributions to physics? Has he solved anything previously unsolved? Has he made any impact on society? Intelligence, prodigy, genius, hardworking, and so on do not imply notability. (Disclaimer: I have not extensively reasearched this person and have only scanned the discussion here). M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk17:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC) tweaked 19:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Has he made any impact on society?" As far as I can tell from what I have read, he is a huge inspiration for many people, who have autism themselves or who work with autism, so yes, some "impact" can be ascreibed to Jacob Barnett. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, not anyone "is" but in principle they could be. You said "some" impact can be ascribed to Jacob. So how many people has he influenced - 10s, 1000s, millions?
For a similar example Stephen Wolfram started as a physics prodigy and must have influenced many people (friends, family). That alone would be no reason to write an article about him. He has also given many talks which can be found on youtube. Again this is not notable alone. But he started writing papers papers around age 15, actually published in the literature, and worked upwards creating SMP and Mathematica, became a fellow of the AMS, and has become very well known (through a lot of self-promotion and arguably vanity). This accumulation makes him notable. See the difference?
Keep, Wikipedia already has too few articles covering child prodegies as it is. Barnett is in my opnion among the more notable child prodigies out there and he has already made a notable amount of achievements as it is. All of this is substantiated if one digs a bit in the sources. I also found the arguments from Cunard and Wolfowitz compelling. 92.6.187.195 (talk) 11:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So what are your arguments for notability? He is another prodigy who entered higher education very early. There are loads out there. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk11:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As I suspected, the debate is trending toward "keep" based on the "sources exist" argument. If that argument ultimately carries the day, then the only justifiable article will be a version that faithfully and completely represents all the information in these sources. That will bring us pretty quickly to this version (as noted above by SB), which contains most of the relevant info: prodigy and Ruthsatz text, his autism and his mother's book thereon, the media hype on his childhood "research" into theoretical physics, and the secondary literature surrounding the whole milieu. Agricola44 (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm of the oppinnion, that the article from the begining should have focused much more on Barnett's autism (including his own views on this matter) and much less on the science discussions we have had over the years. There are also things like "public appearances" and "awards" that among other - in my oppinion - are missing in the article. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for putting in information supported by credible sources. Autism is a medical diagnosis, so the mother's book will be of limited use here, but maybe there are others, in which case, again, I'm all for it. I will remind you and Viewfinder, however, that the overwhelming majority of the sources are on the various claims regarding his childhood physics research and that fact will necessitate that most of the content will revolve around this aspect. I have a suspicion that there is still a vision of turning this into a thinly supported but heartwarming story of a boy overcoming autism, in the image of the mother's book. This will only be a sourced BLP, not a story. If the "sources" argument carries the day, we will follow our own rules and use those sources. Agricola44 (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
In January 2015 a senior editor came to the article and deleted all coverage of what he called "absurd claims". They have not been added back. Personally I would not have gone to that extreme. People are coming to us, wanting to check our take on these claims. We need the article to inform them. A sentence with links to Platt and Edwards should be enough to convince them that there have been gross exaggerations. I really do not think we need to return to the other extreme and reinstate a long and overweight list of the sources of these exaggerations. We seem to be in agreement that expansion of information about the subject's life would be OK. For this we have plenty of source material which has not been challenged. Viewfinder (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I enjoyed @User:Oculi's reason for keeping this article, but I believe Barnett has co-authored some research pages and he has been widely covered as a child prodigy by reliable sources. KingAntenor (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2016 (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.
