Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cerys Cooksammy-Parnell


 * 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. Per WP:SNOW, no need to leave this open a full week. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Cerys Cooksammy-Parnell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP1E. If Cooksammy-Parnell receives coverage for more than her performance in a single IQ test she may become notable, but she isn't yet. Huon (talk) 02:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect to some suitable list article (List of children with tested IQ over NNN% or List of children recognized for extreme intelligence?). Essentially for me this breaches the spirit of WP:NOT –specifically WP:NOT and WP:NOT. It also probably goes against BLP1E and protection of minors where there is doubt. Essentially this article's existence asserts that "being a precociously bright child" without anything else, would make anyone inherently notable, since one must presume the same arguments could be made of any child of the same IQ, and only by chance is it this child and their childhood wishes for their future career which gained attention and not some other of similar mental prowess. By themselves, and lacking other evidence of anything, its just asserting that every child with IQ >XYZ is inherently notable if they get transient wide human interest coverage in the news, and I don't agree. (Similar reasons explain why a high profile crime witness who got lots of coverage because they were "the witness noticed by the news", is not normally considered notable however much coverage: see WP:BLP1E)). I'd rather see a redirect to a suitable list article, then those where it isn't RECENTISM and isn't just transient attention, can be developed into full articles independently.  But so far there is no evidence this will not just be brief transient attention, like many events and topics in the news (WP:NOT). FT2 (Talk 02:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree; delete (or redirect, whichever), but don't keep as an independent article. DS (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge/redirect but no separate article. WP:BLP1E. jni (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:BLP1E, meets all three points. I hope she skips the finance and politics. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete We must be very cautious indeed when creating BLPs for minors. This is a clear case of a single event, the result of a test which proportionately few children take at that age, the results of which are usually confidential, and which is not necessarily predictive of her future. She would be very unlikely to thank us later for letting this stay. I wish her well, hope that she can be encouraged to delight in the world, and that she can find suitable outlets for her talents, like editing Wikipedia. --AJHingston (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete One event. Nwlaw63 (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: I've asked at this point for an uninvolved admin to consider - exceptionally - whether early closure is sensible here. due to apparent lack of dissent and sensitivity of a minor's BLP.  See WP:ANRFC FT2 (Talk 15:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * note: the above request has been archived to Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure/Archive_7. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Clearly NN as yet. Perhaps she will be notable in 10-15 years, but not now.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2013 (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.