Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugenie Carys de Silva


 * 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. Whatever other COI or SPA issues we have here, the consensus is that this is a BLP1E, perhaps a case of too soon but ultimately not suitable for inclusion at this time. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Eugenie Carys de Silva

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is not independent reporting on this subject as required by WP:BIO (the one most-cited source seems to be quoting press releases without editorial judgment being applied) and the editing of the article, which is about a minor, appears to be entirely WP:COI editing by an immediate family member of the article subject. There is no verifiability here, and no basis for notability. The article creator objected to a previous PROD. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO DELETION AS PER ARGUMENT PUT FORTH BY USER:WEIJIBAIKEBIANJI: EDIT: User WEIJIBAIKEBIANJI has now also uploaded personal discussions on his talk page aimed at parenting, which is of no relevance. This is also another reason why this claim for the deletion of the page should be further investigated on the basis of bias and discrimination.

Based on the tone of your comments, in addition to the ways in which you have posed your questions and arguments, you have clearly not read, nor conducted any research on the individual in question. The sources are from across the world. One search on Google would have reaffirmed all information that had been uploaded to the page. In this manner, you have seemingly not even taken the time to take such a minute action. Accordingly, please ensure that you thoroughly read all information herein stated, because this will act as the basis of further investigations. None of the information was libelous, nor was it self-published. Any individual could have easily determined this as true by making one phone-call to any of the many articles that were used to reference the work. The individual in question was also recently named a Top Thirty Thinker Under Thirty by the Pacific Standard magazine, which is an academic magazine. Are you going to dispute this as not have merits or being useful as evidence in favor of the validation of the information in the Wiki article? Nonetheless, if you had read all regulations you would have noticed the following:

"Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: 1. it is not unduly self-serving; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources."

Although this page was not created by the individual being discussed, your argument would fail under these standards, since the page was not self-serving, does not involve claims about third parties, does not involve claims about events that are not directly related to the subject, there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity due to the inclusion of multiple articles to further validate all evidence, and the article is primarily based on a wide variety of articles which were further included in the additional sources component of the article.

Further, see below:

"The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of the People notable for only one event guideline (WP:BIO1E) when compared to this policy (WP:BLP1E)."

The individual being discussed has been in the media frequently since she was eleven years old in 2009. Once again conducting research and/or noting the sources that had been uploaded can validate this information. This person is of enough significance to be included on the page that you seek to have deleted.

See more:

"Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: • university-level textbooks • books published by respected publishing houses • magazines • journals • mainstream newspapers."

The articles used sources from mainstream newspapers. Further, information from magazines can be uploaded, too! This was not included since all the information that was included had already been referenced.

Finally, see below:

"Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.[8] Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion."

Prove how any of the sources are questionable sources as per this regulation from Wikipedia. None of the sources have poor reputations in fact many have significantly profound reputations. None are extremist or promotional, nor do they rely on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinions. ____________________________________________

The article was referenced with many sources from many different individuals who hold high positions in newspapers and media stations across the globe. Are you now insinuating that the individual in question or I myself am related to every individual who has happened to upload an article about Eugenie Carys de Silva? You should check your records and the records that are freely available to all individuals in the public domain. Based on your background on your page, you claim to have worked for the Federal Government; thus, it is astonishing that you are unaware of how to utilize Open-Source information in order to develop a report that would suffice in the validation of your statements. If further proof is necessary, you will receive signed letters from government officials and accredited university systems and internationally renowned educators who will validate all the information. In fact, more information could be included through the utilization of articles that are written in other languages (which is what others seem to do on the Wikipedia pages in order to fulfill the requirements of citing sources that you seem to have carelessly overlooked). Nonetheless, this information had not been included, since the incorporation of such articles should not be acceptable in an English Wikipedia in which individuals should be able to prove the achievements in the English language.

Your statements are based on false grounds. Eugenie de Silva is from Manchester, England, and has been in the U.S. for many years. Based on your comments, you have not understood, nor even investigated this information. Thus, rendering any opinions or attacks to “Delete a Page” seems to be plainly a means to fulfill one’s biased desire to have a certain individual removed from a page. You are not only clearly attacking the individual in question, but you are also undermining the notion that this individual is who she says she is (which has been further validated by U.S. magazines and news stations across the world, such as the Pacific Standard). This is defamation of character and smear tactics. Your remarks are not in the interest of upholding the standards of Wikipedia, but rather seem to be aimed at furthering your own biased agenda. I suggest you reconsider your arguments consequent to actually weighing the evidence. You have also failed to address any points that I raised in my previous post, which is a sign that you are evading the very underlying basis of this entire debacle.

You have somehow fittingly chosen to select “Eugenie de Silva” as the target, whereas a majority of the claims for other individuals on the “List of Child Prodigies” page have not be verified and are supported by PDF Google Documents that anyone could develop, in addition to outdated sources that can no longer be accessed. I suggest that you delete this information immediately. Otherwise, it will certainly seem that you are being discriminatory.

The page has many additional articles to which you should refer; additionally, if you are serious about the attacks that you have made, then you should conduct research and develop a report to explain how you are correct.

Your comments are false and are trying to have a page removed from Wikipedia, which has been in place for over a year, since you seem to believe that you have the power to do so without actually considering all information and evidence. Do you have a personal vendetta against the individual in question? If not, please provide evidence.

Further, if you continue to falsely develop arguments to have a page removed, then please once again be aware that this will be considered as discriminatory tactics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Europa6 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 30 May 2014‎


 * Reply to article creator I would like other editors to check whether the "newspaper" cited for most of the article content is doing anything other than accepting press releases as is for "reporting" on what is surely not a story accessible to staff reporters of that newspaper. Search the newspaper online archives (as I did just before this nomination) for the sources mentioned in the Wikipedia article, and note that the bylines of those source articles strongly suggest submission through a press release forwarding service, without the independent reporting required by WP:BIO. There is a BLP issue here (besides the very obvious WP:COI issue made plain by the article creator's response), and we always have to be especially careful about sourcing any BLP on Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: not only are there notability problems, there are child protection issues, as well as the fact that this article is pretty blatantly promotional. Wikipedia is not a place to put your CV. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Responding to Carrite, I think BLP1E, taken with the child protection issue is still enough to support deletion. If there are enough sources to meet the "multiple" prong of GNG, I would argue that this particular subject is as clear a case as I've ever seen for letting things develop more. Honestly, I really question the claim to notability anyway given we're talking about a graduate from a for-profit institution (that's my own intuition, rather than a particular source-based argument). —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: per and nom.  I am tempted to hat the WP:TLDR comment from  as disruptive.  It contains much personal attack and not much in the way of valid argument. John from Idegon (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I had almost collapsed it myself. I'm just gonna do that. It's not helpful. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete There are a couple of reliable sources that go into depth, but there also appear to be inconsistencies. She may well be heading for notability, but it is not quite there yet and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL.  Userfying is an option here since it is also not unreasonable to think that she will become notable. On the other hand, the article was created by a WP:SPA account, which indicates it should not be userfied. I am One of Many (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - I came here pissed at the content writer after seeing the report of their apparent legal threat at AN/I. I've calmed down now. This passes GNG based on sources showing in the footnotes. I think that one might argue for deletion based on BLP-1E (being a prodigy and graduating young). I'm not leaning that way though. Please look at the sourcing with clear eyes, don't opine delete just because of an epically bad AFD defense by the content writer. Carrite (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note the sourcing I nominated this article for deletion, after reviewing WP:BIO, because I noticed that the great majority of the sources in the article accept user-submitted content without any editorial activity. Wikipedia articles about living persons and statements about living persons in article text anywhere on Wikipedia are supposed to be based on  reliable sources, that is sources to which editorial judgment has been applied. There is no indication that we have such sources here, and considerable indication ("articles" from obscure publications in other countries, not the country where the subject of the article lives) that what is really going on is family-submitted press releases turning into "sources" for a family-edited article. That isn't kosher by WP:SPA, WP:COI, WP:BLP, or WP:BIO. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Carrite, I was going to vote to keep initially, but this case is very strange to say the least. Her degrees come from American Public University System, which is an online university.  I'll say no more about that, but it does raise issues.  The Huffington Post article in 2013 states she was accepted into a masters degree program at Harvard, but later retracted it.  I think deletion is the best way to go rather than getting possibly hoaxed on this one. I am One of Many (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - this looks like WP:BLP1E off the back of a relatively obscure event ("youngest person to have graduated with a bachelor's degree in intelligence analysis"; every university subject in the world has such a person). Pacific Standard giving her a one-page profile in a "top thirty thinkers under thirty" article adds some weight, but it shades into being more of a WP:PRIMARYNEWS interview. --McGeddon (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Tilting that to delete, from the context given since, regarding significant omissions over the university being online and "Harvard" being the Extension School. The heavy reliance of sources on quotes from her and her father make them WP:PRIMARYNEWS, and we're left with minor press coverage of a WP:BLP1E. Perhaps she'll merit an encyclopedia article later, but not yet. --McGeddon (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see the other articles that have been listed below:
 * Local 8 News: http://www.local8now.com/home/headlines/15-year-old-Harrogate-teen-earns-Masters-degree-and-a-world-record-title-259888591.html
 * Pacific Standard: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/politics-and-law/30-top-thinkers-30-aspiring-defense-secretary-wants-change-intelligence-community-76792/
 * Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/12/eugenie-de-silva_n_3744704.html
 * International Business Times: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/12/eugenie-de-silva_n_3744704.html
 * The Guardian - Sri Lanka: http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2014/04/sri-lankan-gets-double-masters-at-15_25.html
 * Te Interesa: http://www.teinteresa.es/increible/Eugenie-de-Silva-Harvard-Estados-Unidos_0_935308388.html
 * Sunday Times - Sri Lanka: http://www.sundaytimes.lk/130811/plus/harvard-here-comes-a-teen-prodigy-56871.html
 * United Press International: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/06/05/Prodigy-Eugenie-de-Silva-14-off-to-Harvard-for-a-masters-degree/UPI-10371370453673/
 * American Military University Frontline: http://www.amu.apus.edu/newsletter/archive/2013/08-2013-on-the-frontline.pdf
 * American Military University Frontline 2: http://www.amu.apus.edu/newsletter/archive/2012/08-2012-on-the-frontline.pdf
 * The girl is a student at Harvard University which was not retracted if one looks at the entire page. It seems that no one is actually reading this from an unbiased perspective. Please refer to the above-mentioned articles. AMU is an online university which was awarded the US News World Report Award for the best online Bachelor's degree program in 2014, so one's opinion of an online university should not weigh in the analysis of the evidence. This individual has also begun a Ph.D. at University of Leicester. These are facts that can be verified easily by those who may struggle to check the validity of provided references. All one has to do is make a simple call to the Presidents of the universities. If this a hoax, then major newspapers have fallen victim, is this not correct? If necessary, I can contact the individual and ask the individual to produce clear records. While we are discussing that, I will open a discussion for other prodigies to see how similar fact checking is applied. We must be unbiased in all situations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Europa6 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 30 May 2014‎


 * Comment As a simple Google search reveals, the subject of the article is in Harvard Extension School, which is open to the public with no application required. I agree with WeijiBaikeBianji's points above. I think we need to be careful about this one. I am One of Many (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete The author's first user name was "Virginiaresearchinstitute", an org founded by the subject's father, which is enough for a clear WP:COI, and based on edit history WP:SPA. The author has also attempted to make direct contact with another prodigy in order to discredit their inclusion on the List of child prodigies showing WP:OR (see edit on my user, not talk, page). When reviewing a couple of the WP:RS present I do not see supported claims, just loosely puffed and omitted word statements.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  19:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for mentioning the previous editor activities Yes, the activity of the same editor under the previous user name is what first put this issue on my radar screen. It is a legitimate point that the whole List of child prodigies article is basically a magnet for self-promotion or family promotion, and there may indeed be much other content there that should be deleted on sight, but two wrongs don't make a right, and current inclusion of dodgy content on that page does not justify including more dodgy content on that page, much less in a separate stand-alone article on Wikipedia. All editors who have a sense of how to verify sources about child prodigies are invited to give List of child prodigies a thorough looking over in the interest of cleaning up that article and meeting Wikipedia policy on reliable, encyclopedic content, especially for BLP statements. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Neither the title of her supposedly already published book, or her upcoming book produce a direct hit on google; just references to her talking about them. If they are for real, what are the ISBN #s? John from Idegon (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

>My first question is, did this individual achieve a bachelor's and a master's at the ages mentioned in the article? If you contact the American Military University, it could be clearly confirmed. Has any of you called them? The second question is, is the individual currently studying at Harvard? Then this also could be confirmed easily. Have you actually called Harvard? Also, if you think Harvard extension school has no application required to enroll as a Master's student, then definitely you have not attended Harvard. Then, if you have an issue with the books published, you can buy them and read or search on the web the same way you attempted to search Harvard university extension school. In my opinion, this decision to delete is an action culminated as a result of some of you trying to promote your own agenda > — Frizvanov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 
 * Keep I am joining this discussion now, since I was asked to comment on this page. All of you who have commented on this page for deletion either have not done proper fact checks or are blindly reporting the substance you want to use to support your arguments. My first question is, did this individual achieve a bachelor's and a master's at the ages mentioned in the article? If you contact the American Military University, it could be clearly confirmed. Has any of you called them? The second question is, is the individual currently studying at Harvard? Then this also could be confirmed easily. Have you actually called Harvard? Also, if you think Harvard extension school has no application required to enroll as a Master's student, then definitely you have not attended Harvard. Then, if you have an issue with the books published, you can buy them and read or search on the web the same way you attempted to search Harvard university extension school. In my opinion, this decision to delete is an action culminated as a result of some of you trying to promote your own agenda. I see no other promotional work in the article other than the mentioning of an upcoming book. This could be easily removed. So, my question to all of you is, how come none of you have answered the questions raised and issues stated by the contributor of the article, but continue to discuss other things? I would like to know the answers to questions I have raised. — Factcheck1111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Factcheck1111 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.  The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:20, 30 May 2014‎ (UTC).
 * Keep I completely agree with the following statements, made in the above post:
 * And how praytell did these two brand new editors find their way here to make their very first edits? I smell stinky socks or rotten meat. John from Idegon (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I expect they will keep coming, which isn't unusual at AfDs, but the closing Admin will discount them. I am One of Many (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E.  Mini  apolis  22:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

 This discussion was previously closed as "delete" by an administrator. As a result of discussion at Deletion review/Log/2014 June 2, this discussion is relisted.  Sandstein  20:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Where are the BLP reliable sources for an article about a minor? Returning to the discussion after reading through the relisting discussion, my question for editors here is where we can go to find independent, reliable sources about the article subject for a biographical article about a person who has not yet reached the age of majority? I think an editor in the previous discussion here who looked at the sources then suggested has the best rationale for deletion. The article is basically about a subject notable for one event, with the event itself not being very notable (nor being readily verifiable), so having an article about this young person on Wikipedia can wait until the article subject's adulthood when more notability criteria have been met. I ask other editors to be sure to check how many "sources" for this article essentially rely on press releases from immediate relatives of the article subject, without independent editorial judgment. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The AfD was relisted because it was closed early, not because of any merits of the article. The original author has asked to have their account deleted and blanked their talk page. Unless more sock/meat/ducks appear and convince the closer otherwise this article should end up with the same result as before the relisting.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  00:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete BLP1E. Guy (Help!) 06:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete BLP1E at best, and even the '1E' is not especially notable. We have high standards for BLP articles, and higher still for BLP articles of minor children, for very very good reasons. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a case of one event, and mainly a case of recentism. She is largely able to be the "youngest graduate in x" because the specific x is a fairly recent innovation. She may well do something that will make her notable, but she hasn't yet. Her unnamed children's books clearly don't make her notable. At least not per the coverage we have in the article. Maybe they are best sellers, but I see no evidence of such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, if she is a degree student at the Harvard Extension School, that would seem to mean she passed some level of admission requirements, but not the same as for other sub-divisions of harvard. However, it remain unclear is she is a degree or non-degree student. That said, being a student at Harvard does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Multiple sources in-depth meet the GNG. Article could be trimmed a bit. I don't see it as a one-time event but rather an impressive accomplishment, earning college degree and working on masters degrees at such a young age. I don't think the issue of the subject being a minor should limit us, given the coverage on TV stations and in newspapers.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete (striking previous). I'm going to flip on this, I think I've sold myself that while there is sufficient published material for a sourced biography, this is currently a BLP-1E situation. I wish the subject the best of luck in life and look forward to reading her bio after her career takes off in whichever field she aspires... Carrite (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2014 (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.