Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia Brown (child prodigy) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. As noted by a large part of the users here, all the given references (news articles) are basically reworks of Mensa dispatches regarding the subject; in addition, the subject is an evident example of what is described in WP:BLP1E and is therefore non-notable yet. --Angelo 01:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Georgia Brown (child prodigy)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Recreation of a previously deleted page on a 3 year old child prodigy. Subject has not distinguished herself in any field and her only claim to fame is a high score on an IQ test, and even this is not unusual: American Mensa, for instance, has 1300 child members (there aren't only 30 worldwide in Mensa, as claimed in the article). Mensa does not usually use any members as "poster children" for the organization and does not actively publicize "youngest members ever," so these arguments (presented in the original AfD) are also invalid as a claim for inclusion.

Additional comments: While the article provides citations, the references noted rehash the same press release from Mensa-UK, and do not provide any unique information on the subject--most repeat the same interviews word for word. Googling does not provide any further evidence of notability. Miss Brown has not even received significant attention within Mensa, outside of her own national group, and has not been included in the Mensa International Journal. DanielEng 16:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Merely being smart is WP:NN.--Evb-wiki 17:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep — read WP:NN before you cite it, will you guys/gals? The child has received sufficient independent media coverage to satisfy both WP:NN and WP:V. -- Agüeybaná  17:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact that the subject was in the news does not mean she is notable, as per WP:NOT: Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events, while keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news. What "historical notability" does this child have right now? She is already noted on the Mensa International page as being the second youngest member, which is fine, but she hasn't done anything in her own right to warrant an article. DanielEng 17:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 *  Well, I happen to think anyone at Mensa under the age of 4 is notable enough to have an article here.  They should really ban deletionists here... -- Agüeybaná  17:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, WP:IAR? encourages WP:CIV rather than circumvents it. --Evb-wiki 17:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How was my comment uncivil? -- Agüeybaná  17:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The assumption that an editor is a deletionist. And the proposal to ban deletionists. IMO. --Evb-wiki 17:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're the one forgetting to AGF here. 1.) I don't really think calling someone a deletionist is an insult 2.) I did not allude to any specific editor 3.) Deletionism hurts Wikipedia 4.) I was joking (yes, I know; my sense of humor is atrocious) :-) -- Agüeybaná  17:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Joining Mensa isn't an accomplishment, though (and I say this as a member of Mensa myself). It means you scored high enough on an IQ test to meet the cutoff and you can afford the yearly membership fee. There are literally hundreds of thousands of kids, if not millions in the world, under the age of 4 who would meet that criteria, and it is not anything notable in itself. I'd add that no other Mensa groups besides Mensa-UK do anything at all to publicize their younger members, and that this particular child was not even considered notable enough to make it into the Mensa International journal or receive attention from any other Mensa group. DanielEng 18:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is very well written and referenced. You may also notice that there are two other language versions of the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The "references" all just news items which repeat the same content from an interview with a psychologist and the Mensa press release over and over again. The writing of the article is not in debate here. DanielEng 20:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment What does that mean? Then why are you trying to delete it? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe Daniel is stating that the quality of the writing is not in question, the historical notability of the subject and the application of WP:NOT is in question. --Evb-wiki 03:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thank you Evb-wiki: that is exactly what I meant. Someone put a lot of time into that article and I agree that it's well-written, but that does not mean the subject is appropriate or notable enough to be included in Wiki. It's not about the quality of the work, but about whether it belongs on this particular website. DanielEng 04:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Adequate notability and references. Colonel Warden 20:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete From child prodigy: A child prodigy is an individual who masters one or more skills or arts at an early age. One generally accepted heuristic for identifying prodigies is: a prodigy is someone who, usually around the age of twelve, displays expert proficiency or a profound grasp of the fundamentals in a field usually undertaken only by adults. &mdash;  She doesn't satisfy these criteria so the crux of the article is flawed; as far as I can tell, her claims to fame are along the lines of:  Being able to crawl and walk early (has this got anything to do with intellect?), being able to draw a perfect circle (a sign of insanity), and using the words 'mean' and 'arrogant'.  I was expecting to read a list of all the mathematical theorems she had solved ad nauseam, the most nauseous thing about this girl is her revolting parents. Ca woodcock 23:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Non-notable child, press releases are not reliable sources, possible WP:BLP1E issues Kesh 23:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. Mozart was a child prodigy. Miss Brown is merely a toddler who reportedly got a high score on a test, and who someone has seen fit to enter into an organization for which 2% of the people in the world qualify, which would be a select group of about 120,000,000 people. Not even the youngest Mensa member. Edison 02:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Classic case of WP:NOT and WP:BLP1E. Crazysuit 02:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete My nephew who at the age of 4 could sing all 16 Aussie Rules club songs, could name all players simply by asking him their jersey number, rattle off stats like you wouldn't believe, etc doesn't have a page, so neither should this one. If thats not a good reason, perhaps WP:NOT and WP:BLP1E will work. --Russavia 09:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete-Notability is not temporary, will this little kid be notable in 30 years,probably not, speedy because it is recreation of previously deleted material. TonyBallioni 16:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems notable enough to me. Stifle (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The absolute IQ given is I think correctly stated as the highest 1 in 500, which means there are millions of people with the same or higher. That is not enough for notability. Any notability would depend on the early identification of the value, and that seems like a very marginal basis for inclusion. 21:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's true, the IQ given is high, but it's also a very run-of-the-mill gifted score. A 152 IQ is absolutely nowhere near the profoundly gifted or genius level, and on some IQ charts, is the first category after "above average." DanielEng 22:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, because article is referenced and asserts notability in first paragraph. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that asserting notability is only good for avoiding a speedy deletion. Unless notability can actually be shown through verifiable sources, assertion is of no consequence. -- Kesh 17:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The BBC is not a verifiable source? Damn those sneaky Brits, I'm canceling my subscription. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: See WP:NOT. Just because there was a one-time article on the BBC and other articles repeating the same information in other news outlet, as a curiosity or human interest story, does not mean she warrants a Wiki page. DanielEng 18:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The article makes a rather clear and strong claim of notability, all backed up by ample reliable and verifiable sources. No matter how much people stamp their feet and shout to the heavens, the claim of notability based on achievement and age is undeniable, and the sources are unimpeachable. You don't need a 152 IQ to see that this article clearly satisfies the Notability standard. Alansohn 18:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete clear violation of WP:BLP1E. She is only known for being smart, no other claim of notabilty, one article in the BBC doesn't claim notabilty. Jbeach56 01:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Please read the article as well as the discussion, the article has 7 references. Here in the discussion we are chatting about the BBC. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: And all 7 references simply regurgitate, sometimes word for word, the same information as the BBC article and press release. They aren't unique.DanielEng 02:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * From WP:NN: "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works." --Evb-wiki 02:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I am sorry, per Jbeach56. Bearian 01:16, 16 October 2007 (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.