Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett


 * 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 A cut-n-dry case. As both Lady of Shalott & Dcoetzee succinctly state it, being an alleged child prodigy is not notable in itself & when young Jacob Barnett does something notable, then Wikipedia will have an article about him. -- llywrch (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Jacob Barnett

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not meet notability guidelines in WP:BIO and the only source is a sensationalistic piece of bad journalism. Negi(afk) (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What idiot would remove information without offering something better to put in its place? Just add a criticism that it seems to be supported by only one unverified source, for chrissake.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.57.3.59 (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: This article is poorly sourced, promotional/sensationalistic puffery. --KFP (contact | edits) 21:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also: If it can be rewritten to conform to Wikipedia policies, I'll be happier than if it gets deleted. But the version as of when I'm writing this just doesn't meet Wikipedia's core policies. --KFP (contact | edits) 22:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO. One giddily excited newspaper article does not equal notability: having a high IQ score and being the special kid in class does not equal "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" (WP:ANYBIO). —Tom Morris (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep : (Changed vote, see below)He has more than one newspaper article about him. He has a higher IQ than Einstein, for crying out loud. He hasn't made any astonishing discoveries (yet), but he certainly is notable. How many 12 year-olds tutor post-graduates and graduate from college—in math of all things? &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 21:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The other source being the Daily Mail? Not really a WP:RS. They are pretty appalling at anything medical or scientific, and this definitely falls into the "human interest"/science category, at which they are about as reliable as tea leaves. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Being "smarter than Einstein" by some arbitrary measure is not notable in itself. However, if a properly sourced and neutral article on this subject is written, good. But as the article reads currently, it can't be kept. --KFP (contact | edits) 21:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Multiple newspaper articles doesn't imply notability either.  As far as I can tell, all of these articles are pretty much copied from the original one. See BIO.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral. (modified vote from above): All the editors in favor of deleting this article have made some excellent points (with some notable exceptions). If it survives, great. If not, meh. If/when he does something great—other than being a child prodigy—it will be resurrected. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 22:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep He's been working on his own adaptation of the Theory of Relativity, which authenticity has been confirmed by Dr. Scott Tremaine. Professors at the Institute for Advanced Study have confirmed he's on the right track to debunking the Big Bang theory. Dr. Tremaine has also noted that his work, if successful, would put him in line for a Nobel Prize. This isn't just run of the mill BLP1E stuff. No single thing he's done has launched him into the limelight. He's not an event. His amazing abilities have been published repeatedly in newspapers around the world. The astrophysics world is quite literally being shaken by his theories. Reading through the various news stories, there's professor after professor after professor indicating this kid isn't just rare, but incredibly unusual. You can't describe him as a news story and feel comfortable deleting this article. The article might be poorly referenced, it might need reworking to become a better encyclopedic entry, but there's zero doubt this person requires an article. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm never keen on WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments, but List_of_child_prodigies might provide an interesting guide. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. That's ludicrous.  The astrophysics world is not "being shaken by his theories".  Some professors were asked by the paper to comment on a precocious lad, and they commented favorably.  That's all.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, let's see. Theory of relativity being expanded, and the Big Bang theory being debunked; and professors say he's on the right track. Nah, just some geek kid playing with his Nintendo. Right. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're reading some of your own interpretations into the Daily Mail article. Tremain said "I'm impressed by his interest in physics and the amount that he has learned so far."  And went on to say: "The theory that he's working on involves several of the toughest problems in astrophysics and theoretical physics."  These are the sorts of thing any physicist would say of a young man seriously interested in studying the big bang.  It's not some validation of the kid's approach to the theory, like you seem to think.  Validation of that kind requires publication, communication, and peer review at least.  It is not settled by a few ambiguous choice quotes in a Daily Mail article.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're crawling too far into my cranial cavity. As for the Daily Mail article; I didn't read it. Perhaps you're in the wrong cranial cavity :) --Hammersoft (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the same quote in the Indy Star article. Sorry for the mixup.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The point there being, there isn't just one article being syndicated around the world. Multiple news outlets are writing about him. I read many original articles about him before deciding where I stood on this article. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I wouldn't object to your claim about his new theory being revolutionary, if it could be backed up by peer-reviewed scholarly references. News fluff pieces just aren't reliable sources for this sort of thing.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Peers have reviewed his work and indicate he's on the right track. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Have they? It doesn't seem to me that Barnett has even published anything, let alone there being any commentary of the kind you suggest published in the scholarly literature (e.g., Physics Review Letters). Could you please give a list of peer-reviewed references that are relevant to your extraordinary claims above?  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note -- I just want to back up the above and point out that CLEARLY, Hammersoft has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Peer-review is a semi-technical term, which stands for a very rigorous review of a scientific publication.  But Hammersoft insists on quoting the literal meaning of "being reviewed by peers" in his argument.  Obviously, Barnett HAS NOT EVEN COME CLOSE to getting anything peer-reviewed (let alone published), and to purport that his theory is currently advancing the field of astrophysics is simply gibberish from someone who is uneducated about the process of scientific publication.  He's a smart kid (very very very smart), but let's just leave it at that for now. -bplloyd   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bplloyd (talk • contribs) 21:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Re "Peers have reviewed his work and indicate he's on the right track". It is absolutely impossible to confirm someone is on the right track to debunking a currently accepted theory, because it is impossible to tell if it is even debunkable until *after* it has been debunked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Has anyone tried doing what I just did, and Googled him for more sources? are highly reliable sources, to name a few of the search results on the first page. KirkCliff2 (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Those are both blogs (they aren't even science blogs!)   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Addendum Instead of bureaucratically debating the matter, edit the article to meet the established criteria that would allow it to be notable and good enough to keep. This kid is gaining notability quickly. KirkCliff2 (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The first and second sources are not reliable. The first one is a comment on a youtube video about the subject doing what they purport to be graduate-level mathematics (it isn't, and he also computes one of the integrals incorrectly), and the second one is simply a link to the daily mail article.  Come on, don't just make stuff up, man.  Those don't nearly meet WP quality standards. Negi(afk) (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. It might be that sometime in the future, the subject "[will have] made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field", but it is obvious that the time has not yet come.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable coverage. Sure the kid may be smart but the tabloid articles show every sign that the journalist doesn't know what they are talking about and is trying to push sensationalism.©Geni 23:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Hammersoft and I, being more neutral than Frecklefoot, have provided legitimate resources and proof (he was even on Glenn Beck's show earlier today) of his notability. You simply just are perpetuating blatant Wikilawyering, rather than actually attempting to do some research. The kid is gaining quite a bit of attention. I had posted a link to an article from The Examiner as well, but that publication's apparently blacklisted. Your main argument for lacking notability is the one article referenced. The internet is a pretty vast compendium of resources, which we Wikipedians can utilize freely, if we so desire. I just gave a couple of links I thought you might accept, because they were household names (Forbes and The Huffington Post). Those are certainly reliable sources. Daily Mail itself is quite a reliable source. The very fact that there's so many publications across a broad spectrum talking about him, even if some are simply mirroring another article, is proof of notability. The article as it is now is in need of copy-editing, in addition to needing more sources, which are widely available, but it's clearly worth keeping. KirkCliff2 (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Being on Glenn Beck's show does not in any way imply any sort of scientific merit. I mean, come on, all of the things you have listed are low quality tabloid sources or blogs.  It's clear to anyone who watches the youtube videos that this kid is not legitimately at a postgraduate level.  I am more qualified than the reporter to judge his abilities, and whether or not you think that this is original research, I can tell you for sure that the kid is not even at the level of a second semester honors math major at, say, Harvard, Stanford, MIT, University of Chicago, or University of Michigan, to list a few programs with which I have some experience.Negi(afk) (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Further comment: I also don't appreciate the immediate conclusion that anyone here is wikilawyering. I get the impression that KirkCliff2 is a Glenn Beck fan (read: idiot) pushing an agenda.  The suggestion that we take Beck seriously as a reliable source is completely beyond reasonable.  Is the editor above suggesting that we cite Beck's rants about the secret jewish conspiracy run by George Soros?  Beck's show is a reliable source for only one thing: The retarded fucking shit that Glenn Beck says.Negi(afk) (talk) 08:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Being the subject of a single flash-in-the-pan fluff story that was picked up by many different news outlets because of its popularity does not make the subject notable.  The subject has received no scientific awards and honors, his research has not even been published yet, let alone evaluated by scholarly sources.  It's hard to see how the subject is notable.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd like to point out that as a Senior Editor III, I pride myself on my neutrality. That being said, I'm probably not entirely neutral on this issue since I authored the last good version of the article, so I'll refrain from interjecting on the rest of the debate. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 12:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: According to the article, there is some effort to get Mr. Barnett a research position. That makes me think we should evaluate him as an academic. Our usual policy, per WP:PROF, is that people who are engaged in research aren't notable until they actually achieve "more than the average professor". The history of child prodigies is that not all of them actually turn into successful professionals. My opinion is that it is too soon to tell whether his work has had a "significant impact" on any field, which is the standard we would aspire to for a young researcher. Given that, I think that it is too soon for us to have an article on this person, and I think the article should be deleted until Mr. Barnett has established himself as a researcher. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, googling does turn up quite reliable sources: Daily Mail, Huffington Post, The Faster Times, Time. But yeah, the popularity seems to be more because it's a human interest story. He doesn't have any actual accomplishments yet. When he does, I think only then should he have an article.-- Obsidi ♠ n Soul  09:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Huffington Post is not WP:Reliable, nor is the Daily Mail, as we've been saying.  Both of them are prohibited under the tabloid rule.  I suspect that since the other two are tertiary sources rather than secondary sources, we cannot include them either.Negi(afk) (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Time certainly isn't. Verifiability isn't the issue here, it's notability, so whether or not some of his references (they all say the same thing) are tabloidish (to which I would agree with heartily for Daily Mail, lol) does not matter. It's whether he really is worthy of notice or not. As I've said, the articles about him are human interest, of the 'awww lookit that!'/WP:BLP1E variety. So I guess I agree with the article being tabloidish, regardless of who published them. At the moment, I say no, he is notable.-- Obsidi ♠ n Soul  12:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, all of these are just basically carbon-copies of the original "scoop" that was broken by the Indy Star, even the Time article (I don't know why I expected better). Talk about media echo chamber.  Some of the blog posts aren't even coherent (the Huffington Post blog mentions a Youtube video theory of the Big Bang, but links to a discussion of integration by parts instead).  What's wrong with these people?  It also seems to be that the claims of the kid's genius get increasingly inflated, all based on the same thin second-hand evidence (an encouraging personal email correspondence with a physicist at IAS).  Please, try to look at these articles with a more critical eye.  It is transparent sensationalism, totally unencyclopedic rubbish.  Let's try to find some sources that don't just "look" reliable (i.e., Time) but that actually are reliable (i.e., Science, Nature, etc.)   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, did you actually read my response? The energy you guys put into all this. I basically just said what you said in my first comment. And hey look, my vote is actually for deletion! Or would you rather not rest until I change it to strong delete and vow never to let that kid even be mentioned in Wikipedia again, forever and ever?-- Obsidi ♠ n Soul  17:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Actually, is there any way for me to nominate all of those sources as WP:Unreliable in general? Negi(afk) (talk) 11:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only coverage of this boy is by excited tabloid newspapers; more likely to be a slow news day than anything. If need be, make a note of him in a relevant parent article. 狐 FOX   12:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, there are scores of "young geniuses" around the world. Until this person actually does something notable, I don't think he warrants a biographical article. wctaiwan (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are MANY Wikipedia articles about people much less notable than this boy. He is one to watch.  This article will be added to years to come. 98.237.105.67 (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:CRYSTALBALL.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, this article was only created in response to the subject's appearance on "The Glenn Beck Program", hardly a noteworthy event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.56.58 (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. No, it wasn't. It was created in response to the online article in The Indianapolis Star. I think Beck had him on his show in response to that article as well. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 14:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Too soon, let the story develop.  If it does, revisit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimintheatl (talk • contribs)
 * Delete I'm not at all comfortable with 'alleged' and 'purported'. I agree with other comments that suggest waiting.  Wikipelli  Talk   15:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or Userfy. All three of the "sources" presently in the article are quoting the first, the Indianapolis Star article, which, in turn, doesn't really support the notability arguments presented here.  What Tremaine is quoted as saying seems to be Tremaine is impressed by Jacob's interest, and that the problems are interesting and signficant.  Tremaine is not quoted as saying that Jacob has or hasn't made serious errors in analysis.  Now, if the Jacob had published articles (even with a professor as co-author), as one of the high school students (grade 10) who I judged at the Orange County Science & Engineering Faire in the last decade, that would seem worthy of note.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I also noted Tremaine isn't quoted as saying that Jacob has made progress. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Badly-sourced sensationalist hype. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete marginally notable BLP, being the subject of a short burst of human interest stories during a single news cycle does not make one notable enough for a Wikipedia article. -- Jayron  32  18:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Real-life Doogie Howser stories are a dime a dozen, a simple "only in the news for one event" that will expire when the next cute human interest story come along. Tarc (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Here is a piece in Time magazine. Prodigies may be "a dime a dozen"--well, sorta--but so also are any other category of folks that are nonethleless notable, for encyclopedic purposes. IMO, what matters is if there are Reliable Sources to document such notability and to draw from to provide them at least a stub's worth of coverage.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As already noted above, the Time article is not intellectually independent of the original Indy Star article. Sławomir Biały  (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep- Or I will stop using wikipedia out of protest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.88.121 (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)  — 152.23.88.121 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That's seems like a pretty empty threat. Nobody cares if you stop using wikipedia out of protest.Negi(afk) (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - per NOTTHENEWS, ONEEVENT, or whatever. This sort of heart warming human-interesty stuff happens all the time, and gets a short burst of coverage before it's forgotten. Nothing personal against the kid though. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with CBM that he is probably best evaluated as an academic, i.e. WP:PROF. It doesn't appear that he has yet published anything, and the sources that have been presented present far more hype than substance. If he ends up publishing something that notably challenges the Big Bang theory, that would certainly be notable. Being profiled with puff pieces and going on the Glenn Beck show don't cut it. (I certainly don't think talk show appearances convey notability. I shudder to think of what would happen if we applied that standard to the Jerry Springer Show.) Kansan (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Woman with peculiar sexual interest in dairy products?--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * nah, she'd probably fail Notability (Septuagenarian female plumbers with red hair and freckles). -- Jayron  32  20:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - A putative "dozens" of such prodigies is interesting original research but must butt up against what is established from reliable sources: Show me an instance where a cosmologist such as Scott Tremaine has said something similar that what Tremaine said about Jacob about the theoretical thinking of some other 12-year-old wiz.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Per his local newspaper: "'Indeed, it would not be in Jacob’s best interest to force him to complete academic work that he has already mastered,'" clinical neurophysiologist Carl S. Hale of Merrillville wrote in a report. 'He needs work at an instructional level, which currently is a post college graduate level in mathematics, i.e., a post master’s degree,' Hale said. 'In essence, his math skills are at the level found in someone who is working on a doctorate in math, physics, astronomy and astrophysics.'"--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Temporarily ignoring the fact that Barnett is a child prodigy, say he was a graduate student who was doing exciting work on his still-unpublished thesis. That person wouldn't meet WP:PROF as a graduate student who had won no professional awards, published no professional papers, etc. WP:PROF is not about potential, it's about the established CV of a researcher. On the other hand, Arthur Rubin has pointed out above that we have to take Termane's comments with some caution and look at what Tremaine actually said. I think that the news coverage at the moment falls more into WP:BLP1E (the 15 minutes of fame effect) and does not reflect an enduring notability yet. Of course, Barnett may do great work, at which point we could have an article in the future. But at the moment I think it seems to be only potential. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 20:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But Jacob is not notable for his theorizing on a graduate-student level, he is notable for being 12-year-old and doing so--in the field of theoretical physics and even corresponding with a preeminent scientist in this field.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am arguing that age is not really relevant. I feel WP:PROF is the applicable standard for someone who is meant to be notable for their theorizing, and I don't think that standard can be met purely on the basis of potential. The fact that he is only 12 makes it seem more like this is of a human interest story - where is the coverage in the actual science media, if his theories have had an effect on practicing scientists? The age issue makes me think we should be more cautious in terms of notability, not more accommodating. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete: The articles are unreliable, and the boy has not produced any work substantial enough for WP:PROF141.211.63.146 (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: just noticed that the Time link is actually "Time NewsFeed", which has a subtitle: "What's vital and viral on the web, in real time". I don't think that the article on Barnett is actually in Time magazine as the citation claims. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Certain aspects of this AfD are eerily similar to the AfD for Vinay Deolalikar (the guy at HP that claimed to prove P&ne;NP last year).  They were both viral one-event news that propagated like a soliton through the blogosphere.  Initially, there was a lot of hype in the non-science press that Deolalika had solved this major problem in mathematics, but then it turned out he hadn't and the whole thing died with a whimper.  I feel like we could save ourselves a lot of headache by recommending in a guideline against covering "viral" news stories like this one.  At the very least, such stories are typically much more prone to error than something covered in greater depth by a broader arrangement of good sources.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems eminently reasonable. I'd encourage you to propose it formally outside of this AfD. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  23:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Nearly all the sources discussed appear to be unreliable in one way or another (e.g., tabloid, blog); and the same original story seems to be being re-vectored to other news outlets for reprint, sometimes with minor edits.  The young man may very well amount to something Wikipedia-notable, but for now, this is just a blip of news.  The point that he does not meet the Wikipedia notability bar takes nothing away from the fact that he's a remarkable young man, but that's not the issue.  If he becomes notable (by doing something, not just being extremely bright), let's have an article at that point.  There is no hurry. TJRC (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Too soon. We can recreate this article if and when he actually becomes notable in the scientific community. A few articles of the "gee whiz, look at this smart kid" variety do not lasting notability make. Lady  of  Shalott  00:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete sensationalistic and potentially damaging to 1E living subject. See also: William James Sidis and Kim Ung-Yong. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No notable. Being smart isn't enough to be on wikipedia. You have to achieve something (good or bad) and be recognized for it. Don't think that's the case. -- Taku (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't that "You have to be recognized for achieving something (good or bad)."? Whether the achievement actually occurred is a matter for WP:TRUTH.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I follows. But the "reality" does still count, no? The recognition in the public space is only "measurement". If someone is falsely recognized for doing something (say, your name happens to be that of a serial killer), then you're still non-notable. In other words, the assumption on which our notability policy is based is that the recognition must be the reflection of the actual achievement. -- Taku (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Even if the preponderance of we um experts writing Wikipedia from our mobile devices or vintage dial-ups in our Starbucks or basements are correct and Jake is a balloon boy, April Fools hoax factor alone qualifies him for encyclopedic notability. Per USA Today: "CBS' "60 Minutes." Fox News' "The Glenn Beck Program." NPR's "All Things Considered." ABC's "20/20." "The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric." Those are just some of the programs that have invited Jake....to share his story."--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E override "omg reliable sourcezzz!" arguments. Tarc (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Tarc, I've a sinking feeling that this episode in gathering topical info is gonna end up score 1 for genius boy, zero for the Asperger's sufferers editing the Wiki-pedia.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling that the brunt of this story is appealing to the Beck/Palin anti-science agenda than anything else, but I'm just a heartless cynic at the core. Tarc (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Beck and Palin are Know-Nothing (or at least not much) partisans, it's agreed. Although what that cogent observation has to do with the matter at hand escapes me. As for credentialed-ly smart ppl, I'll admit that Jake's instructor's commentary, that of the eminent physicist Tremaine, or the episode being shot by the producer's of 60 Minutes, et al, seems a bit more convincing to me, personally, than the opinions of anonymous Wiki ppl that Jake's vid proves the kid dunnt no wat hez talkin bout. Still, either way, RSes establish he's considered, whether legitimately or not, a phenom, a celebrated boy genius, the latest smart kid meme, whateverwewannacallit.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: It's a nine-day-wonder. Is there an article about every pre-teen who learns calculus?  Is there an article about every person who's been the subject of a human-interest story and then briefly made the rounds of the talk shows?  Is there an article about every person who claims to have problems with Einstein and with the Big Bang?  Is there an article about everyone who's made a popular YouTube video?  His notability consists only of a couple of journalists and talk-show hosts ASSERTING his notability.  Anyone can win the media lottery for a few days -- it doesn't make them notable any more than winning the real lottery would.   Until he has actually DONE something notable (or until there's an article about all the types I've described in my questions above):  Delete, delete, delete.63.17.37.103 (talk) 03:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a discussion of his incoherent "not enough carbon" argument here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#amount_of_carbon_created_in_the_early_universe 63.17.37.103 (talk) 03:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Hilarious. I didn't know that his "argument" was actually "explained" anywhere (quotation marks for added derision).  That is friggin hilarious. Not only is this kid not a genius, it appears he's also a fool.  Don't say I didn't tell you so! Negi(afk) (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder if all the opinions you had when you were 12 would look good in print now. I too am skeptical about his notability for WP purposes at the current time, but there is no call to be unkind about it &mdash; remember that the subject may well be reading these comments. --Trovatore (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - The "too much iron" theory that got remarked on by the Princeton world-class physicist is a facinating story. Then, there is the statement about the kid being smarter than Einstein: But, what does that mean? In a way, Einstein "isn't a person but a SYMBOL"; and It is simply impossible to be smarter than EINSTEIN-THE-SYMBOL--even the real Einstein wasn't as smart as that! However, commenters here are so flummoxed by this kid's hubris (if such a thing is possible for a 12-year old physics student) that these commenters end up making a comparing-apples-to-oranges mistake: When reporters say Jacob is "smarter" than Einstein was, this assertion has nothing to do with Einstein's theoretical achievements and everything to do Einstein's natural abilities in math. A famous Einstein quote is, "Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater."  Einstein started studying math AT TEN YEARS OLD.... Plus, Einstein never aced all his math exams during his academic career; instead, he was good at math but not spectacular at it. (I'm sure most of you science-and-math people out there are aware of this, though.) But, in any case: Jacob happens to register a higher IQ than what it is estimated Einstein's would be, due to this fact. And that's all the IQ comparison entails. What does a higher IQ mean? After all, a, quote unquote, high IQ or even a, quote unquote, photographic memory doesn't necessarily translate to higher attainments, at the end of the day. Which would be a fine argument to make. But it is a fallacy to claim that reporters said that Jacob is smarter than Einstein because of Jacob's "too much iron in the universe" theory, which the reporters simply never said.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 05:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Point of Order: Hodgson-Burnett, you have misunderstood most of the arguments here, which deal with the fact that the subject simply does not have a post-graduate level understanding of mathematics. Please stop lecturing us on your uninformed viewpoint.  If you have some new piece of evidence to add, by all means, please add it.  If you are just going to repeat the same tired straw-man argument that the other commenters are judging intelligence by achievement rather than by intrinsic aptitude (nobody has suggested that!), I respectfully request you to please cease and desist posting in this thread.  Your arguments are falling on deaf ears precisely because they are fallacious. Negi(afk) (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Negi(afk), you are arguing about "the Truth." Wikipedia is built upon reliable sources. Eg"'At eight, Jacob enrolled at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) and was taking advanced astrophysics classes. According to one of his professors there, he‘s the most brilliant student he’s seen. “'Is he a genius? Well, yeah,' IUPUI physics Professor John Ross told the paper. 'Kids his age would normally have problems adding fractions, and he is helping out some of his fellow students.' 'He could soon be helping out the university, too. 'We have told him that after this semester . . . enough of the book work. You are here to do some science,' Ross, who’s committed to helping Jacob find some grant funding, said.  If we can get all of those creative juices in a certain direction, we might be able to see some really amazing stuff down the road.'”"You counter such assertions by your own and other editors' assertions that Jakob's understanding of math are "not so much." But, your and these others' assertions are original research, at this point.  And by the way, your comment just above mine said, "Not only is this kid not a genius, it appears he's also a fool." So, if I counter that argument of yours, and others like it, by emphasizing reports that the kid is indeed a genius,'' I'm putting up strawmen? Isn't it you that is putting up a strawman in this instance?!  --Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * IUPUI doesn't seem to offer courses on astrophysics at all, so there's gotta be something wrong with the assertion that he's taking advanced astrophysics courses there. (I've already questioned the reliability of this news story in other ways: it's clearly time to reconsider whether this is a reliable source, or just sensationalist hot air.) Also it doesn't seem to me that John Ross's assessment goes very far towards establishing notability: he bases this on the fact that Jake is helping kids much older than he with their homework.  That's pretty clearly not anywhere close to a sufficient condition for an encyclopedia article.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hodgson-Burnett weirdly refers to "Jacob's 'too much iron in the universe' theory, which the reporters simply never said" -- They didn't say it, and neither did anyone else in this discussion. The kid said "not enough carbon," NOT "too much iron."  Hodgson-Burnett MADE UP "too much iron."  What is he/she talking about?  There is NO reference to "too much iron" ANYWHERE.  As for "not enough carbon," see the reference desk discussion linked above.63.17.37.103 (talk) 06:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops! sorry, IP. Too much carbon existing. Jake:"'The other day I calculated, they have this period where they suppose the hydrogen and helium were created, and I don't care about the hydrogen and helium, but I thought, wouldn't there have to be some sort of carbon? Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth. Made mostly of carbon, we wouldn't be here. So I calculated, the time it would take to create 2 percent of the carbon in the universe, it would actually have to be several micro-seconds. Or a couple of nano-seconds, or something like that. An extremely small period of time. Like faster than a snap. That isn't gonna happen. Because of that, that means that the world would have never been created because none of the carbon would have been given 7 billion years to fuse together. We'd have to be 21 billion years old – and that would just screw everything up.'"--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 07:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He is NOT QUOTED AS SAYING: "Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth. Made mostly of carbon, we wouldn't be here...."  (Implying that "WE" are made mostly of carbon.)  He IS quoted as saying:  "Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth, made mostly of carbon ...."  (Implying that "THE EARTH" is made mostly of carbon.)  H-B is DELIBERATELY misquoting THE ACTUAL SOURCE.  And, no, it's not a "too much carbon existing" argument -- he says nothing about the present day.  The argument is "NOT ENOUGH CARBON" at the time the earth formed, six billion years ago.  H-B's bad faith is clearly demonstrated. 63.17.39.192 (talk) 08:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What transcript do you believe authoritative? Jacob's posted YouTube video is unaccompanied by a transcript thus a commentator must rely on one by a third pary or supply hi/r own.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The transcript IN THE ONLY SOURCE -- the newspaper article (REMEMBER? ... uh, um, it's WIKIPEDIA? ... Not your diary?)  What part of this don't you get?  YOUR transcript is not reliable.  The SOURCE transcript clearly has him saying "EARTH is made mostly of carbon," NOT "human beings."  You cannot replace the transcript with your own.  Yes, your hero (as demonstrated by your edits of two stories related to him) Glenn Beck is at the right hand of God -- but nevertheless, you are not a reliable source, even if you will be Saved by Him (Glenn), along with the Christian fundamentalist young-earthers exploiting this child. 63.17.39.192 (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The newspaper is a third-party--not a journal that coordinated with its author. And yes, I believe that, say, a semi-colon would make more sense in that spot than a comma.
 * Btw, I do not agree with Glenn Beck on just about anything. Both myself and my parents together voted for Carter then Mondale then Perot (sorry; but, actually, my folks that time voted for Clinton) then Clinton again then Dukakis then Gore then Obama--ie not a Repub among em.
 * Furthermore I am not "saved," as they say, my not being Christian--either practicing or believing.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at this "carbon" claim, and it's clearly an ambiguous transcript of the kid's actual spoken words - as such, we can't tell what punctuation is appropriate, and it's impossible to decide with any degree of confidence whether he was in fact claiming that the Earth is made mostly of carbon or whether that claim was describing "us". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: But actually, for our purposes here, it's irrelevant either way - whether he's offering valid claims about the amount of carbon in the universe, or whether he's opining that the Earth is made of lemon jello, all we're looking for here is whether his opinions are notable, not whether they are scientifically credible. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say the answer is no. His opinions have not even been assessed by people qualified to examine them (aside from an ambiguous quotation by Dr. Tremaine which I have already thoroughly discussed).  Notice that science blogs and the science press have been totally silent about this news story.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment. This is a BLP1E, minus the event. While I would like to see more inclusionism in these decisions, I can't bring myself to start that argument here. Wnt (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete; resolutely fails WP:BIO. Nothing unique and the only thing that sets him apart from the thousands of other child prodigies is that he has had some "tabloid" coverage; which is fine, but not really worthy of notability. The story is... "here's a smart kid who some professors have patted on the head and encouraged him". I see no deep coverage of his theory or anything else ot satisfy WP:BIO --Errant (chat!) 11:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, clearly an April 1 prank. We are likely dealing with a real child prodegy, but the hype about his theories appearing just before April 1 is obviously a joke. Note also NGC announcement that Atlantis has been found in Spain on March 30, which was also covered on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should be in the business of producing April 1 pranks itself, instead of falling for April 1 pranks of others :(  . Count Iblis (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article appeared several days before April 1. Appeared in a reputable newspaper. If it is a joke, paper has to print a retraction or explanation. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 22:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. A healthy dose of Hanlon's razor needs to be applied.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply to Comments. This April 1 prank clearly originated from within academia (It is likely that Scott Tremaine is pulling everyone's legs here) and the media fell for it. So, don't expect a retraction from "the media". Look, if e.g. Phys. Rev. D had been duped, they would publish a clarification, but there isn't anything to be found in such peer reviewed journals. Count Iblis (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In any event, the story is lacking on credibility. Whether that's the result of an intentional prank or journalistic incompetence doesn't seem to be that relevant to me.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, utterly non-notable. Tom Morris explains why rather clearly. Can be recreate if this guy is remembered in 6 months. Which I doubt will be the case. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ephemeral human interest story of (most likely) little long term impact. If he later has substantial contributions to the field he can have an article then. Dcoetzee 03:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment- Normally an inclusionist, and lately trying to 'rescue' AfD'd articles, if kept, would likely be under the requirements of WP:BoldNewTheory. Dru of Id (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Delete. A couple of "Doogie Howser Goes to College" human interest stories and an appearance on Glen Beck doesn't really speak to why this person is notable. Worst part: we have a lead which implies some sort of fundamental challenge to the Big bang theory based on a fluff piece in the Indianapolis Star. So bad on so many levels... Carrite (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - No, the theory isn't new to Barnett. Here is the first sentence of an article on ScienceAlert.com from 2009:"'An international team of astronomers has discovered the oldest and most distant carbon in the Universe, but there's not enough of it to support standard theories of how the Universe lit up, a member from Swinburne University of Technology has calculated.'" So, the likely chronology runs:"• Barnett reads up on current problems in astrophysics. • Barnett follows the argument along, performing some calculations agreeing with the findings thus stated. • Barnett's mom turns the camera on him and, during one of Barnett's impromptu mullings, Barnett mentions this tidbit--about there being, quoting from the Swinburne Univ. of Technology researcher, not enough [carbon] to support standard theories of how the Universe lit up. • Barnett's mom or someone else sends Barnett's video to the Institute for Advanced Studies. • Scott Tremaine e-mails back to the effect that, Hey, yeah, the question is the type that whoever solves it would earn a Nobel in physics. (Tremaine wrote, 'Thе theory thаt [Barnett's] working οn involves several οf thе toughest problems іn astrophysics аnԁ theoretical physics.' • The local newspaper, the Indy Star, misconstrues what Tremaine's wrote to mean that Barnett had formulated a ground breaking theory."According to the article on ScienceAlert.com:"'Adding up all the 13-billion-year-old carbon detected, Dr Emma Ryan-Weber and her collaborators came to the conclusion the amount of carbon, and therefore the number of massive stars, was insufficient to lift the fog. 'So light must come from somewhere else, perhaps an unknown population of quasars, or stars that lock-up more of their carbon, or carbon hidden in unobserved states.''"--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Question. Why is this debate still open? It looks like the votes are overwhelmingly to delete. It's unlikely that enough editors will come by to vote to keep it. How long do debates rage on? &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 15:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Answer: Read WP:DEADLINE. Come back if you still have another question.  -- Jayron  32  15:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Or, if you prefer an actual answer...AfDs usually run for 7 days, and we appear to be at the 6d 23h mark. Tarc (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2011 (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.