Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (4th 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. A bit of explanation is needed here. There are 21 "delete"s against 7-8 "keep"s (some of which are procedural), which leans towards deletion but is not the only factor. The notability arguments appear to be kind of deadlocked, as most of the sources have been contested due to their low quality. That said, there are apparently concerns that the article as-is is a BLP violation and that removing the BLP issues would create notability issues or NPOV issues if you have an article which consists mainly of puffery, as some here have complained. Lack of notability and violations of NPOV/BLP are all issues that may justify deletion and there does not seem to be any killer counterargument, so delete it is. And salt per recommendations. If someone wants to try their hand at writing a BLP and N and NPOV compliant article, they can try a draft writeup Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Barnett
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Egregious puffery and BLP violations that appear to be unrepairable after discussion on the talk page. A collection of lies about a 12 year old in the media does not make a person notable, and there is no other claim to notability. This has been deleted once, and (barely) survived two other AfDs. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete for all the same reasons I voted delete in the three previous AfDs: although there is plenty of media coverage, it consists entirely of puffery, and much of it is verifiably false. If we have an article, the only thing we can say about the subject with any intellectual honesty is that he is known for the false claims that he would soon overthrow Einstein, in promotion of his mother's book. That is just an embarrassment to the subject, that is going to stand as an obstacle to the legitimate scholarly career he appears to be aiming towards (but has no notability for yet). He is very far from WP:PROF, so it is not possible to recenter the article to ignore the media circus and only discuss his academic activities; an article alone those lines would invite an immediate A7 deletion, because he has no claim of significance as a researcher yet. Better to have no article at all. That all said, I expect this article to be kept, just as it has in two of the three previous deletion discussions, by the legions of editors who see the many high-profile sources about the subject but do not put any critical thinking towards the quality of those sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep

Sources (ordered chronologically):



Interviews:


 * He was interviewed on the Glenn Beck Program on Fox News on March 30, 2011. See http://video.foxnews.com/v/4616857/beck-12-year-old-child-prodigy-aims-high/.
 * He was profiled in 60 Minutes, which is broadcast on the CBS television network on January 17, 2012. See http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jake-math-prodigy-proud-of-his-autism/
 * He was interviewed by the BBC on May 10, 2013. See http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22477958.
 * He was interviewed on Katie by Katie Couric on May 30, 2013. See http://katiecouric.com/2013/05/30/living-with-autism/.
 * He was interviewed by CTV News on October 1, 2013. See http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/15-year-old-jacob-barnett-one-of-the-world-s-most-promising-physicists-1.1479602.

Analysis of sources:


 * The sources span from March 2011 to May 2017.
 * 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.
 * The sources are international.
 * The Independent, The Times, and The Spectator are from Britain.
 * CBC News, CTV News, Maclean's, and the Waterloo Region Record are from Canada.
 * es:El Definido is from Chile.
 * Agenzia Nazionale Stampa Associata, IO Donna, and The Huffington Post (Italy) are from Italy.
 * RTL Television is from Germany.
 * ABC News, The Indianapolis Star, Pacific Standard, and Time magazine are from the United States.
 * vi:Zing is from Vietnam.

Guideline and policy analysis:

WP:PROF, which redirects to Notability (academics), is cited in the nomination statement and by one of the delete votes. Notability (academics) 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." WP:BIO redirects to Notability (people). Notability (people) states that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The sources cited above are sufficient for Jacob Barnett to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Therefore, the subject is notable and this article should be kept. Cunard (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC) 


 * Book source that demonstrates WP:NOTNEWS does not apply.  From the index: "Barnett, Jacob, 99–111, 169, 171, 203 ⇨ Asperger's disorder diagnosis of, 102 ⇨ autism of, 30, 102, 110–11  ⇨ birth of, 99  ⇨ in college, 212–13  ⇨ media attention to, 113-14  ⇨ synesthesia of, 111, 112  ⇨ TEDxTeen talk of, 213  ⇨ training the talent, 181, 192  ⇨ turnaround of, 30" The book notes: "Jacob Barnett 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. Cunard (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Pinging Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (2nd nomination) participants and closer:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and . Pinging Deletion review/Log/2014 July 4 participants and closer: , , , , , , , , , , , , , and . Cunard (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (3rd nomination) participants and closer:, , , , , , , , , , , , and . Cunard (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * the reason for deleting the article is that it violates virtually every point on WP:BLP, including WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:COATRACK. The article is a tabloid, and there seems to be a consensus that without the tabloid elements, there's no claim for notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the collapsing and removal of my comments. Talk page guidelines says: "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It may irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." You did not receive my permission to collapse or delete my comments. The guideline further states: "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. If you make anything more than minor changes it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note such as '[possible libel removed by ~]'." As I have objected to your collapsing and removal of my comments, please do not do that again. Regarding your canvassing allegation, there is no canvassing. From Canvassing: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:  ...  Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" The editors I have informed have participated in previous discussions on this topic. Cunard (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've reverted another editor's editing of my comment to strike out their username. Please stop editing my comments. Cunard (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously in error, I assumed simply striking my nick would express in a tolerable way my objection to being unsolicitedly spammed, so I beg pardon, and, on your specific request, I certainly will grant full respect to your contributions on talk pages in the future. Would you in return, please, avoid pinging me in, even when filtered, mass lists? I will, of course at my discretion, consider any of your personal memoranda. Thanks. Purgy (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. Would you in return, please, avoid pinging me in, even when filtered, mass lists? – yes. Cunard (talk) 07:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding your WP:BLPGOSSIP comment, I do not like article's present state. I prefer the state of the article when the third AfD had been closed as "keep". That version is neutral and short and contains no original research, WP:BLPGOSSIP, or coatracking. Cunard (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As I predicted, the credulous source-counters are here. Why do you prefer a version of the article that doesn't point out the falsity of so many claims in the sources you spammed us with above? Do you really want Wikipedia to be merely a mirror of vacuous celebrity "journalism", rather than making any attempt at covering its subjects truthfully? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Cunard - OK. This AfD is going to take up way too much space on the daily log regardless, I now agree there's no harm in your comment as-is. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep pretty much per my comments in the 2014 DRV. The delete arguments center on the idea that the subject doesn't deserve to be notable, or hasn't legitimately earned notability. However true (or false) that may be, it has nothing to do with our notability criteria, and would also, much more strongly, justify virtually all of our articles about reality TV "personalities" and YouTube "celebrities", not to mention porn performers. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a false characterization of my delete argument. It has nothing to do with whether he actually is famous, nor about whether his fame is somehow legitimate, but rather that the only thing he is famous for (making false claims of scientific achievement) is something that would be harmful to the subject to publicize, and that if the article is kept then our only choice is to debunk those claims. TV personalities, YouTube celebrities, and porn performers are respectively famous for appearing on TV, on YouTube, and in porn movies; the coverage about them may be vacuous but it is generally accurate. In this case, most or all of the sources you are relying on for your keep vote are wrong. It is more akin to cases of plagiarists, minor criminals, or people who get caught saying racist things: is that really what they want to be known for? And how famous do they have to be for those bad things to require us to cover them? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Procedural close: I don't know if this AfD is worth anyone's time; as far as I can tell, nothing substantial has changed so the result of this AfD should remain the same. It is an abuse of process to keep nominating the same page for deletion. The fundamental issue here is that there is no good way, policy-wise, to get rid of a crap like this (as the nominator noted there is no point having an article like this in Wikipedia), -- Taku (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The "Articles for Deletion" process is the good policy way to "get rid of a crap like this". It's either this or ARBCOM. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cunard and judgment at last year's AfD. The article that we had at the time of that AfD was short, neutral and stable. I would also point out that the principal author of the current article, which the nominator calls "egregious puffery and BLP violations", is the editor who initiated the the last (3rd) AfD nomination.  Viewfinder (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That version was false, because it called him a "child prodigy" without any attempt to point out that the claims for his being a child prodigy were based on falsehoods. And the next day's version where those false claims were removed became worthy of an A7 speedy deletion, because it said nothing about why Barnett was notable. Given the very long edit history between now and then, I think your claim that it was "stable" must also be called a falsehood. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The article's history should settle that issue. Viewfinder (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Procedural close per Taku. I don't see the outcome of another AfD being different. Much less so with almost exactly the same participants (and in some cases, nearly identical comments) as the previous one, thanks to the questionable canvassing above.  If there are content issues to address, such as reverting back to an earlier "stable" revision, such questions better addressed in an RfC rather than AfD.  But I don't see further discussion in an AfD forum as likely to lead anywhere.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, for what it's worth, if we're going by Cunard's list of sources for the article, then it seems very appropriate for it to focus on his claimed accomplishments in the area of theoretical physics, since these would then seem to be the article's primary reason for existing in the first place. (As the nominator notes, the only reason we have an article is because of the outrageous claims that were made in the media to make the subject into a viral "news" story.)  However, I question the nominator's view in this discussion (especially when he claims "egregious BLP violations") that it is a violation of BLP to focus neutrally on that coverage, saying exactly what sort of claims were made, and also presenting the matter of what long settled science has to say about the subject in order to conform to NPOV.  Obviously, this is going to be a contentious article if it exists, but whitewashing it to remove all of the nonsense that was spread about the subject removes the article's reason for existence.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it is important to keep that most fundamental point in the spotlight: whitewashing the article to remove all of the nonsense physics claims nullifies the article's reason for existence. Agricola44 (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC).
 * I've struck my "procedural close", since the discussion now seems to be generating some new input.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 10:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Salt if deleted. I'm currently abstaining from voting on the merits of deletion, but I think salting the article if it is deleted would be essential to prevent it from being recreated again in short order.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per 'not again'. It is an abuse of process to keep bringing this article to afd year after year. I am personally baffled by the opposition to this well-sourced article. Oculi (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is well sourced. Some of the sources contain exaggerations but many of them are good. It is the POV and OR commentary on those sources that is the problem. Viewfinder (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The case for deletion is BLP violations, not sourcing. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the fact that several editors are willing to make a mockery of the AfD process is a reason to keep this article. I request an un-involved admin to re-collapse the walls of text to allow for a sane discussion. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In hindsight, I was foolish to even hope for brief discussions here. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this could have been handled in a different way, the last Afd is still fresh in my mind, though this was not the first try . Subuey (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is only a few months since Barnett's notability was clearly upheld at the last AfD, so notability should not be an issue here. So is the nominator right to nominate the article again on the grounds of egregious puffery and BLP violations? Personally I think there are BLP issues, that these should all be be addressed, and those editors who have persistently defended the BLP violations should be sanctioned if they continue to do so. We have, and quite properly link to, sources that challenge media suggestions that Barnett was about to disprove relativity or win a Nobel Prize, and can surely do so without slanting the article in violation of BLP. On the other hand, if there is no puffery or BLP violation, then the issue should be closed and the article kept as it is. Viewfinder (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete (EDIT: and SALT, per discussions below), per DE. I don't expect the process to come to a different conclusion than last time, though. And FFS, the overlong list of churnalism sources should be collapsed. Yes we know they exist, that's not the issue; their quality is. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 22:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject is notable enough in having been mentioned in a number of news reports and two books (although one was by his mother and not really independent). 8,000 pageviews a month is a fair amount of interest. and  seem to object to the article inevitably pointing out that the fringe theories the subject put forth (or was reported to put forth) were erroneous, which is necessary because it's exactly why he is notable. This is a useful article for someone curious about references to the subject. If the nominator wishes to object to how the article is being presented he should take it to WP:BLP/N. WP:PROF does not apply because the subject is notable on the basis of news reports. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If a 12-year old is notable as the result of erroneous news reports, and there is no other claim of notability, it is WP:BLP1E. "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." As a graduate student he is currently a low-profile individual, and as there was no discovery, merely news coverage, the event was not significant. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What is the single event? I believe there were multiple youtube videos, multiple interviews, multiple appearances, correct? I can't pin down exactly what the single event would be. The coverage was about him as a person, not any one thing that happened. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The single event was "erroneous news coverage of the subject as a child". Simply having the same type of false stories repeated in multiple news outlets does not make it multiple events. And repeating the erroneous claims, in excessive detail in the lede, makes things worse. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's a stretch to lump together every piece of media coverage, multiple youtube videos, his TEDxTeen talk, Glenn Beck appearance, etc. as one event. My reading of WP:BLP1E is that it would apply if the media coverage is about a single event, and not that it should be construed to mean that the coverage should constitute a single event because it is about one topic (which in this case is the individual, not any one thing that happened). Also were the news reports entirely erroneous in and of themselves or were they repeating Jacob's grandiose claims? Either way that is a question for WP:BLP/N if you object to local consensus and how the article is being presented. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said above, where we have sources that challenge media claims, we quite properly report and link to them. Otherwise, picking apart Barnett's various reported claims with our own unsourced text is OR, undue weight, raises BLP questions, and reads like an astrophysics text book, not a biography, although I don't mind it being pointed out that these claims have not been taken seriously by academics. I think Barnett is notable for more than the youthful claims that he made aged 12; ongoing media coverage hardly mentions these claims. Viewfinder (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete on the basis that the subject should be considered a private person. The subject as a child was subjected to puffery, and fairly extreme puffery at that.  The subject does not maintain a public webpage, or youtube account, etc, these were things of the past set up, by others, around the child.  The subject is not publishing things about himself, or participating in interviews, or anything like that.  Google news searches reveal a significant drop off in interest in recent years.  With the subject becoming adult, there is little ongoing interest.  The few recent sources proffered contain only passing mentions, reflecting the puffery storm of the child years ago.  The article has only three incoming article wikilinks, none of them significant.  Overall, I find the case similar to Afghan Girl, a child made famous, but as an adult not a public person, and accordingly, although allowing mentions within other articles, the subject should not have a stand alone article.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Allow me to point out that he still has a facebook page where he calls himself a "public figure". Viewfinder (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That was written by a child, and there has been no activity for a long time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the facebook page. It is obvious that all posts in the last year, all since he turned 18, have been made by someone else using his account.  Also, it is a private account, not verified as a public figure.  It could be a fan-made page.  It could be his mother.  There is no evidence of Jacob as a non-minor seeking a public profile.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The subject is not publishing things about himself, or participating in interviews, or anything like that. ... There is no evidence of Jacob as a non-minor seeking a public profile. – Jacob Barnett at age 18 participated in an interview last month in May 2017:  Cunard (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, but, I want to see another. I already reviewed that article.  By itself, that is weak.  It is mostly dredging up the old mother's puffery, and ledes with "is already stretching our understanding of the universe" a patently false statement.  Three publications, 2011, 2012, 2015, and read them.  That is not "stretching our understanding of the universe".  Given the unreliability / exaggeration, I do not take it as given that he knowingly "participated".  Is there another?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * WT? Knowingly participated? He is quoted multiple times. Subuey (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely. It is very easy to be quoted without knowing at the time what is happening.  Yes, quoted, it is something, but also note that the article contains inaccuracy, and is arguably non-reliable.  Is there another?  Even post-16 years?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is one from 2016, but what is the point of posting it? Well here it is . In it is says he was enrolled at college at the age of 10. Are you going to say that was false? Because no one from the college has come forward now or in the past on this national story saying it was. Subuey (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Subuey, thanks for answering. I'm afraid it only reinforces my view, as the article reads like a story about an animal in a glass box, all exploitation and puffery, an autistic child being pushed in front of cameras.  It is just like Afghan Girl, and just like that case, no matter who many people have commented, an article is not appropriate.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is in fact false. He may have audited college classes from the age of 10, but he did not actually enroll until 2011, when he was 12 or 13. And if we're going to say that he enrolled at what is still an unusually young age, we should also finish that thought by pointing out that he did not complete the program. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * False: The Spark and both articles I just read say he begin auditing classes at age 8 and was accepted to college at age 10. Subuey (talk) 04:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do you think it is a good idea to believe sources we already know are hyped-up and wrong? The one I am using is from the school itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Your source says "after auditing courses [AND] earning college credit at IUPUI as a Special Programs for Academic Nurturing (SPAN) student." earning college credit is not auditing. At the most you are parsing words and dates, but the main point is, from your source, "He has been acing college math and science courses since he was 8 years old." Subuey (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Earning college credit is also not the same as enrolling, your original wording. Journalists not knowing these distinctions and getting them wrong is how we got into this mess. We should aim to be better than that here. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The word the article used was "Accepted". He was accepted into SPAN. Subuey (talk) 06:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You keep doubling down on your mistakes rather than admitting them. I am not talking about what word the article used; I am talking about the wrong word that you used. And now you add another mistake on top of it: SPAN is a high school enrichment program, not the same thing as college. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * la la you skirt my main point, he was doing college level work at a very young age, at 8, a qualifications for being a child prodigy Subuey (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What are the "qualifications for being a child prodigy"? Are they different to the leading sentence of Child prodigy?  "Meaningful output in some domain to the level of an adult expert performer"?  There were many claims but all seem debunked.  Reciting the alphabet backwards is not meaningful.  Joanne Ruthsatz used a different definition, and is not independently reliable as she benefited from association with the subject.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Subuey and Viewfinder have not given up their crusade to have a whitewashed article that paints Jacob as a child-prodigy who loved physics and who heartwarmingly overcame autism to start college a few years ahead of others. Never mind all those mainstream media publications reporting his besting of Einstein, Big Bang, Nobel. Agricola44 (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Steve's 17:39, 21 June 2017 (A) (B) or (C) analysis is right on the mark. Every half-solution leads straight to a different reason for it being unacceptable.  Due to the number of people who believe that the GNG is paramount in decision deletions, I support SALT|ing.  The GNG is frequently useful but is a rebuttable presumption, and here is well rebutted.  SALT until the subject is demonstrated WP:notable as an adult.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep but change I would argue he is notable for being a former child prodigy, which no one disputes. He is a doctoral student at 18 for chrisake, 3 years into his degree. That's why we should go back to the stub. Subuey (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is strongly disputed that he was a child prodigy. He displayed characteristics not uncommon in autistic children.  I removed the unsourced entry at List_of_child_prodigies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * He's not notable for being a child prodigy...much of that is disputed, as our long debates demonstrate. Agricola44 (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If he were notable as a child prodigy, secondary sources would presumably exist regarding the one time he was asked to demonstrate his prodigiousness, when quizzed on some basic calculus on Glenn Beck, where he applied the integral test to show that the divergent series $$\sum_{n=1}^\infty \sin (2n)/(1+\cos^4n)$$ converges. The fact that no one even bothered to check this result suggests to me that he is not notable as a prodigy. It has apparently been decided that the Beck display of prodigious talents cannot be mentioned in the article under BLP, leaving a complete lack of any basis for calling the subject a prodigy.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Procedural Close. I advised against AfD in the latest round of tiresome discussion on this article and I think a number of panelists have already pointed out that longstanding entrenchments mean that nothing will change. This article, perhaps better than any other in all of WP, highlights one of WP's basic fallacies regarding bios, which is the assumption that accomplished something important and has been noted are synonymous. Usually they are, but not in this case. Now, regarding this AfD, its fallacy is not appreciating that WP notability statutorily keys on has been noted and Barnett is unquestionably covered by lots of sources and those sources cover lots of different claims made by him or on his behalf in research physics, all of which are false. So, the article will ultimately be kept, but it will have to tell the whole story of besting Einstein, disproving Big Bang, being short-listed for a Nobel, yada, yada, yada, because that information is what is in the very sources that enable the existence of this article. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete. as wholly negative BLP of someone of borderline notability at best. It's unfortunate that he seems to have been encouraged, but we should not take advantage of someone who has been exploited. The extent to which the various versions of this article violate WP:BLP a is remarkable. It is unfair and unreasonable to devote most of an article about someone who has claimed to invent a novel theory to devote most of the article to the reason why his claim is unlikely. If I take 's comment at face value, he is arguing we should keep this in WP as a bad example, an example demonstrating the absurdity of our notability guidelines.  Such ad example it certainly is, but it's unfair to the individual. the principle of BLP is to do no harm, and repeating his story cannot help but doing him harm. If he should eventually become a conventionally notable physicist, I would even then think more than one line devoted to his childhood inappropriate coverage.  DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, I have stated many, many times precisely what you just said, i.e. that this particular article is harmful to its subject, especially since he seems to be trying to make a go of it in actual physics. My comment is a statement of matters as they are, not as they should be. WP is, in fact, filled with BLPs of obscure artists, early-in-career scientists, etc., all because these people were "noted" in some local paper. Jacob's coverage is enormous, but entirely vacuous and my point was that, in WP rules, the "enormous" conclusively trumps the "vacuous" and consequently the article is bound to be kept. Again, this is matters as they are, not as they necessarily should be. Agricola44 (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC).
 * Well if this article is an example of a problem with WP:BIO do you have some ideas for a reasonably objective standard that could be applied across the board? "Accomplished something important" (from above) is pretty vague and requires much more value judgment than "multiple published secondary sources". Imagine the AfD arguments over what is important or vacuous. Wouldn't that type of editorial oversight necessitate pretty broad changes to the way Wikipedia works? —DIYeditor (talk) 05:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There are many obvious fixes, starting with phasing-out GNG (one of the most abused things in WP) in favor of using topic-specific guidelines (like PROF in this particular case), which specify topic-appropriate objective criteria and remove, or at least dramatically reduce in most cases the need for value-judgement by non-expert editors (most of us are not experts in most areas). It would necessitate changes more in mindset rather than procedure. As it stands now, WP is heading toward being the world's largest directory, rather than an encyclopedia. I think this is the wrong direction, but inertia is great. Agricola44 (talk) 06:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:V, yada yada... This is all in the public domain and widely known, deleting the WP article will not change any of this. Any WP:BLP issues need to be addressed within the article, not by deleting the article. Even if this is done, I don't think it will change much in the article. WP:RS and WP:NPOV mean that information supported by reliable sources can be retained whether perceived as positive or negative, and claims that are unsourced or poorly sourced are best removed regardless of whether they are perceived as positive or negative. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per BLP concerns. The project would not be hurt by simply omitting this information. We don't need a controversial article that can be harmful to the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Add salt per comments below. If this article is deleted, it should be protected from recreation. Otherwise, we'd all end up back here :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The project would be enhanced if only it could focus on the autistic child who developed a fascination with astrophysics and got into the Perimeter Institute. We have enough source material that focuses on this to uphold Barnett's notability without focusing on the erroneous media claims. But following their failure to get the article deleted at the last AfD and the one before that, some outraged editors have, by force of numbers and tightly knit unity, maintained the focus on these claims and turned it into an attack piece, which not surprisingly is under attack per BLP. Viewfinder (talk) 07:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * But "the autistic child who developed a fascination with astrophysics and got into the Perimeter Institute" is not notable. As SB reminded us above, whitewashing the article to remove all of the nonsense physics claims nullifies the article's reason for existence. Having a heartwarming article on Jacob has been your goal all along, so, as has been said a number of times, none of the longstanding entrenchments have changed. The only solution under current WP rules is to "keep" the article and have its contents reflect the complete body of coverage of Jacob. That means discussing all the claims (Big Bang, Einstein, Nobel) plus the Ruthsatz assessment, with a minor mention of the mother's book, since that is not independent. Agricola44 (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt by all legal means! and be it by "break all the rules". This article and the associated spamming and canvassing in case of endangered existence of this crap is evidence for Wikipedia's declining maturity, and the arguments referring to missing legal regulations are a poor indicator for excessive bureaucratism. Wikipedia, the univers' media wall. Existence of crappier crap is no reason to keep this one. meh ... Purgy (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or rewrite from scratch. Several editors have commented on how negative in tone the article is, bordering on an attack piece, and a few contributors to the article sound as if their goal is to discredit the subject even if it means going beyond what the sources say. This is not acceptable. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * These are the same contributors who argued in strength for deletion at the previous AfD's. They seem to be arguing that the attack piece is the only honest article that we can have, in which case I would agree that deletion would be preferable. But I don't accept that what Agricola calls "complete body of coverage" necessarily has to be incompatible with BLP. Viewfinder (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So, what you're saying is you would censor information on Jacob that you don't like. That effort is ongoing, I see. Agricola44 (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Removing information from Wikipedia because it is unsuitable for Wikipedia is not censorship. It’s part of an editor’s job. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but both of the above comments are mischaracterizations. If you regard the article as an attack piece then you must regard the independent, secondary mainstream news/media sources likewise, because that's what the article is primarily based upon. We have spilled barrels of ink over the article's contents and, with a few exceptions (like Ruthsatz), the overwhelming majority of sources talk about Einstein/Nobel/Big Bang/etc. It would be journalistic misrepresentation to slant the article toward questionable prodigy status, which is not supported by sources outside of a pop-psych book and the mother's promo/book, and purposely omit all the secondary mainstream news/media coverage on his alleged physics accomplishments. I'll note that I did not !vote delete on this particular occasion because I'm convinced that, even if it were deleted (which I do not foresee), it would pop-up again by the hand of some hapless editor and we would start the whole pathetic debate over again. I asked the nom to forgo AfD because I knew it would come to the same endless, wheel-spinning discussion. Agricola44 (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is such a thing as WP:SALT, to avoid that. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 19:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true, of course, but I guess I'm saying that, given my familiarity with this case, SALT is unlikely. (Indeed, deletion is unlikely.) In fact, you're the first person I can recall mentioning it in all the WALLS that go back years on this article. Agricola44 (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC).
 * Correction, Xxanthipe and I seem to have mentioned this in 2014 in AfD2. Agricola44 (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that it unlikely, because deletion is unlikely. My impression is that *if* a consensus for deletion should emerge, then SALTing as well until JB does something actually noteworthy will be, it seems to me, pretty much indispensable. The many crappy sources that started it all will still exist, after all.  — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 20:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. As I wrote at the previous AFD: "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." I also want to point out that the general notability guideline specifically says that occasional exceptions will apply, and that it needs to be treated with common sense. In this case, the BLP1E issue is more than enough to override the general rule of thumb in the notability guideline. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This was responded to at the last AfD summary and by Cunard here. Viewfinder (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The response misses my point, though. Cunard and the previous closer focus primarily on whether the article meets the GNG, but I am explicitly saying here that this particular case is one of the "occasional exceptions" that WP:N explicitly mentions at the top. The GNG is accurate most of the time, but it is not a rule which requires us to suspend our ability to reason about specific situations. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 18:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * For the closer, I do favor protecting the article title from recreation, if the article is deleted. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * delete and salt Coming on the heels of that damn squirrel thing, we are back with an example of something quite similar: in which the article's framing is wildly out of line with the reality of its content. In the case of the squirrels, the sources were, for the most part, not about how squirrels do a lot of damage, but about how terrorists do not. In this case, the substance of the article isn't about how Barrett did anything, but about how the media used him as the object of an unwarranted frenzy of yellow journalism. The whole thing is still a major offense against WP:BLP, and while he is at least not a minor anymore, he is still largely a figure of unrealized potential. I return to the ARBCOM ruling of yore that "Implicit in the policy on biographies of living people is the understanding that Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects." The eagerness with which the old fake news furor is being pushed here lacks that respect. Mangoe (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing I have read in this discussion so far convinces me that there is insufficient good media coverage to uphold the subject's notability. Even if we agree that there has been some churnalism, that is not necessarily a reason to delete the article. The deletists will go on repeating that without the churnalism he has zero notability, but I continue to disagree. Viewfinder (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said in the nomination, the case to delete this is that it doesn't meet WP:BLP, not that it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * P~e, what has changed since the last AfD is that a core of editors who argued for deletion at that AfD have rewritten the article, and that you now consider it to be in violation of BLP. I agree with you. I tried to redress this. The above mentioned editor core of deletists closed ranks against me, as it has against all other attempts to redress the situation. It will seem strange to me if it is ruled that there is no solution to the BLP issue other than deleting the article. Viewfinder (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not something that changed, as far as I am concerned. It is perhaps more obvious now the degree to which Barnett has been used by others, but the previous versions were also egregious. I also have to say that the fact of the article's evolution to a more obviously bad state (because, it seems to me, reporting as caught up with it, not simply because people are editing in a particular direction) is the opposite of mitigating. Mangoe (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have called for salting this per the advice of others. This will need protection. Mangoe (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. Only reason for media entries is churnalism generated by exploded claims of scientific breakthroughs. Exploitation of vulnerable young person by others leads to delete under WP:BLP policy: WP:Do no harm. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete This article is on a person who is just barely an adult, and not fully considered an adult by all rubrics of considering that. There is not enough coverage to consider him a public person. We should not give in to the unfounded pufffery put on him by his mother. Especially since this article by its nature is entirely going to be a negative article showing that the claims made about Barnett are false. There is just not a compelling reason to have this article. He is not a public enough figure that we must have such an article. Barnett comes no where near passing the notability guidelines for academics. Wikipedia does not have as a purpose righting great wrongs, and this includes exposing the wrong of Barnett's mother trying to present him as much more important to scientific thought than he is. While some claim that GNG should trump our guidelines on academics, in this case it does not work. Barnett is put out as someone who has made notable contributions to scientific understanding by his mother, but this is all junk claims. Incidently we need to stop treating human interest puffery articles as if they are reliable sources just because they are published in publications that have strong name recognition. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * CommentGenerally being a child prodigy is not grounds for notability. In the very limited way it might be, producing adult level work as a child, it is unclear that Barnett qualifies. Being a co-author of one scientific article in his mid-teens is just not enough. PR hype and blogs do not change this fact. A current fad, as shown by the Random House book, seems to be to hype autistic people in almost exploitative ways, which is shown by the unencyclopedic mention of his affinity to peanut butter. The more I read through the comments the more this seems an attempt to portray Barnett as a real life Sheldon Cooper. Since Barnett is an actual PhD student, we should let him have the privacy such students normally ignore, and not continue the unwise actions of his mother.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is not news, and the coverage here is all news, even the coverage in the books. Books can give news coverage. Nothing provided on Barnett is of lasting value. We need to stop allowing PR repeat articles to dictate who we do and do not have coverage of in Wikipedia. People whose sole claim to notability is related to claims about academic endevors should be judged by our guidelines for academic notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment This is our description of a prodigy "In psychology research literature, the term child prodigy is defined as person under the age of ten who produces meaningful output in some domain to the level of an adult expert performer." I do not think there is any way Barnett can be made to meet it. On another note, I am beginning to wonder if it makes sense to have such a dated picture of Barnett.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment on WP:BLP: Editors are supporting deletion because they assert that the article violates WP:BLP. When Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (3rd nomination) was closed as "keep" in November 2016, this was the state of the article. The article primarily contained facts about his schooling. It did not contain undue original research like a paragraph saying Barnett solved a problem incorrectly on a TV program even though no reliable source has said this. To address the WP:BLP concerns, I propose reverting the article back to its November 2016 version, which had been stable for nearly two years since David Eppstein's trimming of the article in January 2015. I also propose removing the "child prodigy" descriptor so that editors won't feel the need to add information saying "the claims for his being a child prodigy were based on falsehoods". An article containing only the facts and no analysis about whether he is or is not a child prodigy will comply with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.  db-a7 will not be applicable because the presence of significant coverage in the "References" section will "credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject".  Cunard (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Your proposed version (the one as of the end of the previous AfD with "child prodigy" removed) would be both subject to immediate A7 deletion (because it makes no claim of significance) and in stark contradiction to your earlier keep comment (where you listed a huge number of low-quality sources as a reason for keeping the article, but now propose to omit them all). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources in the November 2016 version of the article prevent it from being deleted under db-a7 because their presence "credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". I do not propose to omit all of the reliable sources I placed on this page. The November 2016 version of the article contains four of the sources I have cited here. The other sources I have cited can be used in the article but do not need to be since the existing sources in the November 2016 version suffice. Cunard (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP demands that we immediately remove material that "relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards". Those sources fail to meet verifiability, because they make claims that are demonstrably untrue. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree that over 25 reputable publishers fail Verifiability. For example, this article from Skeptic and this article from Discover magazine do not. Neither do Joanne Ruthsatz's 2016 book published by Penguin Random House and the May 2017 Pacific Standard article. Cunard (talk) 06:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The BLP concerns are completely sound. The article, due to a need for source quality checking, is entirely going to be a negative article showing that the claims made about Barnett are false. It is a WP:COATRACK for verifying that "All the Jacob Barnett child prodigy stuff was puffery and bunk".  It will all be negative.  Negative about the child, negative about his mother, and entirely embarrassing for all involved.  No amount of sourcing for the historical puffery and its aftermath overcomes that.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is incorrect that a BLP-compliant article cannot be written. The November 2016 version of the article (without the "child prodigy" descriptor) is an example of a BLP-compliant and NPOV-compliant article about Jacob Barnett. It is possible to write a balanced article incorporating criticism of Barnett's initial media coverage using this article from Skeptic and this article from Discover magazine. Per Biographies of living persons, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." The material in the article is not presented "responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone". The material in the "Specific claims promulgated in the media" section "give[s] disproportionate space to particular viewpoints" because only two sources criticize the media coverage. Several sentences would suffice in criticizing the media coverage, not three paragraphs. The criticism of the media coverage and the criticism of Barnett's ideas should be confined to what Skeptic and Discover magazine (and any other reliable sources) say.  It is not though. It contains Wikipedia editors' own analyses about why Barnett's ideas are wrong. This violates No original research and Neutral point of view.  This violates WP:BLP.  I therefore propose reverting back to the November 2016 version of the article, which is BLP-compliant and NPOV-compliant.  After the reversion, information criticizing the media coverage and criticizing Barnett's ideas can be added to the article. But such information must be sourced to reliable sources, must be due weight, and must be written "responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone" (from WP:BLP).  Cunard (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * While a BLP-compliant article is "possible", it is not realistic. For every claim, there is a counter-claim of puffery.  The child is to be built up, then knocked down like a strawman.  If it were his own self-promotion, I would have no issues.  However, he was a child, and as an adult he is not repeating the debunked puffery.  This young adult should be afforded respect, the article deleted.  In the future, when he becomes notable for doing something, then it may be appropriate to mention his exciting childhood. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment A BLP compliant article that shows notability cannot be written, because Barnett was exploited by his parents and deprived of proper socialization for his age so they could promote a book and line their own pockets. The sources discuss the false claims of Barnett being about to disprove the theory of relativity. Unless this is addressed, there are no claims to notability. Being a college student at age 12 is not a claim to notability. Nor is anything else he did. He is not notable. A short burst of fame does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The book came out in 2014, well after the media reports in 2011. Subuey (talk) 06:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of your comment violates WP:BLP. Please redact. Subuey's removal of the comment was reverted. Cunard (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The first clause is a fair comment. What follows is a reflection of what will inevitably continue to happen in mainspace of the article, a full biography, is left there.  WP:COATRACK.  For every source, there is serious editorial criticism of the source.  When we are done here, this discussion should be courtesy blanked.  All the JB AfDs should be courtesy blanked.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say that Kristine Barnett should be commended for the way she encouraged her autistic son to develop his fascination with astrophysics. The above comment that "Barnett was exploited by his parents and deprived of proper socialization for his age so they could promote a book and line their own pockets" is completely unsubstantiated. If it were to appear in a mainstream media source, that source would probably be sued for defamation. But it is a point of view that has been pushed in internet blogs and social media, and, unable to get it into mainstream media, those who have been pushing it continue to home in on Wikipedia. Viewfinder (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The comment about his mother hurting him by not having him collaborate with others was based on the writing of a scientist who highly suggests that what have proven his unsubstantiated claims of finding problems with things like the Big Bang theory were a result of not having properly learned methods of collaboration.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment If this article is kept, it must be full-protected for quite some time, and some of the revision history will probably be expunged. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is not Wikipedia's job to police the media who make mistakes in sensationalism (which is the basic story here on which notability claims are based), but neither is it Wikipedia's duty to document those mistakes. Ignore all rules exists for a reason. This is an encyclopedia, dammit, not an indiscriminate collection of information. No encyclopedia needs this article that will cause further damage to a person on the sole basis of a desire by some editors here to include, include, include without consideration of the real life consequences. jps (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is OK to mention the 2011 media claims and those appropriate sources which challenge those claims. It is focusing almost entirely on what happened then, and filling the article with POV and OR analysis in a manner that slants the article against its subject, that is contrary to BLP. Viewfinder (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. If we remove those 2011 media claims and related sources from consideration (which are the vast majority of the suggested sources used to argue for notability), we're left with an article that would not rise to meet any of the possible WP:BIO notability criteria. A younger-than-average university student is simply not a notable subject for an encyclopedia article. jps (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The AfD last year demonstrated a consensus to keep, so I would suggest that this consensus is still upstanding, and of course the article has been expanded and given more sources since then. The subject meets notability criteria perfectly well. As others have said, there are possibly some BLP issues within it but these are better sorted by editing, not deleting the whole thing. This could be based on changing the focus from "Einstein disprover" to child prodigy or whatever as the reason for the article's existence.  Rcsprinter123    (yarn)  11:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would add that the prodigy claim is sourced to a professor of psychology. None of our sources challenge it. Viewfinder (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * One positive outcome of this discussion might be the creation of something like a WP:PRODIGY guideline. Surely simply having been labeled a prodigy (even accurately) is not a good enough reason to have an encyclopedia article. jps (talk) 12:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that. I would think that it should be necessary to have accomplishments which would be notable even if an adult did them. Mangoe (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The prodigy claim here is upheld by several sources, including sources whose reliability has not been questioned generally or challenged by other sources. Viewfinder (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I, for one, have no problem using the psychologist who identified the subject as a prodigy as a source for making such an identification. A bigger question is, however, does someone who is identified by a reliable source (or reliable sources) as a prodigy necessarily rise to be notable enough for a standalone Wikipedia article? I would argue that the answer to this question is "no". Rather a notable prodigy should have been identified as producing or achieving something notable because of the subject's prodigious abilities. That would firmly eliminate this subject as worthy of a standalone article. jps (talk) 04:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Barnett is notable because of his coverage in multiple reliable sources, even if we do take the view that the coverage by the BBC and some others was not, in this case, reliable. Viewfinder (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're confusing necessary versus sufficient conditions. It is necessary to have multiple reliable sources that mention a subject for a Wikipedia article. It is not a sufficient means of establishing notability. Radical inclusionism would argue otherwise, but I'm saying that there are obvious exceptions to this rule, and it is espeically prevalent in situations related to biographies of living people. We already have rules for WP:ONEEVENT, WP:PROF, and WP:CELEBRITY which look at the broader picture than whether Wikipedia editors can do a quick search engine look-up for sources. Notability is something that needs to be decided on the basis of the ability to write an article that coincides with WP:5P. In this situation, that is not only not possible, it is highly likely that the subject itself is not encyclopedic. This is why WP:PRODIGY would be a good guideline to have. It would avoid this kind of extended argument. I argue here that a notable prodigy is not one that is noticed by the media (because the media love a human-interest story and have a terrible track record of actually contextualizing in these cases). Rather, a notable prodigy is one that is noticed for accomplishments by the relevant communities in which the prodigy is prodigious. Reliable sources are necessary but not sufficient. jps (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per the previously extensively explained BLP issues with the current article. Cunard has a point that a previous neutral article could be generated/reverted to, but that would still be deleteable due to being essentially a BLP1E affair *not of their own making* that happened while they were a minor. The only reason coverage has extended this long is due to the promotion and media bruhaha that have led to it being almost entirely negative. If you remove the negative aspect, you are left with... nothing worth keeping. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. I closed the previous AfD as "keep" based on that particular version and the arguments presented in that particular AfD. However, I have carefully read the comments on this (incredibly long) page with its walls of text (whatever happened to trying to be brief?) This time, I am swayed by the "delete" arguments. Given the quality of the sources, notability is borderline at best. And I see no way to write an article without highlighting the baseless claims/puffery. So in the end, it's the "do no harm" argument carries the day for me. --Randykitty (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Why the U-turn? What has changed, other than the addition of BLP violating material by those who argued for deletion last time? Viewfinder (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per SmokyJoe and the principle of doing no harm to children who are BLPs. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete negative BLP. Geogene (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Only a few days in, the !votes are now running distinctly toward "delete", which is astonishing given that, less than a year ago, the previous AfD closed with a solid "keep" and included a note to boot from the closing admin discussing the prodigiousness of sources. The "do no harm" concern (the basis for many "deletes" here) has long been discussed for this article (I mentioned it in 2014), but has been completely eclipsed up to now by the "there are sources" argument. Now the situation is reversed, but why now? This sort of flip-flop illustrates the fickleness of "consensus", i.e. who happens to show-up to a particular discussion, who changes their minds, etc. Sadly, WP aims for consensus, not truth. Deletion, if that is the eventual result, cannot be discussed outside of SALT, as Gamall Wednesday, pointed out above, because the prodigiousness of those same sources will trigger some hapless editor to recreate the article, thus starting this whole sad saga over again. Agricola44 (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If I may indulge in an uncharacteristic fit of optimism, I'm not sure it's just fickleness. The version at the time of the 3rd AfD did not challenge JB's claims to prodigy status. That proper -- and, given the speciousness of the claims, necessarily critical -- documentation of such would lead to BLP concerns was already apparent to some editors, but not enough to tip the scales. This time, the claims are fleshed out, and it's clearer to everyone how difficult it would be to balance accuracy and BLP "do no harm". — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 17:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems notable and I do not by the BLP violation argument. That maybe an argument for a re-write, not for deletion. I also have to say I am somewhat disturbed by this tendency to just nominate article for deletion until the wind changes and you get your way.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a fair characterization. This is a very difficult issue and reasonable people can reasonably have differing opinions here. Somehow a good solution has to be hashed out. Knee-jerk reactions are not helpful for that. --Randykitty (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The last two Afds were nominated by the same person. Go back to the stub and put protection on it.Subuey (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh? The nominator for the previous two times, Sławomir Biały, initially thought this one should be a speedy close, and has yet to provide a keep or delete opinion. How does his past activity justify protection, what version do you think should be protected (let me guess, the bogus media narrative about the heartwarming autistic kid), and what do you think protection will accomplish? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like to interact with someone other than you. Subuey (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * SB is the principal author of the current article. There has been no formal ruling yet on whether or not it is in breach of BLP, but almost everyone here seems to be in agreement that it is. It should focus away from the 2011 media excess, where we agree that there are issues with the media narrative. There is plenty of good media narrative about Barnett's transformation from autism to PI. Viewfinder (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You must be reading some odd media narratives, because graduate students cannot be principal investigators. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Humour much appreciated DE :), but I think you knew all along that I was referring to the Perimeter Institute...Viewfinder (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no, I misinterpreted your message. Thanks for the clarification. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment A BLP compliant article that shows notability cannot be written, because Barnett was exploited by his parents and deprived of proper socialization for his age so they could promote a book and line their own pockets. Some have tried to claim what Barnett was put through was not exploitative, but it was. The sources discuss the false claims of Barnett being about to disprove the theory of relativity. Unless this is addressed, there are no claims to notability. Being a college student at age 12 is not a claim to notability. Nor is anything else he did. He is not notable. A short burst of fame does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Then that is the article, about this incident. Still (to my mind) an argument for re-write not delete. As to my unfair characterization, sorry but 4 AFD's? Notability is not temporary.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted after the first AfD, only to be recreated somewhat later without consensus.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. There appears to be a massive consensus in support of the nominator's claim that the current article violates BLP. But I must say it again: the BLP violations are wholly the work of editors who argued in strength for deletion at the last AfD. Given that we have no sources that violate BLP (or if we do, they should be disallowed), then it follows that the BLP violations are also OR. It is these violations, not the article, that should be deleted. The article should then be protected so only administrators with a specialist grasp of BLP are able to edit it. Viewfinder (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That is complete nonsense. The article simply documents what is in the secondary sources. If you want to blame someone, blame the "journalists" that wrote these articles and blame his handlers (and his mother) who engineered all of this promotion. There is no basis for the article to exist outside of these sources – you can't have it both ways. I know you would be very happy to have a heartwarming article of an autistic boy with no mention of Einstein/Nobel/Big Bang/etc, but such an article would not survive a notability test. Try to convince yourself of this. Agricola44 (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We have enough reliable source material to sustain an article per GNG that does not violate BLP. Viewfinder (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand the term "reliable sourced material". The presumption here is that mainstream news media like Time Magazine and BBC are reliable sources on science. When they publish articles that say someone has a higher IQ than Einstein (who never had his IQ tested), or that someone is "tipped for the Nobel Prize" without bothering to verify this grandiouse claim with anyone, they are not acting as reliable sources. They are not reliable sources for this type of material. We should not base an article on a living person on these weak sources because it ends up being an attack article. However what you propose, pretending that the BBC did not write an article saying he was tipped for the Nobel Prize, and dozens of other hype about him, that Glen Beck and Katie Couric did not interview him on live television, etc. is to ignore verifiable facts. Actually, the fact that Barnett's unsubstantiated claims are not more responded to by knowledgeable critics shows that this was never more than a fluffy human interest story. Wikipedia is not news, it does not need to have articles on every fluffy human interest story and everyone who ever was interviewed on national television.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am referring to the sources that were retained in the article that existed at the time of the last AfD debate, not the BBC or Time. Agricola, unless you can identify any source material that violates BLP, then you are implying that the article does not violate BLP. If WP agrees with that (I do not), the article should be kept. JPL, Barnett's claims were responded to, by Platt and Edwards, and we quite properly link these responses.Viewfinder (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think this article violates BLP and I don't think it should be deleted on those grounds. (You'll please note that I have not !voted "delete".) My issue has always been the dichotomy of the "there are sources" versus the "done something important" arguments. I think that, after all the work and discussion that went into this, the article does have a certain value for WP as a case study in notability, stage-mumming, junk journalism, etc. The article does not say anything that isn't in highly visible mainstream sources, even if those sources, on this particular occasion, are full of shite. So, I don't really buy the "we should not pile on" argument that I've seen in some "delete" !votes here. The train of negative publicity left years ago when Jacob's mother started this nonsense as a person completely uninformed in physics who had no idea of the nonsense she was pedaling. If we all truly believe in WP's mantra of "there are sources", there are really no valid reasons to delete this article. Agricola44 (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "There are sources" is not the only rule of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not meant to be a gathering of all knowledge. One event and not news are clearly violated. Beyond this, we have a duty to respect the privacy of living people. A person who made faulty statements as a pre-teen should not have these plastered forever in an encyclopedic forum without really good reason. Notability is not from one burst, but from truly long term coverage. This is just not present here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree philosophically with this concern and, in fact, I think I was one of the first people to raise the issue of his well-being, his future, etc. (although nobody was listening). However, I think there are some errors of statement. First, WP is indeed on its way to becoming an all-inclusive directory in terms of bios. Without WAXing too much, we now have articles on the obscurest of local artists, on post-docs, etc. mostly because various factions want to increase coverage of their favorite under-represented group. And there seems to be increasingly little to blunt this momentum. Second, Jacob's coverage was not from "one burst". He's been in the news periodically from 2011 up to the present. Cunard, Viewfinder, or Subuey may know the exact number of articles/books that discuss him...I just know it's a large number. I think, in the end, we have to all admit that this article does not say anything that isn't already in numerous, highly visible mainstream sources, so the basis of this AfD is questionable. Agricola44 (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Actually I think there is no reason to keep this article at all. It might be reasonably merged with the article on his mother's book. That is a possibly notable topic. The flash-in-the pan interest in his never produced research is not. Barnett is an 18-year-old in a PhD program, which is not in any way grounds for notability. He has been a secondary author on two minor articles, also not ground for notability. If the false claims about him need to be covered, it should be in the light of the book by his mother. However if we keep this article, it absolutely must discuss the false claims about him. The notion that a 14-year-old was "tipped" for a nobel prize in Physics when he had not even published any papers, built around a misreading of one line in an email, shows how credulous and gullible some people are. However the fact that it was published in the BBC is troubling.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A point to be noted by all Wikipedia editors is that normally reliable sources can publish junk articles. Therefore, the fact that material is published by a normally reliable source does not necessarily mean that the material is reliable. As always, critical thinking is required. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC).


 * Comment My early criticism of Barnett's mother was largely built on the thoughts published in this article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You wrote "Barnett was exploited by his parents and deprived of proper socialization for his age so they could promote a book and line their own pockets". Novella wrote nothing of the kind. Viewfinder (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Is that to say you don't think Jacob was exploited by his stage-mother? The pedaling, interview-shopping, and naked promotion were egregious...oh, and I almost forgot, there was her book. Agricola44 (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is debatable whether or not it was right to put him on the stage, and I agree that, at the time, the media should have taken more care with accuracy. What is definitely not substantiated is the financial gain motive, and to state that that was the motive, in the article, on the talk page or in ths discussion, is a BLP violation. Viewfinder (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - per the BLP-related reasons articulated by SmokeyJoe, DGG, nom, and several others. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The BLP concerns are sufficient for me to want to see this removed. When, and if, he does something notable, a page can be written and this aspect of his life can be put into proper perspective. As of now, this is all negative and he is being forced to live with it–we should not be piling on. This article should never have come back after the first AfD and while the closers of the last two AfD's bent over backwards to be fair, I think they had bent a little too far. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 03:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If the article is ultimately deleted, it is certain to be recreated in a few months by someone seeing all the sources and wondering why there's no WP article on Jacob – unless it is SALTed. I'm surprised that most all of the delete !votes are not mentioning this. Agricola44 (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * At least half-a-dozen commenters explicitly support salting. If the article is deleted, salting should be guaranteed. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per DGG and BLP concerns. I am unimpressed with the rationale of the keepers - just because we can doesn't mean we should. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. The choice is between
 * (A) an inaccurate article (if it uncritically parrots the puffery),
 * (B) a very negative article that violates BLP (if it discusses but rejects the puffery),
 * (C) a very short article that violates notability (if it omits all mention of the puffery).
 * I see a sort of "whack-a-mole" going on in this debate (and in the article history): "There are BLP issues? OK, let's switch to (C). Oh, there are notability issues? OK, let's switch to (A)..." Etc. etc. But really, the only good answer is (D), no article at all. --Steve (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Option (C) was stable for two years between the 2nd and 3rd AfD nominations, and survived the 3rd per GNG. Readers remember the media frenzy and page view statistics show that they are coming to us, curious about what happened to the kid who was about to disprove relativity. We owe them more than (D). We owe them a short biography, including a short and referenced sentence pointing out that no, he did not disprove relativity. Viewfinder (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't "owe" a short biography, though - that is the entire point of WP:BLP1E. We don't really "owe" anything, but we do try to assist non-notable people by not including a biography. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I still cannot see why you regard this as a BLP1E case. The media coverage of Barnett is ongoing. It has also long since moved on from the 2011 media excess. Delete and salt, and what will readers get? Nothing, not even a clue as to why there is no longer a page about Barnett. That is not how we should treat our readers. That said, I will not shed any tears for the passing of the current article, and I can't imagine Barnett would either. I see (D) in preference to (B). Viewfinder (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a generally accepted rule not to feed the trolls; but WP should owe to the gossip-thirsty within their readership an article, be it a BLP or not, within the encyclopedia? Just my dimes. Purgy (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt. If I had been a bright kid thrust into the tabloid spotlight, and I were now trying to become a legitimate scientific professional, I would not want this millstone hanging around my neck. Steve's breakdown of the (A), (B) and (C) cases seems accurate to me. (For that matter, David Eppstein's comment, waaaay up there, is persuasive to me.) Furthermore, since there seems to be a relative dearth of sources specifically debunking the puffery, an article that does right by the reader and explains how the "overturning Einstein" business is all nonsense would verge on Original Research by way of synthesis. It would be a synthesis that I myself would be pretty darn comfortable with, but it would also invite people to come along and strip out the debunking while claiming to uphold policy. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If a host of media outlets said that the moon was made of green cheese and no astronomers bothered to dispute the absurdity, would it be Original Research by way of synthesis for editors to accept the view that it wasn't? Extraordnary claims need extraordinary evidence and the advocates of prodiginess (maybe a better word could be found) failed to produce any. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC).
 * I agree. This is another aspect leading to the gradual degradation of WP. If some crank discovered that there's no such thing as gravity, we should not need a "source" to support saying otherwise. Barnett's claims are ipso facto nonsense and there's no source needed to debunk them. Agricola44 (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:The sky is blue... --Randykitty (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "If a host of media outlets said that the moon was made of green cheese and no astronomers bothered to dispute the absurdity, would it be Original Research by way of synthesis for editors to accept the view that it wasn't?" Like I said, I would be fine with it; however, long experience with online physics crackpottery leads me to believe that sooner, rather than later, someone would come along and cut out the debunking, using WP:NOR to justify their actions. And while "Einstein was wrong" is plainly an extraordinary claim, to a lot of people the subjects of Big Bang and stellar nucleosynthesis are just arcane enough that nonsensical arguments, like those from Barnett currently quoted in the footnotes of this article, would sound plausible. (I note that the business about the integral test has already been the subject of dispute  .) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is exactly why WP should have a formal channel for expert editors. Open editing is romantic and all, but the trouble is that it rightly lowers the trust the reading public has in the WP product. For example, WP is still not deemed sufficiently trustworthy to actually cite in school reports. It's a little sad that all of our work here doesn't amount to a more authoritative product. Agricola44 (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A formal channel for expert contributions sounds like a great thing. Unfortunately, making that work is above my pay grade. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * However if it is an article on someone who has never actually published a paper on the matter the right place to react to claims that the level of carbon in universe disproves the Big Bang theory? We have the notability guidelines for academics for a reason. This is mostly because mainstream coverage often overlooks notable academics. However in this case, we should not mistake chournalist hype about a child's potential as a sign of notability. This does not have the staying power to justify an article, least of all one that attempts to downplay the unfounded hype.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt. Fails notability and WP:ACADEMIC, WP:BLP1E, and though he may well become notable in future, right now it's WP:TOOSOON. As I see it, this lad got a round of publicity for something his mother claimed while promoting the book she wrote about him. The BBC said he was 'tipped for a Nobel Prize." They failed to mention he was nominated by his mother.  If he had done something in theoretical physics that set the academics all agog over him, then yes, that's certainly notable. If he were a professor, then he would certainly have an article. But as it stands right now, he's not got any real notability beyond the false claims his mother made and the over-the-top hype by journalists looking for click bait. He was part of a TED talk but even there his claims were not verified. Mind, I'm not saying he isn't a smart fellow, but that's not enough to satisfy notability guidelines. As this article keeps reappearing, I think it best to salt it for now. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, although I have !voted "delete" in the past, I think there are a number of mitigating factors here that are not being acknowledged in this discussion.
 * BLP1E: This aspect has been raised by several editors, including nom and Carl, but that is a non-starter. The numerous sources cover Jacob from many different angles, including his various claims in physics, predictions of him winning a Nobel, his prodigy status, etc. and the sources do this over a period of years. These observations conclusively refute BLP1E.
 * "done something important" versus "there are sources": I raised this in the past and it has been mentioned here several times, e.g. by SW35DL. It took me a while to accept that WP is based on sources (of which there are numerous), not deeds. If the article is deleted on this basis, then we'd have to consider the fate of all FRINGE articles that have the same problem: sources but not results.
 * HARM: This is another aspect that has been mentioned for a long time is basically the reason for the current AfD. However, this article does not say anything that isn't already in numerous, highly visible mainstream sources. Since most of these sources are more than 5 years old, even people without much physics knowledge will mostly recognize that Jacob's claims did not come to pass. Beyond organizing all this information into a single source, our article does not negatively "pile on" to all the universally-available information that is already out in the wild.
 * Past history: Nom misrepresents the history of this article: "(barely) survived two other AfDs". Indeed, in the previous AfD the closer included a note to boot discussing the prodigiousness of sources. You can go through the numerous pages of archives and what you will see is debate regarding content, not about deletion (despite some of the article's strongest advocates repeatedly making accusations about efforts to delete). This article's existential status has not been in question for several years.
 * DGG's advice (perhaps turned against him in this case): which is that "People who use WP expect when they look for an article, to find something". There is probably no better example of this observation than our article on Jacob Barnett, given the numerous sources that are out there. When I think of all PUFF BLPs on the obscurest of local artists, on post-docs, etc. that WP is accumulating at ever-faster rates because various factions want to increase coverage of their favorite under-represented group, I find it hard to believe that people would search for these articles in WP more than Jacob, who has been covered by Time, BBC, MacLean's, etc.

The only objective conclusion to this ill-advised AfD is to "keep" the article and to KEEP it in its complete form, as it existed recently, i.e. mentioning his prodigy status, his physics claims, his mother's book, his prediction of Nobel prize, and so on and so forth. All of this information has sources. We can quibble (and we have) over secondary issues, like whether to include the Beck interview, but the article itself should be here. Now, you can delete and SALT if you like, but high-profile nature of this person will prompt this article to be created again, because people want to read about Jacob, for better or worse. Agricola44 (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you feel there are no WP:BLP concerns whatsoever with the current version of the page? The volume of sources is irrelevant. It's possible that their continued appearance over several years makes this not a WP:BLP1E case, but there are at least two other violations of the BLP standards. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you describe what you see as the BLP violations and why these cannot be fixed by editing instead of deletion? Agricola44 (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There are 21 references in the lede. This is WP:COATRACK. Without the references, the current lede is clearly a series of personal attacks (he said he could do this but didn't). Even if he said the claims as stated, he was a 12 year old when he said them, and they are not notable.  A media hoax should not be the sole existence for an article; if that is the only thing that is notable the article should be merged into "Media hoaxes regarding young scientists" or something. What remains in the article is a book, which is agreed to be not notable.  With no content to discuss, the article must be deleted. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The form of the lede has been debated and this certainly can be fixed with editing, though it will be contentious. Your mistake in claiming that Jacob's "work", false though it is, is not notable is that it has been noted...alot...over several years...by many different, established, mainstream media outlets...who did not collude with each other. This is not a media "hoax" anymore than the supporting references of our numerous FRINGE articles are media hoaxes. The whole problem with your line of argument is that it applies equally well to numerous other WP articles, which would then fall under the same deletion arguments as this article. Agricola44 (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment as nom. One possible remedy to BLP concerns, apart from deletion, is to move the page to The Spark (book). I feel the history on Jacob Barnett's page should still be removed in that scenario, though a protected redirect would be fine. However, I'm not convinced that book is notable yet; I believe some of the incessant arguing is because people who believe the book isn't notable want to keep "some coverage" of this person for reasons described above. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This solution is also a non-starter. The Spark is non-notable. Aside from the initial promotion, which as we all know was secondary to Jacob himself, it has been fairly forgettable. For example, WorldCat shows its holdings to be just above a hundred, which is very low for a mass market book. Agricola44 (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC).
 * Comment - This should be closed as there are more than enough delete votes. It should also be salted. As for Kristine Barnett's book, it is not notable. She makes claims in it that are simply not true. She claims Professor Scott Tremaine at Princeton wrote her an email saying that Jacob was working on an original theory that if it held would put him in line for a Noble Prize. Note well that this email does not appear anywhere in Kristine Barnett's book, The Spark. But do note also that Professor Tremaine spoke with a reporter from the Indianapolis Star and shared the email which actually says, “I’m impressed by [Jacob’s] interest in physics and the amount that he has learned so far. The theory that he’s working on involves several of the toughest problems in astrophysics and theoretical physics. Anyone who solves these will be in line for a Nobel Prize.” But in the Wikipedia article, the Indianapolis Star is not the source, rather it is Kristine Barnett's book! The email isn't even in the book! This whole article is a travesty and so is the redirect on this book. Both should be deleted imo. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the problem is that the whole Jacob odyssey is so profusely documented with high-profile sources. How, for example, would you distinguish this from FRINGE articles, which basically have the same problem: claims that are obviously false, but which nevertheless have been thoroughly documented in established, publicly available sources? From a science perspective, we can all sit here and observe, as we have been doing, that these claims are nonsense. But can we not do the same with FRINGE articles? Yes we can, but we don't seem to be deleting those. So, I submit to you again that if this article is deleted, it will be deleted under some special Jacob-specific theory that there is a unique combination of attributes that somehow make this article unsuitable for WP. Incidentally, what's the rush? Agricola44 (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's only documented as a one-off, WP:BLP1E. More than enough editors have voted delete. I suspect some editors want to keep the article because he is autistic, but that's not policy. Nothing you've described is policy. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've not seen any convincing rebuttal to the issues I raised in my "keep" !vote, and it is indeed policy for a 7 day AfD. 4th, or not, I still don't understand your rush. Agricola44 (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not in any rush to delete it. But your arguments fail and do not offer any solid policy for keeping the article. In fact, it appears those who want to keep the article have no real policy reasons for doing so. That's why I said, it should be deleted as there are enough delete votes. You've not raised any legitimate argument, hence there's no need for any 'rebuttal.' In fact, I'd advise your comments stop now as they appear to be not helpful. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had assumed you were aware that this process is not formally one of vote-counting (hence the "!vote" convention). I hear the words you keep saying, that my arguments fail, but I have yet to hear convincing specifics from you on the 5 points I mentioned above, where the fallacy of each philosophical point that has been or might be used to try to delete this article has been refuted. It may very well come to pass that this article is deleted, but, unlike obscure local artists, et al., this would leave a hole in WP because of the enormous number of mainstream, independent, secondary, non-colluding sources that cover him...I have a difficult time comprehending the ability of all the "keeps" here to be looking past this fact. This debate, though opened on BLP concerns, is actually about notability (since BLP probe can be fixed by editing) and his coverage undeniably demonstrates his notability. Agricola44 (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * By policy, all AfDs are kept open for a minimum of 7 days. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know the policy but this is the fourth go round. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Re more than enough delete votes: Unless I missed something, the number of votes is irrelevant in terms of consensus, because there is no actual voting involved. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * For the authors who want to keep this page, I present as a different possible model for an article that is not as problematic.  Power~enwiki (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It will become just as problematic as soon as someone attempts to extend it, and the time wasting cycle will continue. And it shall come to pass that a mighty flame war shall herald the fifth AfD... — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 06:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It was once an article about an autistic boy who developed such a passion for astrophysics that he was admitted to a prestigious research institute, but some editors hated it so much that they came together in strength to transform it into the current article that has inevitably been nominated for deletion per BLP. If this fails it would appear that they will resort to flame warring. Viewfinder (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a collection of fairy tales. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you seen the articles in Category:Professional wrestling performers? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Now I'm sad that Donald Trump's wrestling involvement hasn't been central enough to list him there. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Agreed, the subject is notable and this article should be kept. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2017 (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.