Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of child prodigies


 * 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 Keep. Xoloz 16:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

List of child prodigies
This article is yet another bloody smeggy list and as all the lists I have found seems to be in violation of both No original research and What Wikipedia is not. The article has a very brief one sentence introduction. Also I really do not see how this article can ever be verified as either complete or accurate. It may be better if it were a category. Displaced Brit 20:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Lots of references to meet WP:V. As for the list being bloody or smeggy, I really can't comment. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Almost every person on here has a source next to their name. I suggest we tag it with whatever that tag is that says "this is a list that may never be complete". --Daniel Olsen 20:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Have you actually looked at the sources? The random selection I went through identified non of the persons as a "child prodigy". -- Koffieyahoo 01:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Most of them defined them as fitting the definition in the article child prodigy. Furthermore I've fixed this problem.--T. Anthony 06:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as above. Gazpacho 21:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I feel it may hard to judge who exactly is a child prodigy and since there is not a recognised standards agency, it is impossible to verify that these are valid and not hoaxes. Displaced Brit 21:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as long as all entries are backed up with reliable sources and are otherwise notable (i.e. they have their own article), I see no problem with this list. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete similiar to the above list of genius, how can you define what a child prodigy is? I may think a child prodigy is some 13 year old who is in medical school.  Another person might think that an excellent child actor qualifies as a child prodigy.  This fact makes this list unmanagable.  Just because the article lists people that are famous and notable does not justify the overall existance of such a list.  will381796 22:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Fair list and sourced. This one is pretty narrow of scope compared to other lists. 23skidoo 00:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Impossible to verify what is essentially a judgment call or inherently point of view opinion. There is no standard provided, and any standard would vary from field of endeavour to another. Any standard would be inherently subjective and possess little in the way of objective criteria. Agent 86 00:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Daniel Olsen. I also wouldn't mind a disclaimer sentence at the top saying, in essence, that there are different standards for each discipline. SliceNYC 00:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But who would determine the standards for each individual discipline? It is totally subjective and no way that NPOV could be maintained in this type of list will381796 01:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:V and WP:OR. The random selection of sources I looked at don't identify the persons as child prodigies. -- Koffieyahoo 01:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * All sources identified them as fitting the definition set in Child prodigy. If need be I can delete all those who started after age 11 as that's what the definition from one of the academic or media sources used. Extreme giftedness in youth, even the term "child prodigy", has been studied in academic or psychological circles. See Google scholar or the books and studies mentioned at the end of the article.--T. Anthony 05:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've taken out self-promotional websites as sources, added sources that use the word "prodigy", and removed most of those who started after age 11. I think this unfairly removed a few names, like Pascal, but possibly they can be returned later. I did keep a couple writers and athletes who started at 12 or 13, but I hope this will be acceptable.--T. Anthony 06:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The "definition" in Child prodigy is not a definition, it's a heuristic, which makes this whole thing list POV. For example, I would call it highly debatable if children exhibiting some language skill should be there: languages are usually picked up much easier by children. -- Koffieyahoo 07:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Mostly these are kids who wrote in one or more dead languages. So kids pick up writing in extinct languages easily? Intriguing, on what do you base that? The definitions aren't perfect, but many things have mildly uncertain definitions. Should we delete List of unconfirmed exoplanets, List of new religious movements, or List of bisexual people as well?--T. Anthony 08:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Are there any legitimate arguments for maintaining this list? It seems like the reasons against it are stronger than the arguments for it.  First, the entire list is of itself completely subjective with it being impossible to create an objective definition of what a child prodigy is.  Second, even if such an unsubjective definition existed (which it cannot possibly), the sources cited do not even seem to mention that these individuals are of themselves child prodigies.  Just because each person has a wikipedia article, and just because each person happens to have been notable enough to be cited on a website, does not justify the complete and total lack of NPOV that this article has.  I restate my stance for this article to be deleted . will381796 02:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Could easily become a POV mess. In fact, given the difficulty of defining what a child prodigy is, and in some cases only limited information about their childhood activities, I would say it is already too POV. Robotforaday 04:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I created this because there was already a list of child prodigies in the article Child prodigy. I felt it was distracting from the article and others agreed. Since then the list has been heavily worked on to conform to standards in that article on the subject and, despite occasional backsliding, it remains strictly defined and well-sourced. There is even a bibliography on the topic listed at the end of the article so those interested in the topic can study it in more depth. It provides information a category can't and that a category won't because the category for this topic was deleted.--T. Anthony 05:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Re-reading and re-thinking about this and the history of the article, I change my opinion to weak keep. The wording of the definitions for each category, although fairly subjective, still I think are narrow enough to prove useful in determining who could be a child prodigy.  Ensuring that individuals listed are truly child prodigies is going to be a long-term project.  Once the stringency of who is considered a prodigy decreases, there goes the article.  will381796 06:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - well cited encyclopaedic article. Allegations of OR are demonstratably false, and it passes WP:NPOV with flying colours. WilyD 11:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Dominus 09:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Esteffect 01:56, 24 August 2006 (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.