Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people youngest in their field


 * 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 no consensus. W.marsh 15:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

List of people youngest in their field

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - arbitrary potentially unbounded trivia list. Every field of endeavour has a youngest participant. No objective criteria for what fields to include or exclude. Otto4711 12:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Could be a good concept with a good writer. A good writer would have at least listed the persons' ages when doing an article like this.  Then there's the title.  This is not about people who are "youngest in their field" but rather about people who hold a "record" for being the youngest to achieve an honor at a particular time.  Perfect example is Tatum O'Neal, who is approaching 50, but was a kid when she won the supporting actress Oscar for Paper Moon.  Even if acting were considered a "field" in the way that, say, cancer research is a field, Tatum may have been among the youngest back in 1973.  I don't think it's worth fixing.  This will come back in another form in the future.  Mandsford 15:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete what's a 'field'? JJL 18:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a generic term that you use when you can't think of anything better. Mandsford 22:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete this is wrong for so many reason. One how will it ever be sourced.  Two it's a topic that will constantly change.  Ridernyc 00:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, because this material should be verifiable (as always additional references never hurt) and reference guides would note notable things like milestones, records, etc. Thus, a structured list indicating the youngest individuals in various fields does have some research value.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 13:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. This is a very trivial list. Also I want to point out: putting strong in front of things doesn't help, so why even do it? The closing admin wont consider a strong keep or strong delete, any better than one without the word strong in it. RobJ1981 16:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or more likely userify since as hard to maintain as this would be, it does serve a purpose. It's quite possible that some group of people could fix many of the difficult problems facing it. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as potentially encyclopedic--and move to "List of youngest leaders in their field" as I think was suggested elsewhere. Seems a clearer title. "Field" is a standard terms, in the sense of academic field, artistic field, etc. organisations giving prizes frequently use it. "Profession" is an alternate, tho it is stretching it to apply to some areas of endeavor. Obviously this can be used absurdly by over-restricting the field, but so can any criterion in any article-- largest inauthentic sicilian pizza fast-food restaurant in northern minneapolis. (imaginary, but not much worse than I've seen as justification for notability sometimes) This will be a difficult list to maintain, but that is no reason to delete it. I think it needs some more details to make a good list, such as date, and some logical suborganisation within groups such as athletes or politicians. I see the individual items are beginning to be referenced. May eventually become a good article.DGG (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - there is no encyclopdic value here because literally anything could be defined as a "field" to be included. "Youngest person to sing a song at Carnegie Hall." "Youngest person to throw out the first baseball at a National League game." "Youngest person to perforn gastric bypass surgery." Anything that humans do will have a youngest personwho does it. Eddie&#39;s Teddy 03:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Semi-random collection of trivia. No context which would be more interesting than handful of names. Pavel Vozenilek 23:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per WP:AFD - If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Just because you might not see the encyclopedic value hardly means that the information is of no use and wouldn't easily benefit someone else. Keep, expand and add clarity so others can more easily understand the notability. Benjiboi 04:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This can't be fixed through normal editing. There is no normal editing that can be done that will impose any non-arbitrary limitation on the list. Otto4711 18:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree. This certainly can be fixed through regular editing and since when do have to impose limits on information and lists? People are regularly born and young people being documented doing exceptional things is likely to happen more so add clarity, sources and allow for a better article to emerge. Benjiboi 00:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the specific and non-arbitrary standard for inclusion in this article? If you can set a non-arbitrary inclusion standard then I'll withdraw the nomination. If you can't then you should acknowledge that and be done with it. Otto4711 02:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for and frankly get the impression that whatever I respond with will be picked apart for one reason or another. There will always be a reason to delete articles so on that front you certainly win. However, the information is encyclopedic and presented well and referenced so I'm missing why you don't fix whatever short-comings you have or spell out for the rest of us what would make this article pass whatever bar you have in mind. Is the lede not sparkling the right way, the title not spot on? I feel like we're talking about numbers v. colors and not connecting what this article still needs to do. Benjiboi 03:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As I have said several times already, the major problem with this article is that it has no objective inclusion criterion. Everything that humans do, there's been a youngest person to do it, and neither you nor anyone else has suggested any standard for when that youngest person to do such-and-such should be included. Youngest person to eat a 72-ounce steak in a contest? Youngest person to be a professional pedicurist? Youngest person to hang glide? I would find all of these examples far too trivial to include but would also bet dollars to donuts that for each of them or for any other "youngest person to..." entry you could think of that's too trivial or obscure to include, there would be someone who wants it included, and there's no possible standard that can be applied. Otto4711 13:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep some of the contents but move/split up ASAP into one or more lists with more objective criteria for inclusion (youngest egyptologist according to a Spanish newspaper?) Cosmo0 22:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And what might those objective criteria be? Otto4711 23:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, for example, the youngest winner of a particular prize, or the youngest holder of a particular office, are objective facts, don't change very often and are easily kept track of, whereas 'youngest person in their field' is both arbitrary (what does it mean to be 'in a field' - see the example I gave above) and temporary (people age). I'm not sure how I would re-organize the list, but I do think that, on balance, the page should stay for now, to give someone else a chance to sort it out.  Cosmo0 00:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So then, no objective criteria. Got it. Otto4711 02:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG; information on who the youngest recipient of an award etc. was is encyclopedic, and there is no special reason not to compile that into a list. Looks to have been fully referenced since the AfD was started. -- phoebe/ (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And again, because here's the question that's not being answered, what limit do you put on the list? At what point does being the youngest whoever to do whatever become too trivial for inclusion, and to what objective, non-arbitrary standard does one look to make that determination? Otto4711 23:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's for our customer's to decide. People come to wikipedia for all manner of information, it's not our job to judge if their interest is valid, our job is to ensure that all information is presented as well as possible. Benjiboi 00:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No one here has made any judgment about any person who may come to Wikipedia. It is most certainly our job to evaluate content and "people might want to look at it" is not a valid reason for keeping. There is at least one person, its author, who wants to read every article that's placed here. That desire is not relevant to an AFD discussion. Otto4711 02:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Wikipedia is to be the sum of all knowledge and this article certainly adds to that. It's an informative list with wikilinks galore that encourages further investigation. The information is central to young people being capable and able to excel which is certainly of interest to all people who are or have ever been young. Non-notable material certainly may be added as happens with many articles and good editing will prune it away. Benjiboi 03:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not, nor is it intended to be, the sum of all knowledge. There are entire areas of human knowledge that are specifically excluded from Wikipedia as a matter of policy. Arguing in favor of an article on the basis of believing that Wikipedia should be about everything ignore the basic realities of what Wikipedia is and how it works. Otto4711 13:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep material is notable, material is encyclopedic.  it could be improved with citations.--Buridan 05:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see any problems with this list. Tim! 07:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.