Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientific publications by people under 20 years of age


 * 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. Courcelles 00:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

List of scientific publications by people under 20 years of age

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Arbitrary list of mainly original research. No indication why this would be notable. Originally, this was for people 20 years plus 3 months at the time of their first publication. Now it is 20. Are there any reliable sources on this subject? Prod was denied, so now we're here. Crusio (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Both arbitrary (why 20?) and highly incomplete (lots of undergraduates publish research papers, probably many of which are under the age of 20 at the submission date; Erik Demaine appears to have published his first journal paper at the age of 15 and is not listed). If it were complete, it would be unmanageably large and not helpful in finding any particular article. Additionally, the topic of the list fails WP:N as there do not appear to be reliable sources whose subject is scientific publications by people under 20, and it fails WP:SYN as in most cases the information on the list is synthesized from separate listings of birthdates and publication dates. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Interesting but really just WP number crunching. And why not 21 years? Borock (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom, and reasons above.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete If somebody wanted to create a list of notable research (as in, the research itself is notable) conducted by minors, that would be something else. But this isn't it. Ray  Talk 04:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete As much as I've tried to help this article by refining the format of the information, I have to agree with the nomination that this list's inclusion criterion is rather arbitary. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as arbitrary collection of trivia. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Joaquin008  ( talk ) 10:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. It's a classic case of "List cruft" and can never possibly be even reasonably complete. Academic papers are written by people under 20 all the time. (I know at one such person myself). Very arbitrary.Danski14(talk) 18:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2010 (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.