Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Spark: A Mother's Story of Nurturing Genius


 * 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. Is there an award for largest ratio of AfD text to article text? If so, this would probably win it.

The keep people are arguing this meets WP:NBOOK, and the other side is saying that the sources provided do not pass muster. There's also a fair amount of sentiment that this is an attempt to bypass the salting of Jacob Barnett. I find the delete arguments more persuasive, not to mention that they're numerically a supermajority.

To be honest, I don't understand the nomination. Why write an article and then nominate it for deletion? I don't get the logic there. But, whatever. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The Spark: A Mother's Story of Nurturing Genius

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

AfD was going happen eventually, may as well get this over with. This should be an obvious keep due to the depth and breadth of sources.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. See Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (4th nomination) and its links to many past discussions. To the extent that this article focuses on the book rather than the person, it may evade G4 speedy deletion, but it is currently about half and half between the book and the person. I already had to remove one false claim (repeatedly debunked in the past history of the Jacob Barnett article, but stated by overly-credulous and non-expert news sources) that he made contributions to the theory of relativity. No opinion yet on whether it is possible to have a properly neutral article that is only about the book. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are to look at the past discussion, it should be noted, that the claims were not started as some have claimed by Kristine, but rather she used them from the media coverage starting in 2011 and through to when the book came out in 2013. Subuey (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  18:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as a blatant attempt to recreate Jacob Barnett under a different name. The pattern of redirects created, including Jacob Barnett (child prodigy), Jacob barnettt, Jacob Banett, Jake Barnett, Jacob Barnett (mathematician), Jacob Barnett (The Spark), and Jacob Barnett (physicist), makes this crystal clear. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete A few reviews of the book exist, but they are burdened with indications of unreliability (e.g., "At 9 he began working on a theory in astrophysics that, according to those who can understand it, may put him in line for the Nobel Prize" ). We established at length that the subject is not notable. Sneaking in a biography &mdash; or, let's be honest, a hagiography &mdash; by this back-channel trickery is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Given the state of the available sourcing, the problem we had with the biography repeats itself: The absence of critical coverage means that we cannot write an article about the book in a properly NPOV manner. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article is about the person rather than the book.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * article has been trimmed to focus solely on the book itself.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * All three sentences of it... --DanielRigal (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Now up to four sentences. But that still leaves almost two redirects from variations of Jacob Barnett for every sentence. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * delete WP:BLP evasion. Mangoe (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. BLP evasion. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC).
 * Delete I don't know the full back-story behind the previous deletions here but there is a distinct whiff of vanity by proxy about the matter. Anyway, notability is not demonstrated. If the book becomes a best-seller, or if they really do make a major studio movie of it, and if reliable sources pay attention to it, then maybe this can be revisited. If the kid really does become genuinely notable as a scientist, and not just as a smart kid, then maybe the biography can be revisited too. Those are decisions for the future. Right now, I'm more than a little uncomfortable with the idea of hyping him up as a genius. Not only is this not a valid thing for Wikipedia to do, I worry about the effect on him if it doesn't pan out that way. A lot of child prodigies struggle as adults and we don't want to do anything, or facilitate anything, that might just make things harder for him. The excessive expectations that this sort of hyperbolic coverage raises could well do exactly that. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Question: What does policy say about an editor nominating an article for deletion that they themselves wrote and which they do not themselves support deleting? Is this regarded as an abuse of the process or is everybody free to shoot themselves in the foot if they want to? --DanielRigal (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It is possible to speedy keep a nomination if the nominator "fails to advance an argument for deletion". But that would probably be a bad idea now that we have several other editors advocating deletion — the only result would be to unnecessarily restart the AfD, since (as the nominator already said) someone else would inevitably make the same nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The article's topic meets the WP:GNG as it's received significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the topic. As I type this, there are currently 9 sources cited by the article including the Washington Post and USA Today.  Random House is a major publisher and I wouldn't doubt that many more sources could be found, but I believe that the article as written already has enough to prove that it meets GNG.
 * I'll also add that two of the 'delete' !votes above don't even bother to address the issue of notability and should be ignored by the closing admin. There's a third 'delete' !vote which suggests a book needs to have a movie based on it in order to have an article about it.  There is no such policy or guideline that has such a rule.  This third 'delete' !vote also argues about whether the boy is a genius or not.  Again, this argument has no basis in any Wikipedia policy or guideline.  To be honest, the 'delete' !votes appear to be examples of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Many of these sources should be considered to be unreliable, despite being published in high-profile publications, because they repeat blatantly false claims directly from the book's promoters without any fact-checking. This problem has been thoroughly discussed in previous AfDs. The false claims happen not to be repeated in our current article, fortunately, but only because our article is so short that the only information it conveys is the existence of a book with this title. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not say that the movie was required. I offered it as an example of one thing that could help to demonstrate some additional notability. (I'll also state explicitly what I meant to imply when I mentioned the movie: The film rights were sold in 2013 and nothing has been heard since. I doubt there will ever be a movie. As such, the fact that the film rights were sold is nowhere near as significant as it might at first seem, which is pretty much my view of the whole article: That there is less to it than it appears.) I never said that the movie was the only option. The book being a best seller or receiving properly significant coverage would also cover it. I see a few reviews. I don't see significant coverage. I don't see critical coverage either, which is what you would expect if this was being taken seriously. If you are picking up some "I don't like it" from me then that is fair enough because I admit that I don't like it. It has an undertone of vanity and possibly even exploitation about it. There also seems to have been a fairly concerted attempt to spam it into Wikipedia in the past which is another thing that I really don't like (and neither do our policies). Of course, if notability was there then me not liking it, and all the other problems, would not not matter a hoot when it comes to keeping the article. My delete !vote is based in policy: The lack of sufficient notability and the BLP issues (which still arise even if the article is not a pure BLP). Being published by a major publisher and getting a few reviews and short articles which read like rehashed press releases is not enough for an article. If there was a conflict between our policies and my feeling that this sort of coverage may not be beneficial to the kid then I'd have to go with the policy but I think everything is pushing in the same direction here. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * @David Eppstein: It sounds like you're arguing truth, not verifiability. That's not a valid reason to delete an article.  Also, it's OK if the article is just a stub.  One of the wonderful things about Wikipedia is that there are no deadlines.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources on this particular subject have a record of being unreliable. Asking for reliable sources is not at odds with WP:V.  On the contrary, it is specifically demanded by that policy.  Since the book concerns the medical condition of autism, WP:MEDRS applies to determining the reliability of sourcing.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything that David Eppstein and Sławomir Biały have said in their two replies above. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Obvious BLP evasion and attempt to recreate previously deleted article. byteflush Talk 00:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the article, in the version I have read (17th Februar 2018), emphasise to little on the matter of autism, which I see as the single most important topic of the book - but this lack of focus can of course be improved. Otherwise I find the article quiet o.k. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If this was a significant book on autism then I would expect to see it widely cited in academic papers and articles on the subject. Google Scholar lists 14 citations. A few of them might be OK (I'm not able to judge them all) but others (e.g. The Gift of Memoir: Show Up, Open Up, Write) don't seem to be on-topic at all for Autism. 14 does not seem like a high number to me although it certainly isn't zero either. Among the 14, I did find one item of in-depth critical coverage too: https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/13-09-25/ . If the article is kept then I feel that this would have to be used as a source for the article if it were ever to evolve to be more than a stub. Maybe it is should be included even in a stub to counterbalance the more credulous coverage. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. It is not a significant book on autism, unless it is discussed in reliable WP:MEDRS review articles.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This book isn’t trying to be an authoritative work about autism, it’s just a memoir about parenting. Don’t try to strawman this with an entire paragraph.—-Prisencolin (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not presenting a "strawman". Actual sources, including the book itself, are demonstrably unreliable.  Like many other WP:FRINGE books about autism and its treayment, we require reliable sources.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you read the book? I personally haven't but you seem to be presuming that the book it full of the same dubious exaggerations that many of the media reports on Jacob Barnett have made.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm familiar with the book. (Regarding presumption, it really seems like you are the one presuming things.)  Contrary to what is said below, the book is full of the same kinds of lies that were pushed in the media, and heavily promoted in all the book flap.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For this discussion, what's actually in the book is nearly irrelevant. What's important is what's in sources about the book and how reliable we can consider those sources to be. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There is really only an exaggeration used on the cover (that his IQ is higher than Einstein, Einstein never took an IQ test) and the technicality of the extent to which he had produced a theory (he hasn't). hope that helps. Subuey (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Appears to fail WP:BK. jps (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable, save perhaps as an example of people trying to cash in on science-sounding schemes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: not every published book deserves a Wikipedia page. I have yet seen how distinguished (i.e., notable in the Wikipedia terminology) this book is and thus the coverage is justified. -- Taku (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment technically, should this not be a speedy delete via WP:G7 since the creator brought about this deletion discussion?-- ☾Loriendrew☽  ☏(ring-ring)  23:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep the article meets WP:BK The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews.  and those in the article. Subuey (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. so I'm not sure about that. byteflush Talk 01:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Quite a few reviews and coverage by the WaPost and the times . If people have problems with the hype and want to pare it down they can use https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/13-09-25/. Subuey (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well those are way better than the ones you initially provided. So why not use them in the article? Still not convinced, but it's a step in the right direction. Perhaps do an article rewrite with RS you can find and ask for a relist. byteflush Talk 08:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And both of them repeat the "he's in line to win a Nobel Prize" nonsense. Bad journalism makes for bad sources. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I did some more searching, and came up with these two reviews which I think are adequate.  Subuey (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not mention that the two sources mentioned -- only one of which I'd characterize as possibly "reliable" -- aren't really about the book. --Calton | Talk 05:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's a book. And...what? Other than mere existence, I don't see how this can be considered "notable" by Wikipedia standards. --Calton | Talk 05:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails notability. None of the nine sources currently in the article are neutral reviews of the book. One "reviewer" admits he hasn't read the book, and last time I checked, Penguin is a publisher that provides press releases. The remaining seven summarize various vacuous anecdotes about the Barretts, with paltry or no critical analysis of the writing or the book's conclusions. Many reprint bogus claims that have been debunked in earlier AfD discussions. So the sourcing consistently fails to discuss issues raised by the book. In my best Gertrude Stein imitation, "There's no there, there." Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * article has been trimmed to focus solely on the book itself.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Below is a list of reliable sources which demonstrate that the article meets WP:GNG.  This only took me 10-15 minutes of research.  Note that there may be additional reliable sources to be found, but I got bored and figured that this is more than enough.


 * The Express
 * The Star
 * The Spectator
 * Skeptic.com
 * USA Today
 * The Globe and Mail
 * Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
 * Psychology Today
 * WorkingMother.com
 * BBC News
 * New York Daily News
 * Indianapolis Star
 * Huffington Post


 * A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The Star, the BBC, the Spectator, the NY Daily News, the HuffPo, Psychology Today and Working Mother uncritically repeat the claims that Barnett is "tipped to receive a Nobel Prize" (which is balderdash) or that his IQ is higher than Einstein's (ditto). The item in USA Today is marginally better, but claims that Barnett "calculated his own expanded theory of relativity", indicating that it, too, was never vetted by anyone who knew physics and, for these purposes, is not a reliable source. In fact, the item in Working Mother is written by his mother, which fails every standard of "independent source" imaginable. The Indy Star item is a local-news fluff piece. Basically all of my friends from high school had those written about them at least once. The point made in the last discussion still holds: a profusion of unreliable sources is not a solid foundation to write an encyclopedia article upon. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that big list does the keep case any favours at all. The Express is definitely not RS on any subject and its coverage of health matters is less use than a Magic 8 Ball. You might as well toss a coin to find out whether coffee causes cancer this week and then get out a ouija board to find out what "secrets" Princess Diana has to offer from beyond the grave. They will print pretty much any rubbish that drops through the letterbox if it doesn't upset their political prejudices and it saves them the time and effort it takes to make something up themselves. (As you can probably tell, I'm British and not a fan of our tabloid press. ;-) ) If there is any quality in that list then it would be better to just focus on that and leave the dross by the wayside. Some of the other names do look like plausible RS, the BBC for example, but all they have is a short video clip of a quick space filler item on the BBC Breakfast show. It is the the video equivalent of a passing mention. The one source I do find impressive is Skeptic Magazine. They have clearly actually read the book and made an effort to evaluate it. Oddly enough, they don't think it holds any water. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I just noticed the byline on the Psychology Today article: "Maureen Seaberg is a synesthete and the co-author of Struck By Genius: How a Brain Injury Made Me a Mathematical Marvel." So, not a psychologist then? --DanielRigal (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * @DanielRigal: A reliable source is one with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. I believe that all the sources I've listed above meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliability.  If you disagree, I suggest you take the matter up with the Reliable sources noticeboard.  But I seriously doubt that you will be able to overturn community consensus that these are reliable sources.  If sources such as the Washington Post and USA Today are not reliable, there will be tens of thousands of articles that will need to be changed.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Surely you've been around long enough to know that this isn't how reliability works for newspapers or any similar source. Mangoe (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] The first question for any issue at the reliable sources noticeboard is always "reliable for what?". Reliability is not an absolute thing that a source either has or doesn't have; it depends on what you're using the source for. The Washington Post and USA Today are perfectly good sources for some things, like the existence of a book with a certain title, publisher, and author. They are explicitly not good sources for the appropriate treatment of autism. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Of course, reliability depends on context, and if there are content issues with the article, they should be worked out through normal editing and consensus-building process. But that's not a valid reason for deletion.  I've read a lot of sound and fury in this WP:AfD, but I've yet to read a single coherent argument for deleting the article that's actually based in Wikipedia policies or guidelines.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is also not a valid argument for keeping an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree with most of the users, the article is about the person rather than it works. Some of the references seems to be good, but they are not enough to get notability. Fructisgarnier (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC) — Fructisgarnier (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete -- an attempt to circumvent WP:BLP and prior deletion discussions. The project is better off without the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Reviewed in a goodly number of reliable sources. A book may well be "wrong" and still be "notable" - Wikipedia does not have any policy that "only correct books are notable" that I know of. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3202&amp=&context=etd&amp=&sei-redir=1&referer=https%253A%252F%252Fscholar.google.com%252Fscholar%253Fhl%253Den%2526as_sdt%253D0%25252C10%2526q%253D%252522nurturing%252Bgenius%252522%252Bbarnett%2526btnG%253D#search=%22nurturing%20genius%20barnett%22  is "scholarly material" referring people to this book.    Books cited in scholarly articles should be deemed sufficiently notable. Collect (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not that the book is "wrong", it's that the coverage of it is blatantly unreliable. That PhD thesis mentions the book as one of several examples of a trend and devotes no in-depth discussion to it (certainly, it does nothing to correct the misinformation spread by the media, and arguably propagates the same). Glancing mentions do not signify notability. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. If the book had kicked up more of a controversy then we would probably have an article about that but it didn't. Also, I'm pretty sure that this would be the last thing that the people trying to add this subject to Wikipedia would want. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Most of the arguments against say it is a BLP evasion, and yet the article as it stands is not about the subject but about the book. Plus since the author is the nominator I don't think there is evidence of "evasion". Subuey (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The point is that this book is at the center of the hype about Jacob Barrett; there's nothing that's not misleading about the book that can be said without getting into the whole mess and how it played out, and we've decided that BLP considerations do not permit that. Mangoe (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If the article was meant to be about the book and not at attempt to recreate a biography of Jacob Barnett, why did the creator immediately create redirects at Jacob Barnett (child prodigy), Jacob barnettt, Jacob Banett, Jake Barnett, Jacob Barnett (mathematician), Jacob Barnett (The Spark), and Jacob Barnett (physicist), as well as redirects from the articles Jacob Burnet, Jacobus Barnaart, and Jacob Barnet affair? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * redirects have been deleted this should address some of your concerns.--19:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * How? It’s the creation of the redirects providing evidence of intent, not whether they still exist. --Calton | Talk 00:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You're going to have to find better arguments now.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean, “I’m going to need a better excuse now”. Hiding a failed attempt doesn’t mean that the attempt never happened. --Calton | Talk 06:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Calton, please focus on content, not other users. Subuey (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am. Specifically on the false content of the above statement. If it bothers you to have false statements identified as false, don't make false statements. --Calton | Talk 00:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No you are not assuming good faith. Prisencolin has show WP:GOODFAITH in making changes based on received comments. Subuey (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'd been holding off on providing an opinion in this AfD in the hope that it would be possible to make a neutral article that covers the book in an appropriate level of depth while avoiding the hype and BLP problems that surround it. But signs point to no: the article text avoids those problems only by being too lacking in content, the sources we have in the article are all still hype and churnalism, and the remaining non-hype source identified here (the skeptic one) is only tangentially about the book and more about Barnett and the stories that have been built around him. And having at best only one non-publicity-driven source, it doesn't meet the "two or more" requirement of WP:BKCRIT. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per nominator. The article about the subject of the book survived two AfD nominations, and was neutral and stable for two years. When it was eventually deleted, it was stuffed with negative material written from a non-neutral standpoint by its opponents who came together in strength to discredit it. That some academics passionately do not think that the book ought to have been covered by so many well known sources does not alter the fact that its <I>was</I> covered. We have material challenging the book's claims which can and should be included, provided that they are included within a neutral tone. Viewfinder (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That’s one of the most ridiculous rationales I’ve ever seen at AFD. You can gin up whatever conspiracy theory you like, but the fact remains that the original article WAS and still remains deleted, in good part because it WASN’T “neutral and stable”. --Calton | Talk 06:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I myself don't have a particularly strong opinion over whether the book "ought to have been covered". Their pages are theirs to waste if they want to. The fact is that they did so almost uniformly incompetently. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed that, unlike the article that was kept after three earlier debates, the article that was deleted was neither neutral nor stable. It was the creature of editors who descended upon it in strength with intent to get it deleted. Agreed that some of the media coverage was hype, but it was not uniformly incompetent. Viewfinder (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. disguised promotionalism.  DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes WP:NBOOK, #1. Article has been cut down to a stub just on the book, but there can be no doubt that the book passes WP:BK.   Note  that Maureen Corrigan reviewed this book for the Washington Post and that reviews ran in The Spectator, Toronto Star, The Sunday Times, and the Daily Express. In addition, there was feature coverage of this book, in the Globe and Mail: How Kristine Barnett nurtured her autistic son’s spark of genius, USA Today: Boy genius' celebrity grows with new book, movie deal, and other publications.    "Disguised promotionalism" is not a valid reason for deletion, and neither is I just don't like it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:G11. --Calton | Talk 06:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:G11: " If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion."E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Uh huh. It still means your "Disguised promotionalism" is not a valid reason for deletion is not only untrue, it's OBVIOUSLY untrue. Or did you miss all the other words in that link? --Calton | Talk 00:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also these two sources . Subuey (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * delete voters are claiming that these sources are somehow reliable just because they reiterate a few hyperboles about the subject.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, however the two sources I listed I think avoid that. Subuey (talk) 08:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Uncritically propagating misinformation is a sign that a source is unreliable. A pretty good sign at that. And the sources which are not actively spreading misinformation about science or being blatantly promotional would almost fit on the back flap of a dust jacket. Now, I'll admit, I may well be biased by where I come from, writing about academic books &mdash; where "non-trivial" and "in-depth" reviews mean you can go on JSTOR and find multiple documents that each go on for pages with comparisons and contrasts and footnotes. But, you know, we're talking about science and about how to raise a child, so strangely enough I am happy to hold reviews to a high standard. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete, a rather transparent attempt to end-run round prior deletions. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a book. It meets Notability (books). End of story. The fact that some people don't like the subject of the book shouldn't matter. --GRuban (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not why people are !voting delete. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh? Yes, I see your delete opinion. It's not that you don't like the book; you don't like the reviews? Honestly, that's even worse. We're not book critics; we're definitely not review critics. "Sorry, in our anonymous volunteer opinion, the independent reviews your book got in easily a dozen multiple major newspapers with regional, national, and international coverage were all, without exception, poorly written." Sheesh. --GRuban (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We're not concerned with writing style, but with scientific accuracy and thus trustworthiness . In fact, we have to be "review critics" &mdash; that's what WP:RS is about. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The book got coverage from some of the most widely published sources there are. That's sufficient for us to have an article. If we have sources that say that coverage was incorrect, that's fine, we print those sources too. But we don't delete things just because the coverage is wrong; if it is wrong, we write about the coverage and why it is wrong. We have an article about the Hitler Diaries after all; another book where the initial coverage was wrong. --GRuban (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hitler Diaries were the subject of peer reviewed publications in social sciences and respected academic publishers. If you feel that there is a parallel here, please add comparable reliable sources to the article.  Sources that uncritically reprint (false!) promotional flap are not reliable, and do not contribute to WP:N.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a book. It got reviewed and written about by professional journalists in the Times of London and the Washington Post and the BBC and the Globe and Mail and other places. That suffices. If sources of comparable weight say the reviews were uncritical - great! We'll print those sources too, that will contribute to, not detract from, the notability of the book. But that anonymous volunteer editors say the reviews were uncritical is just not relevant. --GRuban (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The relevant guideline for assessing what sources are reliable here is WP:FRINGE. Whether something was written by what you call a "professional journalist" is not always an indicator of reliability.  In this case, the "professional journalists" in question simply reprinted promotional flap without actually acting as journalists (e.g., Nobel claims, disproof of Einstein, novel theory of relativity at age 12, etc.)  Such sources should be excluded from consideration, as they promote a cluster of fringe theories related to the living person Jacob Barnett.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a mainstream, not a WP:FRINGE, fact that this is a book. That's why it was printed by Random House, and reviewed in the Times and the Washington Post, and USA Today and by the BBC and .... Note that we don't care whether the information in the book is true in order to write an article about the book. You seem to think that just because the book talks about things you don't believe in, we shouldn't have an article about it. Not true. We have thousands of articles about books of pseudoscience, books of religion, and even books of outright fiction; we're not endorsing the content of the book by writing that there was such a book and that it was popular. --GRuban (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The book verifiably exists, yes. The relevant policy item is WP:NPOV.  We don't write articles for fringe theories that haven't been discussed by independent sources.  None of the reviewers actually bothered to examine the (rather obviously) false grand claims made in the book.  None of these reviews is really a serious analysis at all, in fact.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note this recent AfD: Articles for deletion/Is Genesis History?, a film promoting Young Earth creationism. The arguments are the same as the argument here.  Virtually no one argued that it was a great film, that it was a film supported by scholarly evidence, that it was film about a scientifically valid theory, or that Genesis 1 is an accurate history of the origins of life.  Instead, as here, editors argued that the film, like this book, had generated more than sufficient reviews and feature article coverage to pass WP:GNG and WP:NFILM, and that the rules we apply to judging the notability ought to be the same for all films and all books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The relevant guideline for assessing what sources to count is WP:FRINGE. For "Is Genesis History?" there are reliable skeptical sources.  For "The Spark", the only skeptical source is the one article in The Skeptic.  That's not enough to meet WP:NBOOKS.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A remarkable comment, making it clear that Sławomir Biały has not, to choose just one example, read the final paragraphs of the review in The Spectator.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * That article begins: "His IQ tested off the scale. At nine he began work on an original theory in astrophysics; aged 12 he became a paid academic researcher. He can play complicated musical pieces or learn foreign languages almost instantly and without tuition." That's WP:FRINGE and requires a proper source.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Proving only that User:Sławomir Biały was unable or unwilling to "read the final paragraphs of the review in The Spectator" sigh E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I read the article. It is manifestly not serious reporting.  The above quote is immediately disqualifying.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment thank you so much for pointing this out. Let's hope that the other editors will see this instead of having your comment buried in the thread.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I'd like to see more long term coverage, and more critical coverage, given the controversy over the topic both in the real world and in Wikipedia. If it gets made into a movie that would tip into unquestionable notability (this source from 2015 suggests it still might happen, but remains to be seen). --  Green  C  17:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Certainly a movie version adds to the notability of a book. But here's the thing, we do not make up our own standards, we follow the standards set down in Notability (books), which read: "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews." User:GreenC, I am assuming that you do not participate regularly in AfDs about books, and that now that your have read the guideline you will either strike your iVote  or change it to "keep" as per the guideline WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Your assumption is incorrect, I've been doing AfDs for over 10 years, regularly quote NBOOK, I know what NBOOK says. I don't think in this case it should apply for reasons stated. NOTE is a WP:GUIDELINE not a hard rule, my opinion on the specifics of this case are not invalidated by a general Guideline. The circumstances of the age of the person, the article creator's aggressive behavior adding contentious content (this won't end), the previous AfDs, the uncertainty of claims and obvious PR material - I'd like to see better sourcing and coverage before unleashing this topic into the community and world. Given all this, merely quoting a Guideline (a special guideline at that) is robotic and doesn't acknowledge the specifics of the case. -- Green  C  18:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, we are talking about book reviews published in highly regarded publications including the Washington Post, The Spectator, and The Times (of London), reviews written by professional journalists including Maureen Corrigan. Sourcing of this caliber constitutes the gold standard in assessing the notability of books at AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What is clear, when the dust settled, is that the book was largely reviewed by people who were not either inclined or equipped to assess its claims about the boy, and thus they took for granted that he was the prodigy that, it turned out, he was not, and that they thus became pushers of the hype cycle. You can't write an accurate article without saying that, and that ends up being a surrogate bio of the boy to some extent. And the whole point of deleting our bio was to take us out of the hype cycle, so I don't see how we can write an accurate article on the book without violating the principle that brought about the BLP deletion. Mangoe (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We can, of course, cite criticism of the book found in some of the WP:RS, including reviews, already on the page, reviews that Mangoe clearly has not read.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment. The book is an exploitation of a vulnerable young adult for the purpose of financial gain. Wikipedia should not give aid to such by providing free publicity. To write an NPOV article about the book will require the inclusion of material detrimental to the achievements claimed for its subject. In view of the vulnerability of the subject, my view is that this is unacceptable. WP:Do no harm trumps guidelines. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC).
 * Comment.The reason Wikipedia requires reliable independent secondary sources is that reliable journals and reliable journalism have fact-checking protocols. Larger journalistic enterprises hire fact-checkers whose job it is to ensure they publish accurately the details of each story, or they have other sourcing protocols reporters must follow. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources that are fact-checked, because Wikipedia does not have professional fact checkers, just us, the editors who write and revise articles. The Overview section of the guideline includes this statement: Source reliability falls on a spectrum: highly reliable sources, clearly unreliable sources, and many in the middle. Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and unreliable sources. Note the verb must in that last sentence.


 * In examining the sources provided for this article, I found some that we would ordinarily call reliable. The Washington Post review by NPR's Maureen Corrigan, for example, looked really promising. Corrigan's review, however, included two unfortunate statements: "Turns out, he has an IQ higher than Einstein’s" and "At 9 he began working on a theory in astrophysics that, according to those who can understand it, may put him in line for the Nobel Prize". Fact-checking protocols were obviously not observed in this instance, and in my judgment this review was over the line between usable and unusable sources. Had she fact-checked either of these assertions with any experts, such as psychologists and physicists, she might have written a different review.


 * I suspect that since reviews are not "hard news", often consisting largely of opinions, otherwise reliable news organizations do not rigorously fact-check them. None of the sources currently on the article page meet the reliability standard, in my judgment, and the other sources posted on this discussion have the same or other problems, including summarizing rather than evaluating, or being on other topics such as synesthesia or the life of the author. One possible exception is the review in the Skeptic, which is so negative it would take extra effort to maintain NPOV, assuming a second reliable source could be found. Cheers! Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The question at AfD is: Is this book notable? For books, Notability (books), the standard is: "1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews."  It is common for reviewers to summarize the contents, as Corrigan does in her review.  The reviewer for The Spectator (herself the mother of child diagnosed with autism,) also summarizes the contents, before describing her  was extremely skepticism regarding the contents of the book.  And yet both The Spectator and the Washington Post, are blue-chip sources for the notability of this book.  To understand why, take a look the  extreme cases in Category:Written fiction presented as fact; the fact that a memoir is unreliable on facts and has a strong POV is not a policy-based argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That article begins: "His IQ tested off the scale. At nine he began work on an original theory in astrophysics; aged 12 he became a paid academic researcher." It's not a reliable source.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] This is no different than the ultimately-rejected argument for notability of Barnett as a biography, that so many uncritical, hype-driven, and clearly incorrect sources should nevertheless count as sources because they were published by famous publications. It has already been determined that these low-quality sources did not make a good argument for notability for Barnett, and the same determination should stand here. Or to put it another way: appearance in one of those publications creates a default assumption that the sources are probably reliable, but we can and should modify that assumption when we have good evidence (as we do here) that they are not actually reliable. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So, that's one review. How about this one: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-spark-a-mothers-story-of-nurturing-genius-by-kristine-barnett-rzlj22655v2 - what do you consider makes it unreliable? --GRuban (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's no less credulous than the other ones and was written long before the fake claims were debunked. It teaches us the necessary lesson that even the most august organ can publish credulous drivel. The reviewers showed a credulity and lack of fact-checking that would not be tolerated in their journalistic colleagues in the hard-news area. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC).
 * Neither Xxanthippe, nor Eppstein, nor Sławomir Biały read to the end of the review (in The Spectator) that they discuss. The last two paragraphs are a telling criticism of the book.  You only make yourselves look foolish by describing a source that you have not read.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That article begins: "His IQ tested off the scale. At nine he began work on an original theory in astrophysics; aged 12 he became a paid academic researcher." It is not a reliable source. Full stop.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * E.M.Gregory's claim about what I have or have not read is false, of course. I have read the reviews before concluding that they were too credulous to be reliable. The fact that the Spectator review has some mild criticism at the end for Barnett's mother's "do the opposite of what the specialists tell you" approach does not make up for the fact that it believes her claims about the accomplishments of her son. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact, The Spectator review concluded: "One could put the book down with the impression that autism can be conquered by the right kind of nurturing; that with sufficient parental effort all our little sparks could flare into gemlike flames. This is misleading...  it is not a full depiction of autism."  I just don't like it is not a policy-based argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's also not the argument anyone here has been putting forward. And "I want to believe" is an equally bad argument. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subuey (talk • contribs) 01:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Specifically what content do you consider makes it unreliable? And what is the source that debunks the fake claims? --GRuban (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well "Masters degree in quantum physics" is easily wrong, since |IUPUI does not offer a Masters degree in "quantum physics"). A prominent physics researcher did not ever say that Barnett was working on a novel theory of astrophysics, nor that his work would some day gain him a Nobel prize.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And your source for this is? --GRuban (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * See all the previous AfDs. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC).
 * Oh, please. "The truth is out there somewhere, I'm far too important to tell you where?" --GRuban (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There are four previous AfDs and links to all of them on this page. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC).
 * And if I find such a source in one and criticize it, you won't write "No, I didn't mean that one, keep looking?" --GRuban (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually the review doesn't say "would" either, that's just you. It says "could", which is not nearly as impressive - tomorrow, I "could" find a priceless diamond in the gutter on my way to work. Someone working on nearly any novel physics theory "could" gain a Nobel prize for it, I don't have to be a physicist to tell you that; after all someone does every few years. If your main quarrel with a book review from the Times is that it can't tell the exact branch of physics that a 13 year old is studying in a major university, I don't think that's a very important quarrel. --GRuban (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * True, but there is so much bad and unreliable reporting out there on this particular topic. If you want specific ways in which a source fails to be reliable, it is easy to point those out, even if they may seem to be of minor importance.  The reason there is no source out there debunking this whole ridiculous affair, is that pretty much no one outside Wikipedia (and the human interest pseudoscience pushing twitterverse) really gave a damn. WP:FRINGE is directly relevant to this affair.  If a serious source wants to examine the issue, fine.  But articles loaded with over-the-top hype are off the table.  That leaves very few real sources, I'm afraid.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But the article isn't about "the issue" or "this whole ridiculous affair", it's about a book. And the book got impressive coverage. Arguing that we can't write any article about the book without writing about some "affair", whatever it might be, is like writing we can't write any article about any Miramax movie without writing about the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations.
 * You have to realize what you're asking for here. You're asking that we outright delete an article about a book which got indepth reviews in a dozen reliable sources, including the papers of record of three G8 countries. Not just write "the book got reviews which believed it when it said X (above highly respectable sources), but it was later found out the truth was Y (with similarly respectable sources)", which I would be all for; but completely delete it, write nothing about it in the encyclopedia, damnatio memoriae? What is this book, a combination of The King in Yellow and the Necronomicon? Does it kill a kitten every time someone reads it? We are supposed to be the sum of all human knowledge, and the fact that a book got indepth coverage in the most respected newspapers in multiple countries is an indication it's a pretty important bit of knowledge. If that coverage was wrong, great, we should say that, that's an important bit of knowledge too. But we shouldn't delete all mention of it, when that mention is pretty notable! --GRuban (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have reliable sources for the statement that "it was later found out that the truth was Y", please present those. My point is that, without such sources, it is not possible to write an article that conforms to WP:NPOV.  Very strong sources are required to cover a book that purports to contradict what we know about astrophysics, and what we know about autism.  Without such sources, the book truly is not notable, since it has not been noticed by reliable sources.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's been clearly noticed, indepth reviews, highly respected sources, international coverage. It so happens that the book reviewers didn't care to focus on the fact that the 13 year old happened to be studying a novel physics theory because ... guess what ... 13 year old boys study weirdness all the time. At 13, I personally was into figuring out how to best lead my army of imaginary warriors and wizards to defeat an imaginary dragon and take its imaginary treasure. It so happens that the reviewers didn't care to criticize whether the way the mother raised an autistic child would apply to all autistic children, because she's not raising other autistic children, just this one; and it clearly worked pretty well for this one, since the kid got into college at 11, quite a few parents of even non-autistic children would be quite proud of that. That's like criticizing an article about a multiple marathon runner because most people would be severely injured by trying to run seven marathons in seven days; that's just not the point of the article. You are focusing on things that the reviewers didn't focus on, and demanding that our article not be published because it can't focus on them either. No. This article is not going to be about novel physics theories, except in mentioning that the kid in it is studying one, but, well, he's a kid. It's not going to be about autism theories except in mentioning that this particular kid was raised in this particular way, and this -- according to the kid's mom, mind you, who probably knows quite a bit about how the kid was raised, but like all moms is likely to believe their kid walks on water and spits rainbows -- is what happened. That's it. You're arguing about a different article. --GRuban (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * SB, please can you confirm or deny that you would like to see Young Earth creationism deleted? While it seems as obvious to me as it does to you that YEC is woo-woo, opinion polls tell us that it is upheld by 40% of Americans, as it is by traditional Christians. It has a much longer history of being considered mainstream than current mainstream thinking, which is why we have articles about it. By the way, there are sources out there that challenge The Spark, sources which we can and should report. Viewfinder (talk) 12:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Young Earth Creationism is the subject of hundreds of peer-reviewed publications. It is discussed in textbooks, reliable academic books, and is standard fodder for a barrage of skeptical publications.  If you can produce such sources here, I would love to see them.  Otherwise there is simply no parallel here.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Once some subject, utterly insubstantial in its basic claims, becomes unambiguously notable we have to cover it (as with Creationism, Astrology, UFOs etc) but it is not for Wikipedia to assist in making such things notable in the first place, which is precisely what is being attempted here. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews.
 * Delete - Obvious attempt to re-create Jacob Barnett. Yes, the article has been trimmed (nearly erased, actually) but there is a distinct lack of secondary and reliable reporting to keep a NPOV article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NBOOK states that a book is notable if:
 * This book has been the subject of two five non-trivial book reviews. So, not only does this book meet WP:GNG, it also meets WP:NBOOK.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Was there a reason for repeating your earlier comment here? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't repeat my comment. You must be confusing me with another editor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So you're telling me the earlier "keep", signed by "A Quest For Knowledge", with a rationale substantially similar to this comment, was by someone else? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The post to which you reference argued that the book meets WP:GNG. This new post argues WP:NBOOK. I didn't want to introduce a new argument into an existing post since people already responded to the older post.  In any case, we're getting off-topic.  The book meets both WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I recommend some suggested reading for editors trying to judge whether a book review is "non-trivial". Here's a relevant excerpt that explains my standards exactly on the balance between critique and summary:


 * "The general tone and tenor of the contemporary book review is an advertisement-style frippery. And, if a rave isn’t in order, the reviewer will give a stylized summary of sorts, bookended with non-conclusions as to the book’s content. Absent in either is any critical engagement, let alone any excavation of the book’s umbilical connection to the world in which it is born."


 * The article references Elizabeth Hardwick's classic 1959 critique of book reviews. A non-trivial review has more than a summary and bookended non-conclusions on the book's content. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete: Unfortunately, this book does not seem to be inherently notable, although it does seem to promote a good cause, which makes me sympathetic to it. Perhaps if this book surges in popularity later, the article can be recreated. Now, however, it does not pass WP:GNG. Carajou (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2018 (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.