- Jacob Barnett (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The vote count was overwhelming for "delete". Yet, the closing admin closed the AfD with "keep" on his own discretion, which he is not entitled to. The community decides which page to delete and admins must follow the community's decision (not policy). Taku (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse "keep" closure as an AfD participant. As argued in the AfD, the subject has received substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources in three countries dating from March 2011 to October 2013. The alleged BLP–NPOV conflict was rebutted and addressed in Number 57's close:
Reasons for deletion were given as ... a claim that the boy's work is twaddle. Even if this was true (without any proof, this is also original research), it is still not a reason to overrule GNG (if there are concerns about his work which are reported in reliable sources, these should be included in the article).
After weighing all of the arguments, the closer concluded that the arguments for retaining the article were stronger. I agree. Cunard (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse "keep" closure as an AfD participant. AfD decisions are not necessarily taken on a show of hands, the vote was not "overwhelming", and the closing administrator gave clear reasons for the decision. Viewfinder (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already expressed my displeasure at the closing administrator's closing argument here, and a number of editors have weighed in on both sides. I will abstain from further discussion at this DRV. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn with a side of trout. A majority of experienced Wikipedians in that discussion ultimately came to the conclusion that the relevant policies were NPOV and BLP. The closing argument failed to address either of these policies. In fact, it seems to me as though the closing administrator did not read the entire discussion in order to gauge what consensus ultimately evolved. Bizarrely this brazen act of administrative negligence seems to be defended by one of the participants in this very DRV here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse keep closure. Closing admin gave clear reasons for his decision. The arguments for keeping the article were stronger. I agree. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Cogency of the rationale is one thing, but whether it actually addresses the consensus that emerged from the discussion is another. If cogency of the final decision were all that is required, then there would be no reason to have deletion discussion in the first place: the whim of the closing administrator would be all that matters. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no whim on Number 57's part, and you're demonstrating a WP:BATTLE mentality. Give it a rest. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I was pointing out that your claim of the cogency of the rationale is irrelevant to the issue of the deletion review. Many editors made many cogent arguments on both sides of that discussion. The purpose of a WP:DRV is: "if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly". It isn't "did the closer give a cogent argument". (Also, surely this is what is known as a "discussion" rather than a "battle", in which people with different points of view present reasons for their points of view. Pointing out an obvious flaw in your interpretation of the policy seems well within the acceptable norms of such discussions on Wikipedia.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. A number of fairly highly experienced editors voted to delete and supported this with reference to policy (especially David Eppstein (talk · contribs) and Xxanthippe (talk · contribs)); a small number of very vocal and clearly bizarrely committed editors that I've never heard of before took the opposite view, posted reams and reams of non-arguments in a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. I can't really believe we're having this argument such is the complete and utter unnotability of the subject and the article's complete incompatibility with policy. It is a biography of a living person - a minor - that simply isn't supported by reliable sourcing. Closing admin just plainly doesn't understand WP:BLP. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- 60 Minutes seems reliable. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we here to hash out the arguments again on the problem of such sources, that was already conclusively demonstrated in the AfD proper, or to comment on the extent to which the close gauged the consensus that had formed from the discussion? Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Our BLP policy says we should remove unsourced negative information about living people. It doesn't say "delete articles about living people". It also doesn't say "delete sourced information about living people". Because AfDs aren't votes, the participants' rationales are as important as their opinions. Any suggestion that the guy wasn't notable was utterly blown out of the water by Cunard's very extensive list of sources. Those delete !votes aren't downgraded, or given less weight. They're given no weight at all. Refuted. Null and void. It was correctly pointed out during the debate that this is a vulnerable minor, but I can't connect this with the need for a "delete" outcome at AfD. Perhaps this DRV will fill in the missing links there for me, so I'll reserve my position for the time being.—S Marshall T/C 23:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently not: the DRV so far just consists of the same editors who showed up at the AfD, re-stating their opinions in the emphatic declarative. There's no meaningful discussion happening here. Endorse because the "delete" !voters aren't providing a reasoned case to overturn.—S Marshall T/C 09:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Your original question was specifically addressed in Eppstein's post immediately after yours. But to reiterate in more detail, your vote seems to hinge on the aspect of consensus building in which (from WP:AFD) "consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." That is exactly what transpired here, through much discussion. Logical arguments based on policies were advanced by both keep and delete voters. The closing administrator may not have agreed with the delete voters' interpretations of those policies. That is certainly allowed. But there is then a substantial onus on that closing administrator to make the case for discounting those interpretations as completely without merit. (You have said "Refuted. Null and void." — where did this refutation occur?) It is of course true that deletion discussions are not strictly votes, but I think there is an expectation that in overruling a majority, the closing administrator will at least provide some rationale as to why those votes were discounted. To disregard most of the arguments completely and without comment is not what the community should encourage. It is antithetical to the ideas of transparency and consensus. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall's view of which arguments should receive weight
|
- In my reading of the AfD, the following arguments were nullified. (1) Xanthippe: "Delete: One article on Google Scholar, not enough to pass WP:PROF." It's true that Barnett fails WP:PROF. He also fails WP:POLITICAN and WP:PORNSTAR. So what? Once Cunard showed that he passed the GNG it doesn't matter how many specific notability guidelines he doesn't pass. (2) Ozob. "Delete: Still not notable." Cunard proved he was notable by linking all the sources that have noted him. David Eppstein raises two points. The point that the sources are "soft" is an opinion statement with which I disagree but am willing to accept his judgment, so weight is given there. The point that the claims in the article were ridiculous is accurate but fixable, and we don't delete fixable material, so no weight there. Later, David Eppstein comes back and says we should delete it because it's a BLP of a minor. It's a BLP of a minor but I see no reasoning linking that to a "delete" outcome; I would take it as Wikipediocracy-style drama-mongering about BLPs. There was and is no defamation or harmful content there. (3) Barney the Barney Barney provides "delete" as an opinion statement totally unsupported by reasoned argument, no weight there. (4) Hammersoft pops in to criticise Wikipedian processes, nothing the closer needs to pay any attention to there. That's followed by a discussion about a specific notability guideline that he doesn't pass, which is nullified by the evidence that he passes the general notability guideline later in the debate. (5) Agricola44 opines that he's not notable, nullified by later evidence. (6) Viewfinder provides "keep" as an opinion statement but I can't connect that with any supporting logic. Then there are two solid source-based "keep" !votes which get weight, the second of which is challenged by quibbling the word "presumed" ---- it's an attempt to counter evidence with opinion ("you might have linked all those sources but I still don't think any of them should count!") The evidence prevails. Then there's another a source-based "keep" !vote that gets weight, and then Xanthippe comes in with the bizarre suggestion that you aren't allowed a Wikipedia BLP until you've achieved something significant in your career. It's hilarious, of course, but there's certainly no weight to be given there. Then Barney the Barney Barney comes back to try to pretend that BLPs of minors have to be deleted, which is a canard we've already disposed of earlier so we can safely disregard that. (7) John Pack Lambert comes in to point out that notability isn't notoriety. That goes nowhere. Notability isn't a can of soup either. There's a load of things notability isn't. What notability is is coverage in the sources that Cunard linked. John Pack Lambert does nothing to challenge Cunard's sources but notability is his concern, so there's no weight to be given there. (8) Rschieweb comes along to claim that "solid arguments have been presented for deletion". They have, but all were refuted by Cunard's sources. (9) Taku comes along to opine that he isn't notable but yet again fails to address Cunard's sources. Evidence > opinion again: no weight for Taku. (10) Fatsootsed comes along to claim he knows better than the sources, no weight there. (11) Xanthippe comes back yet again, this time with a "can you hurry up and delete this! won't someone think of the children?!" (12) Oleryhlolsson comes along with a "keep" unsupported by any fresh evidence, so that doesn't really add much to the debate. Agricola44 comes along to "help the closing admin" by giving us his not-at-all-biased summary of what he thinks everyone else has said, and finally RockMagnetist gives us something interesting: a fresh source that challenges the previous sources. That does get weight.
The take-home point from what RockMagnetist says is that false claims still deserve coverage in Wikipedia. That's why we have an article on bigfoot. I could see a more timid admin closing as "no consensus". "Keep" is better. There's no scope for a "delete" here.—S Marshall T/C 14:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
- S Marshall, thank you for your comprehensive thoughtful analysis of the AfD, which I agree with. What are your thoughts about DGG's interesting view below? (I could repeat to DGG what I said in the AfD, but I'd like to hear your thoughts about the issues DGG's raises.) Cunard (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not able to follow DGG's reasoning. DGG is another of those who feels that deleting someone's biography from Wikipedia protects them in some way, and that doesn't make sense to me. There's nothing defamatory or harmful about the content of the subject article, and the young man's making Youtube speeches and his parents are publishing books about him; there's a clearly-displayed intention to seek publicity. Therefore he benefits from a non-defamatory biography on Wikipedia, QED. The fact that he's a vulnerable minor may be grounds to protect the article. I don't see how it's grounds to delete it.—S Marshall T/C 20:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I share your view that a non-defamatory biography of a non-private figure will not be harmful to the subject. Thank you for reviewing DGG's arguments. Cunard (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reopen or overturn. The closing admin seems to have not read or badly misread the arguments in the AfD concerning WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, and instead interpreted this as a conflict between WP:PROF and WP:GNG (which were also in play but not the only policies or guidelines in play). It is within an administrator's remit to close an AfD with a decision opposite to the majority of participants, when the majority opinion is not well-based in policy and the minority is, and the closing rationale tries to portray the debate as being like that, but it is simply mistaken in that respect. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Our BLP policy says "remove unsourced negative information about living people". It doesn't say "delete articles about living people". It doesn't say "remove sourced information about living people". It offers no mandate to delete a sourced biography whatsoever. Our NPOV policy requires us to present the information in the sources without bias or prejudice. It, too, offers no mandate to delete a sourced article.—S Marshall T/C 14:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That might make sense for a DRV where the closer acknowledged the BLP arguments but decided they were inappropriate for a deletion. Here, the closer ignored the BLP arguments. DRV is not the place for arguing whether or not the BLP issues of the article were sufficient to justify deletion — that's what the AfD was for — but rather for determining whether the closer correctly judged the consensus of policy-based arguments in the AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- When you raised this self-same point on his talk page, the closer told you: "Do I really need to mention every single argument put forward by contributors in a rationale? .... As I've already pointed out to Barney, BLP is largely about content, and is a very weak deletion rationale (the only real valid rationale is when an article does not have a single reference, or if the article is entirely negative in tone). See WP:BLPDEL for further information". I infer that the closer did assess the BLP argument but didn't think it necessary to mention it in his closing statement. I see no grounds to suggest that he ignroed it.—S Marshall T/C 18:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn this misguided and shallow ruling. Delete and salt. The closer appears not to have understood the crux (cruces?) of the arguments that were advanced by the majority of editors in the Afd, many of whom had much experience in Wikipedia of the field at issue i.e. physics and mathematics. These expert editors found that the claims made about the subject of the BLP were false or misleading (supported by The Skeptic article[1]), and that therefore the source material which supported the BLP was too unreliable to be used in Wikipedia. This is not original research; it is assessment of the reliability of sources which editors are expected to do routinely. The closer also did not address the important claim made by several editors: that exploitation of a vulnerable minor was taking place and that Wikipedia should not provide a haven for that exploitation. Wikipedia BLP policy places much importance on the welfare of minors, and I am amazed that the closer thought that this issue was too unimportant to be addressed. Several editors asked for the AfD to be blanked because of harm that might be done to the subject and his family. Why did the closer not consider this too? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment The same editors, four so far, who opposed the article at AfD then demanded its closure, seem to be lining up here with more or less the same material. This discussion seems to be turning into a continuation of that AfD. Viewfinder (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment is a bit puzzling, as you yourself also participated in the AfD and, as far as I can tell, are guilty of the same behavior that you accuse others of. In fact, many of the commentators here are just repeating arguments that were advanced in the AfD itself, some of which were solidly refuted. If anything, the participants that you are complaining about are those whose arguments focus of what is within the remit of the DRV process: whether the closing administrator accurately gauged the consensus of the discussion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist, preferably without any of the participants in the last discussion getting involved again. Contentious closes like this are inevitable when editors use argumentum ad infinitum at AFD to push very marginal arguments. The closing admin is not to blame for the resulting mess. I don't think the "Keep" arguments were particularly strong, but it's impossible to determine any coherent position out of that discussion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Overturn (1) We make the rules, and we make the exceptions. Passing the GNG (or its alternative (WP:PROF in this case) does not guarantee an article, just as failing it (or its alternative WP:PROF in this case) does not prevent one. (The only relevant factor here is the GNG--there is no possibility whatsoever of passing the alternative WP:PROF.) If there is significant publicity for something unimportant, we collectively can use our judgement. That's we collectively, and not a single admin making a supervote. (2) The analysis by Agricola of the sources in the AfD is perfectly correct: they';re unreliable publicity and gossip, no matter where they were published. The only statement that might conceivably imply notability is a highly selective misquotation. (3) We protect minors, even if the press does not. We protect them even from their parents. I have consistently opposed articles where it appears that the parent is exploiting the child. Usually it refers to sports or entertainment, but this is the same sort of situation. We're an encyclopedia , and our own standards are higher. Our rule is NOT TABLOID, and if otherwise respectable newspapers act like tabloids, they're judged as tabloids. The fundamental moral basis of BLP and child protection here is to do no harm, and enshrining this in an encyclopedia is harmful. DGG ( talk )
- As a contributor to the original AfD I was intending to withdraw from this discussion, but since Xxanthippe et al are still active, I feel the need to respond to the above contributor, who is implicitly insisting that show of hands should be paramount. There is nothing about minors in WP:BLP, and if it were a clear cut case of exploitation, the article subject would not have been covered by so many non-tabloids. The danger here is that of encouraging pressure groups (e.g. something like "America against stage parenting") to canvas their supporters with intent to use Wikipedia as a platform to promote their points of view. This will be prejudicial to our neutrality. Viewfinder (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- How did the rules get made, if not by agreement, which in practice can only mean a majority? Since we made the rules, we can also make exceptions to any rule we decide to, and I know no other way of doing it that by discussion to see what most of those interested want to do. Anything else implies that some one of us knows better than the others. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't let's turn Wikipedia into the kind of shambolic battleground in which shadowy pressure groups compete to bring out the most supporters to show their hands and (internet equivalent of) shout the loudest. We have to have rules. Viewfinder (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete, per the consensus of the discussion, as this is a clear situation of the proverbial "supervote". The input on both sides was based on sound policy and project guides, so for the closer to say one side was "stronger" is so blatantly wrong I almost go into WP:CIR territory. The consensus of the discussion was to delete the article. The closer flubbed. Badly. Tarc (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I read a no consensus, no consensus to delete, and a difficult article to watch for some time. This is not a private individual, so there is no default to delete here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct to say that the subject of the BLP is not (now) a private individual because of the tabloid exploitation. However, a 16 year old autistic boy is a vulnerable minor, as I have said before. I am still waiting for the closer to explain why he did not take account of this factor in his ruling. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- This, for example, is the subject actively engaged in high profile promotion of noted things about himself. He is now, now, only in the media due to invasive tabloid journalism. I say this to note that our policy to err on the side of deletion for private individual does not apply here, now. This matters, because I think the AfD was a no consensus, which may have defaulted to "delete". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The arguments for deletion are all wide of the mark. The claim that he's a 'vulnerable minor' is an example. Is there a policy on WP that tasks editors with uncovering if minors are being exploited and, if so, deleting their BLP's? This article easily passes GNG. The close was correct. The child has published an article in a prestigious physics journal. He's been interviewed by 60 minutes, the BBC, etc. He's notable. Whether or not the tabloids are exploiting him has nothing to do with his BLP on WP. That would seem to be a task for his parent. Not WP editors. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, WP:AVOIDVICTIM: "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AVOIDVICTIM: "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." Can we agree about that, SB? If so, then I think we now have such an biography. I am sure that you will be watching it to ensure that it remains so. Viewfinder (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There doesn't appear to be any evidence that any WP editors "acted intentionally or otherwise in a way that amounted to participating in or prolonging the victimization." It's a sourced BLP of a notable subject who passes GNG. The admin made the right call. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn' to delete. From reading the discussion and the closing statement, it is clear to me that the delete opinions were well grounded in policy and common sense, but were not given due weight by the closer. Reyk YO! 01:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly endorse. This is exactly the sort of close we call on administrators to make. The article subject was the central figure in a book published by a major trade house and profiled by both an important national magazine and a prominent TV network news program. The burden of proving non-notability in the face of such independent, reliable coverage is virtually insuperable. The nominator's gross failure to conform to WP:BEFORE taints much of the AFD !voting, and the closing admin might quite appropriately have disregarded the notability-related delete arguments which did not take such coverage into account. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Unreliability of these sources was conclusively demonstrated in the course of the AfD. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. Utter nonsense. Nothing in the AFD comes close to showing that, and significant parts of the would-be debunking are plainly false (eg, the claim that a review of the mother's book was advertising); the challenges fall well short of showing that the sources generally fail WP:RS. Do reports in popular media treat scientific matters somewhat simplistically? Of course, But, quite often, so do their coverage of the arts, of economic issues, of nearly everything. Did the media in this instance play up elements of a human interest story in ways that give greater weight to the subject's achievement than they may likely merit? Nothing surprising there. (I defy anyone out there to demonstrate any legitimate achievements os significance by Ann Coulter, but her notability can't fairly be denied.) If anything, your analysis supports the need for an encyclopedic article, to present the subject in a better-structured, more illuminaing perspective, which is an encyclopedic goal. And if the subject were an outright pseudoscientific crackpot with the same level of coverage, which few of them achieve, there'd be no serious contest of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This line of argument now circles back to a point that was covered in the AfD as well (but, like essentially all points, ignored in the closing rationale. The most reliable sources we have (a blog post by an astrophysicist and an article by an expert in child development) essentially expose the Barnett affair for the sham that it is. Should we write an article based on these sources, or do the demands of BLP (as DGG summarizes "do no harm") override the demands of NPOV? That was the crux of the AfD debate, but was not addressed by the closing administrator's rationale. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Was it conclusively demonstrated that all of them were unreliable? The most that was successfully demonstrated to me was that some of them may have given the impression to lay readers that the subject had done more than he has. Viewfinder (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Essentially all of the sources Cunard mentioned repeated obviously false claims, yes. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- That article describes the subject as "one of the world’s most promising physicists", an assessment which can only be based on one mediocre publication of which Barnett was not even the primary author. That's clearly not a true statement at this point in Barnett's "career". There is a lack of authority behind it: it is the opinion of the journalist, rather than the opinion of a scientific authority. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The Perimeter Institute evidently regarded him as most promising, or they would not have taken him on. Viewfinder (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So in your mind, admission to a masters degree program is a sufficient condition to be one of the world's most promising physicists. Really? Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Argumentum ad brochurum. And "exceptional young talent"≠"one of worlds most promising physicist" Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Such statements require evidence. For a research physicist, evidence consists of the body of that individual's research. It's not based on college admission, student prizes, etc. It is clearly misleading to say that someone with essentially no body of work is "one of the most promising physicists". That you seem incapable of seeing a misleading statement, presumably because you lack background in the sciences and lend credulity to such irresponsible reporting, does not change the fact that it is. The only evidence to the contrary you have provided is "but the journalist says so". That is not a justification for a position; it is just an appeal to authority. The authority is not a scientifically credible source, in top of that. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect you presume incorrectly. I studied mathematics and physics to advanced level at school and graduated in Engineering from the University of Cambridge. It does not necessarily follow from his lack of significant output aged 16 that "most promising" is an "obvious falsehood". Nor does any source that we have expose the subject as a "sham". The article by the child development expert that you refer to calls the subject a savant. Viewfinder (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously, lack of scientific output by age 16 is not an indicator that someone won't be a great physicist, but so what? That's a red herring. Albert Einstein didn't have any scientific output at age 16, and it would have been equally wrong to describe him as "one of the world's most promising physicists" at this age. Also, savant syndrome is another red herring. This has nothing to do with promise as a physicist, and the aforementioned article says that he is a typical autistic savant. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - AfD closings are not just a count of !votes, but a weighing of those arguments in relation to our notability guidelines. There was a lot of "not notable" or "fails WP:PROF." While the latter appears true, that's not then end-all criteria of biography notability rationale. Just because someone fails PROF, doesn't magically mean the very heavy coverage by reliable secondary sources didn't exist. I saw very little deletion rational with simply WP:GNG. The "fails WP:PROF" arguments were simply red herrings.--Oakshade (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - "Meets WP:N" is a much, much stronger argument than "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". There are a couple more heads on the delete side; Canvassed? I can't see many AfD regulars supporting such a position, and the arguments for delete show a kind of cargo-cult Wikipedia-ism; knowing how to Wiki-link policies but not understanding either the policies or the purpose of Wikipedia. In any event, the heads are almost even, and policy is overwhelmingly on the side of keep. The only delete argument that might almost carry weight is that he's a minor, but there's zero evidence of anything harmful in the article, and given that he and his mom are engaged in promoting him, you'd need a compelling argument for harm (and realistically, with stories in Maclean's, the BBC, Forbes, et al., the possibility of harm reduction, were there actually harm, is miniscule). WilyD 08:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete. I won't bother to take up the duel of policies with acronyms above. Instead I appeal to common sense: making wiki articles about subjects with good potential to become tabloid ephemera is dumb. Am I declaring that this subject is ephemera and will never deserve an article? I am not. I am just saying it's premature to enshrine the subject now. Do the endorsers realize that there are probably dozens of such child-genius stories there are out there? (That is a conservative estimate.) This one is not different. Here's the last one I remember hearing about. Actually this link is from later in the lifecycle of that person's coverage when the media were done milking the interest story and ready to milk the disinterest story. When lightning strikes we can be the thunder, but keeping this article is thunder-before-the-lightning. If dogged adherence to the letter of guidelines is causing anyone to admit such a story into WP, then I recommend we reconsider how we apply the guidelines. Rschwieb (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn in the interest of charity to the subject.
I'd say technically, by the sources, the notability is there. What's problematic is that the whole thing revolves around a minor who is being made the subject of a spectacle. If he pans out as a prodigy, we can wait for that; if not, it's cruel for us to contribute to keeping hijm in the limelight. We are not obligated to participate in the media circus. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a respectable position, but I think it is overcautious, as I think the Wikipedian community can be trusted to keep the coverage minimal, and certainly to exclude sensationalist coverage. The current state of the article is a stub presenting references and links to a very short list of very reputable sources. Wikipedia should not reproduce tabloid coverage, but it should include the basic facts for a topic on which readers can reasonably expect something. Has someone, the subject or a guardian or a representative requested privacy? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Further to SJ's response: I respect the personal opinions of the last two voters, even though they are, by their own admission, not grounded in Wikipedia policy, and imply the opinion that a sustained lack of common sense has been shown by so many non-tabloid journalists. FWIW my personal opinion is that a story about an autistic boy who is admitted to a prestigious research institute aged 15 is, in the words of one of those journalists, "a story that deserves to be told". Viewfinder (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Aye. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Viewfinder (talk · contribs)'s view is essentially WP:ILIKEIT, and completely without reference to policy, especially WP:BLP which he both misunderstands and misrepresents. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There's plenty of WP:IDONTLIKEIT without reference to policy going on here. Can anyone refer me to a policy, within BLP or anywhere else, which specifically addresses the issue of minors? Viewfinder (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Responding to each and every point as ViewFinder (talk · contribs) is doing is never a good idea - while it increases the amount of text that apparently supports your view, it is nevertheless rather rude and inconsiderate. Meanwhile, given the complete lack of quality of your arguments, given that they are assertions about policy that simply further demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of said policies is just not cool. Issues about whether policy should be clearer on this issue are different from the in depth understanding of said policy that is held by people who are clearly have more wiki experience and deeper understanding of policy and precedent than you do. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I will respond to that only by stating that I am pleased that there are several editors here whose knowledge and experience of Wikipedia greatly exceeds mine. Viewfinder (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ARBCOM ruled a long time back 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." Keeping a bio on a kid who is being presented, marginally, as a prodigy (especially when, as Rschwieb says, it appears that the hype cycle is starting to burn out) lacks that respect. Let the kid fade back into obscurity, as policy and decency dictate. Relying on the decency of journalists is indefensible; the community here has had to be bludgeoned into decency multiple times before, so I don't see relying on that either. Mangoe (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So having a short, neutral and hype free biography of a child who has had so much media coverage is disrespectful and indecent? Are you suggesting that there has been sustained indecency on the part of so many non-tabloid journalists? It seems to me that some people hold that point of view, and are here to push it. Viewfinder (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The difficulty with keeping the BLP is that, to ensure WP:NPOV it will be necessary to include the increasing growing material critical of the media beat-up. I think this would be cruel to the vulnerable child, and to WP:Do no harm it would be better to delete everything. This argument was made in the AfD but ignored by the closer. If the child's claimed talents come to fruition the the BLP can be recreated (with better sources). Xxanthippe (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Thank you for your calm response. The relevant section seems to be WP:HARM#TEST. If the critical material has been adequately reported, it can be included. If not, its inclusion is not necessary to ensure NPOV. This can be discussed on the article talk page. Viewfinder (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The article itself is the hype. Mangoe (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No it's not. Claims that he was about to disprove relativity, disprove the big bang, win a Nobel prize, or even the debatable IQ claim, are not even mentioned as the article currently stands. I don't think the sources generally make these claims, but the lay reader may have got the impression that some of them do. Viewfinder (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse: I noted in the AfD, "how many years of news coverage will this person need to be the subject of before you decide he's notable?" He's been in the news now for three years. DR is not a second chance AfD. The bringer of this DR would like us to believe it is a vote. The closing administrator noted a majority of !voters voted to delete. But, the closing administrator rightly knows AfD is not a vote. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct. Carrite (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. An excellent close (though I would have had to accept no consensus as within discretion). S Marshall's careful analysis is tremendously helpful in showing me where I differ from him (I am more tolerant of reasoned opinions contrary to the notability guidelines; I think extra weight should be added if several people express similar opinions), but still I think his and Number 57's approaches to assessing the discussion are absolutely appropriate. Wikipedia started without any notability guidelines. It started with a list of what WP was not and after a while guidelines grew up to codify what it was that it wasn't. Reporting by external sources was eventually agreed to be the basis for deciding which topics should have articles rather than a subjective assessment by editors of what they thought was important. This led towards some objectivity at the cost of favouring populist topics that are all too often (in my view) based on unsatisfactory journalism. So, although I would give weight to an argument "the topic passes GNG but we should delete the article because ...", the "because" has to have some cogent reason relating to our general approach. Reasons such as "from our personal knowledge we know these reports are unreliable" absolutely will not do. We surrendered our personal judgements on importance to those of people who get themselves published. Balance is achieved by referring to diverse sources, not by omitting what we happen to think is unimportant. Thincat (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Keep - Subject of a 60 Minutes segment, Huffington Post piece, covered in Psychology Today, and on and on and on and on. An obvious keep as a public figure, regardless of age. I have no idea why this outcome is so surprising as to land this at DRV, it's doubly easy as an endorsable decision here. Carrite (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Keep - the subject has clearly been noted in a wide variety of media outlets over several years (eg BBC, The Times, usually regarded as reputable). I too am baffled that there should be anything even marginally surprising about a 'keep' outcome. Oculi (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You and several other participants here didn't actually read the discussion carefully, did you? There was strong reason for not regarding those sources as reliable in this particular case, despite their usual reliability. (I.e., they repeated clear and obvious falsehoods.) —David Eppstein (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn The closer's rational may have been reasonable in most cases, but actually reading the points confirms that what has been said about the subject's work is twaddle. The media loves a heart-warming story and they are ready to parrot anything, but what has actually happened does not satisfy notability—the publication certainly does not satisfy WP:N, and there are hundreds of similar media interest stories each month. The article can be written when the subject has published sufficient material—until then it relies on non-encyclopedic tidbits such as what his mother thought, or that the subject is the youngest "in its 3 year history". Johnuniq (talk) 07:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closure. This DRV involves important issues of Wikipedia policy. It should be closed by a senior editor (obviously a senior admin or higher) and not by some ordinary drive-by admin. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Welcome to DRV, Xxanthippe. You'll find that we have a small number of closers, all of whom are rather reliable. Discussions here are closed with great care and thought.—S Marshall T/C 10:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That is indeed encouraging. Careful and thoughtful is as careful and thoughtful does. I note that you have have expressed a strong POV in this matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- comment/revision: Further up I once said that notability was technically there, but in light of further discussion I withdraw that assertion. We tend to take newspapers and general interest journals as reliable sources, but in reality they are rather often credulous. After further consideration I don't think the stories here are reliable enough to establish real notability. Mangoe (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that the volume of sustained coverage, in both broadsheet and academic media, in itself establishes notability, even if there is some skepticism in some of the academic sources. The coverage is not of the here today, gone tomorrow type. Viewfinder (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
