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

The result was keep. Although a majority of commenters !voted to delete the article, the arguments of the keep proponents were far stronger. Evidence was provided that there has been substantial third party coverage of this person in several countries over a period of several years, contributing to this person meeting WP:GNG. Reasons for deletion were given as failing to meet WP:PROF (which is overruled by the GNG) and 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). Number 57 11:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Barnett[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jacob Barnett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to be a recreation of a previously deleted page. All of the sources cited here are of the same kind discussed in that deletion discussion, and I don't see that anything has changed. (The only new addition seems to be a credulous Huffington Post human interest story, and an even more credulous paragraph in the BBC saying that the subject is "tipped for a Nobel Prize", which doesn't even pass the sniff test.) The subject clearly fails WP:PROF at the moment, and the arguments against WP:GNG (which the closing admin described at a "cut and dry" case) seem to apply equally to the present article as they did to the original one. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When he satisfies the relevant content guideline. Viral human interest stories do not establish notability. What is needed for GNG would be serious journalism. How do I know this isn't serious? Well one of the recent references in the article has a link in the sidebar to a story about a YouTube video of a kitten attacking a Doberman. That's generally a clue. Next thing, you'll be insisting we have an article about that kitten. Also, one of the referenced articles suggests that Mr. Barnett is likely to receive a Nobel Prize. That simply isn't credible. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need for you to get testy. That aside, sidebar articles have nothing to do with the article itself. Evaluating an article based on what is in the sidebar of a major news site isn't going to gain traction. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is that so far none of the sources presented seem to be serious journalistic sources. They all suffer from the same basic problem of credulously repeating the same problematic facts. They uncritically accept that Mr. Barnett has formulated a scientific theory that contradicts Einstein's theory of gravitation. Some sources have gone so far as to place a Nobel Prize in the subject's future. But nowhere is there any, well, journalism. You know? The kind where credentialed experts and stuff are interviewed to support the claims in the article. It's all just random web/newsmedia sensationalism, basically just echoing the same old unsourced claims. Three years ago, in the initial AfD, you also seemed to have trouble identifying serious sources. The "kitten test", although droll, really rams this point home I think. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The importance of the paper isn't which of the co-authors, that is mentioned first, the importance is, that it's a paper about Barnetts discovery, it's not the discovery of Joglekar other than he put up the challenge for young Barnett to solve (no one had solved that challenge before, not even Joglekar). Have you at all read the biography about young Barnett? Oleryhlolsson (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you're arguing that he's notable because of a single paper with only 17 citations, that's a losing argument to begin with. The fact that he isn't even the primary author is just gravy. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it's especially relevant to the question of his notability for the purposes of an encyclopedia article, but his IQ is only higher than Einstein's according to a sensationalistic article in the Daily Mail. This is probably not the most reliable source. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
High IQ and very early college admission are amazing, but they're not notable in the sense of satisfying one of the many possible WP notability conditions. The sources that do exist are completely sensationalized, for example the BBC blurb that places a Nobel in his future before he's even finished his education and the Daily Mail article that gushes about his theory of relativity but actually shows a picture of him doing introductory calculus. (The latter also says he has "debunked" the Big Bang theory, which is nonsense.) Journalists generally have little to no understanding of science or mathematics, nor of the current states of these fields and it really shows in these pieces. Jacob seems to have made impressive achievements for his age, but we do not make a habit of lowering the notability bar to compensate for age. Agricola44 (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, I think that given the nature of these sources they must be considered unreliable despite where they were published. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are very clearly talking about the BBC and DailyMail pieces, which is what "these sources" refers to. It is equally clear, if one reads them, that they are unreliable. Agricola44 (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
All these sources have now been determined to contain sensationalized falsehoods (see wall of text below). They probably cannot be considered to be reliable. Agricola44 (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
All these sources have now been determined to contain sensationalized falsehoods (see wall of text below). They probably cannot be considered to be reliable. Agricola44 (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The problem with this analysis is that it relies on an unsupported analysis of the word "presumed" in the notability guideline. From that guideline (WP:GNG): "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included." There is no doubt that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple sources. However, on what basis do we conclude that the subject is notable. Is he notable as a scientist? If so, the appropriate standard for having an article in an encyclopedia is not how many tabloid human interest stories the subject has appeared in, but whether the subject "[has] made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" (from WP:PROF). None of the sources I have seen make a credible claim of this. If, instead, we are to argue that he is notable not as a scientist, but as a gifted child with autism, then we would probably need case studies from the peer reviewed psychology literature. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will repeat that not much has changed. Every single source Cunard lists above is sensationalized puff. Specifically,
  1. repeats the nonsense about "debunking" Big Bang: "If not the big bang, then how did the universe come about? 'I'm still working on that,' he said. 'I have an idea, but . . . I'm still working out the details.'"
  2. repeats the nonsense about disproving Einstein's relativity: "Could Einstein’s Theory of Relativity be a few mathematical equations away from being disproved? Jacob Barnett of Hamilton County, Ind., who is just weeks shy of his 13th birthday, thinks so. And, he’s got the solutions to prove it."
  3. "At the tender age of 13, this teenage astrophysicist published research materials on the Big Bang and Special Relativity" – this is false. The author of this piece clearly does not understand what constitutes scientific publication. This work has evidently never appeared in a mainstream, peer-reviewed physics journal in the 3 years since all of this hype started.
  4. more nonsense on besting Einstein: "one who calculated his own expanded theory of relativity" – this article is an advert for his mother's book
  5. nonsense about Nobel prize work at age 14: "he is tipped to be a future Nobel prize winner"
  6. PR article written by his mother promoting her book on him: "his mom hopes the publicity will be behind them" – this seems to be frequently contradicted by the organized PR machinery that promotes him and his mother
  7. "he's in line for the Nobel Prize one day" – promotion of mother's book
  8. human interest article with statements like "He taught himself calculus in two weeks" and "I started doing research when I was 12 years old, and I actually published a paper"
  9. this article says his IQ is so high it can't actually be measured: "Several IQ tests have been administered on him, and Barnett said that it's been concluded that he can't be measured, so he is always given the top number" – promotes mother's book
  10. advert for mother's book
  11. higher IQ than Einstein etc etc
  12. higher IQ than Einstein, mother's book, etc.
  13. more nonsense about Einstein: "he built a series of mathematical models that expanded Einstein's field of relativity, which was described by a Princeton University professor as ground-breaking" – again out of context about work that has never been published or scrutinized
  14. an interview with a "journalist" who "decided to smoke some regular old cannabis, to make things a little more kooky" – goes downhill from here with factual mistakes and such
In summary, I think all of these pieces have been misrepresented as reliable sources. They are not. Indeed, they are the kind of writings that render me embarrassed for the profession of "journalism", such as it has become. My final impression after having looked at this a bit more is that there is a coordinated PR campaign to promote Jacob's story and his mother's book. The people writing these stories continue to flippantly carry forward the nonsensical scientific claims, in part because they themselves do not understand how scientific work is vetted. Jacob may very well have a bright future and go on to do notable work that will garner him honors...but he has not done so yet. Agricola44 (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say this analysis is very misleading, which is obvious if one reads the pieces Cunard listed. Agricola44 (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cunard for your thorough research. Clearly there has been far more media coverage of this guy than the mere "sensationalist article in the Daily Mail" claimed by our opponents. Viewfinder (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's not only 1 sensationalistic puff piece, there are more than a dozen. Agricola44 (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Can someone please identify a source that is non-sensationalistic? Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exceptional child prodigy associated with autism is "trivial"? I beg to disagree. Viewfinder (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exceptional? His name on one paper with 17 cites shows only minor scientific impact yet. Come back when he has 1700 cites, then he may be exceptional. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Exceptional? Yes, this kid is exceptional. I am not arguing the case from the point of view of scientific impact, I am arguing that he has generated sufficient international non-sensationalist human interest to merit an article. Viewfinder (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you have stated that you have autism yourself. I commend you for declaring your COI. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for that. Of course autism disqualifies me from being the final arbiter in this debate! But it does generate my interest and inclination to participate, I don't like to see it dismissed with expletives. Viewfinder (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
? No expletives from me! Xxanthippe (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Please see above. I give specific details showing every one of those 14 sources is sensationalized with the same nonsense about disproving Einstein, debunking Big Bang, and promoting mother's book. Agricola44 (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could respond by suggesting that there might possibly be a clique of wikipedians who are determined to obstruct and knock the publication of this kid's story. Some people don't seem to be able to abide by unusual abilities, are they frightened of them? Of course his mother is doing her best to promote him, would not you if he were your child? Agreed about some of the hype and lack of scientific knowledge of some of the writers, but the fact that he has been covered by so many internationally renowned publications should in itself be sufficient to establish him as notable. I agree that such publications sometimes publish trivia which should be excluded from WP:GNG per WP:IINFO but I don't think this case of child prodigy is trivial. It neatly highlights the fact that special abilitites can be associated with more general disability. Viewfinder (talk) 08:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure it's not helpful to personalized this discussion as you have done. The "clique of Wikipedians" you speak of seem to be those with some scientific training participating in the discussion. The promotion of the mother's book, and credulous acceptance of her ludicrous claims smacks of scientific fraud, at least to some of us that are used to seeing such things first hand. After all, what's the point in going through the messy and difficult process of scientific peer review when it's so much easier just to go on Oprah? I'm not trying to denigrate Mr. Barnett in any of this. No doubt he is a very talented young man. Nor am I trying to detract from you personally drawing inspiration from him. However, I think that his scientific credentials fall far short of what would merit an encyclopedia article at this point, and the sources should be setting off alarm bells. Agricola summarized this nicely. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already stated, I am not citing scientific impact in support of my defence of the article. You are implicitly accusing multiple renowned publications of scientific fraud. Strong stuff. Even if you're right, I still think there is sufficient evidence of child prodigy to support the article. It's not up to me, but I hope Wikipedia will agree. The kid is an inspiration who deserves an article. Viewfinder (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the "journalists": not fraud so much as complete scientific ignorance combined with circulation-promoting sensationalism. The claims of this boy are either outlandish, ipso facto nonsense or results that change the fundamental basis of all of physics (Einstein wrong, Big Bang wrong, etc). There is not a shred of evidence of the latter. In fact, given that the claims have been floating around for several years and there have been no peer reviewed papers, it is starting to look like nothing more than a PR machine promoting a crank (especially with mother's book). Reminds somewhat of the Haramein Afds. Agricola44 (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you think he's notable because he is a child prodigy, then you should be looking for reliable sources on that phenomenon. There are developmental psychologists who study this. They have written papers in the peer reviewed literature. No doubt they have given interviews, or are willing to given interviews, with real journalists. Let's try finding sources like this before we jump to our own conclusions. A real article needs real sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for fraud, I was willing in the first AfD to apply a dose of Hanlon's razor and attribute the obviously wrong "facts" of the case to journalistic incompetence. However, the mother's cynical attempt to capitalize on it by flogging her new book in the media makes it all look pretty deliberate. We should have no part in this. WP:SOAP. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Second declaration: I had not heard of Barnett until I noticed him on AfD, I do occasionally look at these at random. I have no connection whatsoever with other users who are supporting his case. Viewfinder (talk) 08:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is an important point. A vulnerable minor is being exploited and Wikipedia should have no part in it. There is a case for WP:Speedy delete on grounds of WP:BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
So encouraging your autistic child to pursue his special abilities is exploitation? Please quote the relevant BLP passage. Viewfinder (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Encouraging" by turning the kid into a media circus attraction in order to sell a book, you mean. Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am saddened by the vicious attacks on the kid's mother, science journalism in general and claims that infant prodigy is anything other than trivial. I don't think I like this place. Viewfinder (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am truly very sorry you feel this way. Facts and evidence (like their broader aspects of science) are cold, emotionless entities. I don't think you should be throwing around accusations like "vicious", when the observations regarding the journalistic aspect are obvious and undeniable to anyone who has some passing familiarity with science. Mother's motives are not known, of course, but the systematic "interview shopping" of every network outlet here and abroad, coupled with the promotional nature and the offer of book sales certainly gives the appearance of what has been described here. As for being a prodigy, this is not one of Wikipedia's conditions of notability and, if you don't like it, you'll have to argue that at a much higher level than this AfD. What I find a little sad is that the collusion involved in the many years of promoting this young man as a genius has led to expectations for his future that he will, in all likelihood, never be able to live up to in the "open league" of scientific research. He very well may merit a WP page in the future, but at this time, he does not actually have a record of accomplishment that is even close to the average research scientist. You can convince yourself that this is true by looking at his publication record: 1 paper cited less than 20 times, on which he is not the principal author. Agricola44 (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I feel this way because I see SB refer to mother's cynical attempt to flog her new book in the media and BBB use the uncivil expression FFS, then refer to "extremely poor" science journalism as "normal", which I see as nasty attacks on an individual and a profession respectively. Loads of people attempt to use journalists to sell their work, and very few succeed. Despite the scientific flaws, that the mother has succeeded must surely count for something. Perhaps these journalists admire her determination to publicize her case of autistic child prodigy and frankly I agree with them. Go, Kristine. Go. Viewfinder (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside for the moment what you see as distasteful argument, it appears that you're saying you believe Barnett should have a WP page because his mother succeeded in some sense in bringing the story of her son, an autistic prodigy, to a wide audience and that other editors should be more sympathetic to the argument that this very redeeming aspect of the case should "count" for enough to have a page. Is that more-or-less it? Agricola44 (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
It comes down to whether the article should be a WP:NOT (especially WP:IINFO) exception to WP:GNG. The subject has surely had enough coverage in renowned and independent sources to pass WP:GNG - unless we consider the material to be trivial, in which case the article is defeated by WP:NOT. I don't think this autistic child prodigy case is trivial. Forget about WP:PROF, I am not contesting that. Viewfinder (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Viewfinder (talk · contribs) I am personally acquainted with some very good science journalists who work for the BBC and broadsheet newspapers, who at least try to get it right. Science journalism varies in quality. I often see shoddy journalism that is sensationalist (generally exaggerated for effect) and inaccurate (because the journalist clearly plainly just doesn't understand what he's talking about). The Daily Mail is usually the worst. Even an apparently reputable magazine such as New Scientist regularly publishes some highly speculative articles. To add to my point above, the article is an orphan, and is worthless. I'm sure his mum loves him and is a nice person - but that is of no relevance whatsoever. FFS is entirely appropriate when people need WP:TROUTING for their bizarre ramblings that bear no resemblance whatsoever to policy. Barney the barney barney (talk) 05:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already stated, the article passes WP:GNG policy unless it is defeated by WP:NOT policy. Viewfinder (talk) 09:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could I further suggest that if a respected scientist has published a statement criticizing the media coverage of Barnett for its sensationalism and inaccuracy, it would be appropriate to include that statement in the article. Articles should not be deleted because a clique of Wikipedians, who accuse their opponents of "bizarre ramblings", don't happen to like them. Viewfinder (talk) 09:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, such a source might actually make the subject more notable, since he is to my mind only possibly notable as a media phenomenon. As far as I am aware, his case has not been taken up by any media studies. However, the degeneration of quality in science journalism giving way to PR machines of this kind is a documented phenomenon. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI BBB, Wikipedia policy at WP:Orphan#Various_ways_to_de-orphan states that "an article being an orphan is not in any way, shape, or form a criterion for deletion". In any case, the article is not worthless as it can still be found by search engines. Viewfinder (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most articles on professors are linked to and from articles on their field of study. Since this teenager is hasn't made any significant contributions to science (just as one swallow doesn't make a summer, a single paper isn't an oeuvre of work), the only thing you can apparently find to link from is his year of birth. That's just pure trivia. Oh and how I wish sometimes an actual trout would come out of one's computer and slap one in the face/gonads if one's deserving of it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the umpteenth time BBB, I am not basing my case on scientific impact. I am basing it on extensive coverage by so many well known publications. If an article being orphaned implied that it was pure trivia, then it being an orphan would be grounds for deletion. It is not. It does not necessarily follow from its coverage that it is not trivia, but I happen to agree with Charlotte Moore who writes in the Spectator that "(Kristine) is an admirable woman, Jacob is a remarkable boy and their story deserves to be told". One doesn't write that about trivia. I won't send you a trout because an adversary should not be slapped in the face just because (s)he happens not to be in agreement. Viewfinder (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Agricola for your helpful and constructive summary. Please now allow me to sum up for the defence. I agree with you about Tremaine; Barnett's scientific impact to date does not automatically qualify him for an article, let alone debunks relativity or the Big Bang or places him in line for any Nobel Prize. His IQ cannot be definitively compared with Einstein as the latter was never tested, but it is comparable with estimates of Einstein's IQ. I have been checking the sources more carefully, and yes some of them, including MailOnLine, are hyped up. But far from emphasizing exaggerations and falsehoods, most of them concentrate on the kid's story, the remarkable story of the autistic child prodigy with special abilities that got him admitted to university as a pre-teen. Far from being trivial, his story as told by these sources should of be considerable interest to anyone who, like me, is affected by high functioning autism or Asperger's syndrome. I don't think they manufacture a false image; they provide the kind of material that, in my opinion, should qualify him for an article here. Provided it steers clear of any hype, it should not be unflattering or damaging. As Charlotte Moore writes, it is a story which deserves to be told. At the very least, I propose that supporters of the article, like Cunard, Hammersoft and myself, be given time to improve it. Viewfinder (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sympathize with what you've said regarding the human interest here. However, the impasse is that these dozens of articles are all filled with fantastic assertions about Jacob's accomplishments that are patently false. I don't think it is intellectually honest for any of us to try to explain this away. If you want to use these pieces as sources, you will have to include the "manufactured image" aspect of the story and how it is based on shoddy journalism, promotion, and sensationalism – for the very fact that this was the entire basis for writing these stories in the first place! (Otherwise, Jacob is just another high-functioning individual with autism, who would not be of interest to the media sensationalists.) The entire image is founded on these (false) claims and to omit them would be blatant WP:UNDUE. The quicksand here is that including this material will paint his mother and very likely himself in a very bad light. Sourcing rules are even more strict, since he's a living person. I don't know how the closing admin will rule in this case, but if the article is kept, you may be unhappy with the way the content will necessarily evolve. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Where are the patent falsehoods here? Or here? Or here? Please tell me. Viewfinder (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree these are a little less egregious, but all three still carry components of the larger myth forward: number (1) claims Jacob's IQ is too high to be tested, mentions his original theory in astrophysics, and Nobel; number (2) blatantly misquotes Tremaine ("[Jacob] built a series of mathematical models that expanded Einstein's field of relativity, which was described by a Princeton University professor as ground-breaking") and calls him one of "the world's most promising physicists" (this is in the title, and is obviously false); and number (3) reiterates Jacob's contention that his IQ is too high to be measured ("Barnett said that it's been concluded that he can't be measured, so he is always given the top number"). I have no doubt that another few dozen stories like these could be found. All build upon the myth. I'm starting to feel a level of sorrow for Jacob, as he inevitably will not be able to live up to the expectations that have been built for him. Agricola44 (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The first is a book review. This is fine as a secondary source about the book, but its authority on the subject of this AfD flows entirely from that book. Of the few solid facts in the second reference, at least one of them is wrong: Scott Tremaine is not a Princeton University professor. He is at IAS instead. These are the kinds of simple factual errors that real journalists try to address. But it gets much worse: that article is filled with unsupported rampant speculation. Even the title is grossly misleading. The third source seems mostly ok and tells a nice story, but remove the speculation about his IQ and it's hard to see how this conveys any notability. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I can agree that these claims are more promotional than encyclopaedic, I don't think they are patently false. IQ becomes more subjective as we drop off the high end of the curve, perhaps to the point where measuring it definitively becomes arguably impossible. (If Einstein were reincarnated and tested, one could still argue indefinitely about who is more intelligent.) Can you be sure that Barnett did not create original theory ground breaking mathematical models? It is subjective whether or not he is one of the world's most promising physicists. Moore mentions Nobel, possibly hinting but certainly not asserting that Barnett is in line. She may not always get it 100% right but she is a respected author and I am sure she would not turn out patent falsehoods. Anyway lets try and find some things we can agree about. How about these...

These surely exceptional and verifiable claims about him, exceptional enough for general notability beyond trivia, are common to many of the sources and can be put together into a Wikipedia article. If the case can be made and accepted that he would benefit from less publicity then perhaps we should be cautious about adding to it, but he is inspirational and I at least hope the article is not deleted on the grounds that his story is trivial. Viewfinder (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can only observe that you're now drifting closer to these same (trashy, pardon) journalistic tendencies. We're not going to delve into the esoterica of IQ testing here; none of the bullet points you mention (impressive as they are) satisfies long-standing WP notability requirements; nor will we jump 30 or 40 thousand steps ahead and repeat the absurd speculation on a Nobel prize. To answer your question, yes, I am absolutely sure that Barnett did not create original ground-breaking mathematical models expanding Einstein's relativity, refuting the Big Bang, or explaining any other important problem in physics, otherwise Tremaine or one of Jacob's handlers at any of the institutions he's been at would have been certain to shepherd such work into publication. This is absolutely the way organized science works. I've hesitated to mention this, but might as well (since it seems that we're now circling back to argue that Jacob really may have made such contributions to physics): Phil Plait wrote a short Discover piece on this very case: i.e. how the media has misreported/misrepresented Jacob's accomplishments in physics. I'm guessing there may be other observations like this, though I have not looked.<added>Here is another from Steven Novella.</added> I stick with my conclusion that Jacob does not show the kind of notability we need from the technical standpoint and that the sources we've all seen, numerous as they are, are blatantly unreliable pieces of journalistic sensationalism. Agricola44 (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • And let me add one anecdote if you still doubt that Jacob's mentors would, in fact, have shepherded real work into publication, were it to have been genuine. Emily Rosa was in 6th grade when she was able to devise and carry out a series of tests conclusively debunking Therapeutic touch. Dr Stephen Barrett helped her complete the work and write it up for publication. It appeared in JAMA (1998; 279(13):1005–1010) and has been cited >100 times. Agricola44 (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Re Nobel I am doing no more than quoting Tremaine. I completely agree with Plait about proving relativity wrong, and I accept that it is unlikely that Barnett has broken any new ground of significant consequence. So I agree that the article fails WP:PROF. But hardly any of Cunard's sources make such claims. The majority of them can be summarized by my bullet points, which you do not appear to dispute. To dismiss "all" these sources as "patently false" and "blatantly unreliable pieces of journalistic sensationalism, is, pardon me, ridiculous. Evidently we must agree to disagree about this, but in my opinion the above bullet points, which can be widely linked to non-sensationalist material, show that Barnett is sufficiently exceptional and that there is more than enough general interest in him to pass our general notability guideline. Viewfinder (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pardon me, but all of Cunards sources listed above make one or more of these outlandish claims regarding physics – I detailed each and every one above, if perhaps you haven't seen this yet – and this is the aspect that is sensational. I do not dispute the "human interest" of these stories, only that this aspect makes one notable. In the frame of reference of WP guidelines, it does not. Agricola44 (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding to your various bullets in order:
    (1) We apparently have only his mother's word about his diagnosis at the age of 2, and that lacks credibility. Certainly a parent of a very young child with autism spectrum might be told that their child may never be able to speak. This is easily distorted into the sensationalistic "thought to be lost" that most of the sources convey. Notice how the Tremaine quote was used to say all kinds of grandiose things about how Nobel Prizes sit in Mr. Barnett's future, etc. But as you presumably well know, the age of two is far too young an age to give anything close to a conclusive diagnosis on abnormalities in verbal and behavioral development. There is a substantially wide "normal" spectrum for behavior at this stage of child development. Standard tests for children of this age only establish risk level (low, moderate, high), and do not purport to be a life sentence.
    (2) What role, if any, his mother played in his "recovery" again is pure speculation that seems to come from no recognizable authority. Perhaps he "recovered" as part of the normal developmental process. That's neither here nor there notability-wise, though, and we have no reliable sources for it anyway.
    (3) His intelligence being comparable to Einstein seems quite speculative. On whose authority is this comparison being made? It seems to have been purely made up to grab headlines, as far as I can tell.
    (4) It is actually perhaps more common than you think for pre-teens to be enrolled in university courses. I have personally taught three such "child prodigies" (none of whom are notable in the sense of Wikipedia — one of whom was even the sole author of a paper published in the Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, for what it's worth). My doctoral advisor was also a famous child prodigy (with a Wikipedia page) who had completed his own doctoral thesis before the age of 18.
    (5) The only hard publication with his name attached to it is not a paper in astrophysics, but rather condensed matter physics. The rest is just hype.
    (6) see (4).
    (7) "His work in fields which, if he solved them, would put him in line for a Nobel prize." This is pure speculation and crystal balling. Without any body of work on which to make such a grand pronouncement, we could say this of basically anybody. That's the trouble with the Tremaine quote: it could have been made of my two-year old nephew who just drew a picture of a "black hole". Context is important, and if you saw (and understood) the YouTube video that Tremaine was actually responding to, you would also understand what he meant by that quote. Unfortunately, all trace of that video now seems to have been removed from the internet. (It used to be at the bottom of http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1369595/Jacob-Barnett-12-higher-IQ-Einstein-develops-theory-relativity.html and I commented on it in the previous AfD.) Ask yourself: why would mommy delete the video that Tremaine had said would lead to Jake's Nobel Prize? Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I seem to be the last person still fighting for the article in a discussion that will soon be closed, but for what it's worth I will reply. (1)(2)(3)(5) You seem to be suggesting that his mother may have been serially lying to reporters. They're surely not all that gullible and her claims are likely to be verifiable. (4)(6) I am not sure where you are based but AFAIK prodigy on Barnett's level would be exceptional in the UK, no such case ever came to my knowledge in my student days. (7) He must be exceptionally smart to be working in these fields at such a young age, even if he never solves them. I don't think Tremaine would have said what he did if Barnett were not seriously working. Of course we call all draw a black hole.Viewfinder (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding (1)(2)(3)(5), no I don't mean to say that Mrs. Barnett has been serially lying to reporters (at least not on purpose), but she is clearly at least as unreliable a source as anyone's mother would be. She also has a very concrete financial incentive not to be objective. I leave the deduction to better minds. Regarding the Tremaine quote: you're just wrong. But let's entertain the possibility that you're right. If one physicist earnestly made this assessment of the very young Jacob Barnett back in early 2011, surely there would be more famous physicists wanting to align themselves with the young wunderkind. Could not-a-one of these beneficient pinnacles of erudition be reached for comment by one of the many journalists eager to cover the story in the intervening 3 years?
    Also, focusing not so much on the details of my responses to your bullet points but on their overall implications, the trouble with the sources concerning Jacob Barnett is that there is no recognizable authority in any of them. As far as I'm aware, no source has presented any credibly authoritative statement, with the exception of bare geographical facts that can be googled (e.g., that Barnett is at PI). Who was interviewed, besides Jacob and Mrs. Barnett, in the writing of the article? What gives them authority and what were they asked? A real news article contains this information (or it says "anonymous sources"). It tells you who was interviewed, often what question was asked. It does not attempt to distort or sensationalize what was put into print. By contrast, the original Tremaine quote was run in the Daily Mail. The context of the quote was quite open to interpretation at the time, and now any shred of context has quite literally has been eliminated. That seems to be the only iota of authority that exists in any of this. That. Daily. Mail. Quote. Think about that. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What does that even mean? WP:Notability has a clear definition: it's not about notoriety, nor about achievements, it's about the attention paid to them by independent sources: as we have here. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As most of the editors experienced in AfDs have noted above, the sources are of the National Enquirer type and are not reliable as required by Wikipedia policy. Therefore sound policy reasons exist for deleting the article in addition to concern for the welfare of the minor. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry, but I can't see the National Enquirer source that you're complaining of?
Secondly, even the use of a National Enquirer source would not invalidate the other sources that are here, from the likes of the Times, the BBC and the Huffington Post, all of which we consider to meet WP:RS. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis do these news articles meet WP:RS? What experts were interviewed in the process of writing the articles? Besides the mother, whose opinions are reflected in them? If they only represent the mother's opinion, then they are not independent. If they are the opinion only of the journalist writing them, then they are opinion pieces, [WP:NEWSORG|specifically exempted at WP:RS]]. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if those balancing sources are disallowed, we have a problem. Per WP:NPOV we must cover subjects neutrally. But we seem to have a clear consensus here that the other sources that we have are biased, from the mother's point of view, telling only the hyped-up side of the story without any balance pointing out that his accomplishments so far are not particularly unusual and that Tremaine's quote has been taken very far out of context. (For one thing, it is not about the paper whose description it immediately follows in our article.) If we add those sources we have a BLP problem because they are of dubious reliability. If we don't add them we have an NPOV problem because then we will be as guilty as BBC etc of falling for the hype and providing no balance. Both BLP and NPOV trump GNG. So the only reasonable outcome seems to me that if we can't have an article that meets our policies we shouldn't have an article at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me just say that I think that your argument here, linking to WP:Verifiability but making the link text be "published by reliable sources", is highly problematic in this case when we have strong reason to disbelieve those sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely if Mrs Barnett were as dishonest as some contributors (notably SB and DE) are implying, then that would have been exposed long ago and the media would have stopped publicizing her. Viewfinder (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Eppstein. These sources also seem to be the only ones in the discussion where there is any clear source of authority, besides the mother. This was "exposed long ago", but I think you give the media too much credit if you think it stops repeating long ago debunked material. Remember global warming? And that's something that actually matters. Why do you think there would be any interest in debunking a puff human interest piece? (Also, writing something negative about Barnett isn't likely to sell papers or books, by the way.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cunard: Which "more than a dozen sources" are reliable? Certainly not all of the sources you have listed can be thought of as reliable, as some of them repeat claims that are obviously wrong ("disproved Einstein's theory", etc). At least one of these sources even got easily verifiable "facts" wrong (academic affiliation of Scott Tremaine), and I cannot seem to find a published correction. Can you please narrow down which sources you believe are reliable, and on what basis you come to this conclusion? Please indicate on what authority the article draws (e.g., well-known child psychologist, interview with astrophysicist, etc.). That is the kind of authority that is needed for a BLP article. Putting up a wall of google search results just because you assume that one of them must stick is not an acceptable way of ascertaining reliability. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A strong and unsupported statement. Putting aside our personal points of view on the quality and merit of that publicity, does not the fact that the subject has had so much publicity in so many well known publications establish at least some real notability? WP:GNG again. Viewfinder (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GNG requires reliable sources. So far no one has found any, just unsourced opinion articles. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are challenging the reliability not just of the subject's mother, but of many internationally known publications, with plenty of fact checking resources. All of them are wrong and you are right? Strong stuff. Viewfinder (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you mean plenty of absence of fact checking: disproved Einstein, debunked Big Bang, IQ so high it can't be measured, etc – yes, these are indeed wrong. Agricola44 (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Despite repeated attempts, the "keep" voters have refused to identify a single source whose reputation for fact checking ensures its reliability. So how about the BBC? This has probably the best reputation for fact checking of any of the sources so far mentioned. But that article asserts: "A teenager who was diagnosed with autism and told he would never be able to read has been tipped as a future Nobel prize winner." How do you defend this fact? Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a greater or lesser amount of hype in most articles, they are after all under pressure to sell. I agree that the BBC, Time and MailOnLine have done Jacob no favours by misconstruing what Tremaine said. But yesterday I identified three articles which, although not 100% accurate, concentrate on his extraordinary story, which is credible and deserves to be told. Viewfinder (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"pressure to sell" does not justify shoddy, sensationalism. As for "deserves to be told", you've just enunciated WP:IKNOWIT. Agricola44 (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I am quoting the Spectator book reviewer, a respected author. Viewfinder (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a useful secondary source about the book. But there's not much in the way of original journalism there concerning the subject of this deletion discussion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • not enough publication list, which is not sufficient but is necessary for notability – the opinion that for academics a publication list is necessary for notability contradicts the guideline WP:PROF, which states at Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria:

    Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable.

    "Being smart" is not sufficient for notability, I agree. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline instead requires that "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The subject clears this bar easily. Cunard (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree about blanking the debate, for reason given above by Cunard. It is a shame about the excessive hype because I still think there is enough good and credible material for a BLP. Viewfinder (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Viewfinder, I agree. The only BLP problems here are those manufactured by several users who supported deletion. The unfounded hyperbolic accusations made by these editors again the subject's mother (two examples) have no support in reliable sources. There is no BLP problem because any editor who repeatedly inserts unsourced or poorly sourced negative information into a BLP would be blocked per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Semi-protection, protection, and blocking.

The "investigatory journalism" into the "nasty state of affairs" by editors supporting deletion referred to by Xxanthippe is a classic violation of Wikipedia:No original research. From the lead of Wikipedia:Verifiability (bolding added for emphasis): "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Cunard (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A misunderstanding of policy. Nobody is suggesting putting these matters in article space. Au contraire, the suggestion is to delete the lot. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • The article only fails GNG if we agree with the contributor who described the issue as "one off trivial nonsense". The logical extension of that view is that autism and Asperger's syndrome in general are trivial nonsense. That is sad because, reading between that contributor's lines, I think it's possible that (s)he, like me, may be affected by them. But if we keep the article please can we delete the links to those articles that contain obvious and excessive hype. By contrast, the Plait article is excellent; I would say that the Novella blog also contains helpful advice for Jacob. Viewfinder (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So now anyone who does not support this article also believes that "autism and Asperger's syndrome in general are trivial nonsense"? Sorry, that is not logical extension. Agricola44 (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Agricola, I was referring to the logical extension of a contribution by one contributor. I don't think I was implying that that was the general view of those who wish to delete the article. Even if it passes GNG (which it surely does, given the volume of publicity, regardless of accuracy and merit) there may still be reasons for deleting it. Viewfinder (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I studied mathematics as an undergraduate and mathematical physics as a graduate. A couple of years ago when the hype machine started to surround Jacob Barnett I watched his youtube videos and was struck by various things he said that were in turn either just inane twaddle or exceptionally basic. I did not see any original theory (or original thought for that matter) that could challenge Einstein. Also I think if the page is going to stay then some quotes from Barnett's mother's book will have to be included even if her own words do not portray either herself or her son in a particularly good light. Also the sources for the article are laughable at the present time. They could potentially be more balanced by including reference in the article to the Skeptics Society's excellent article by Dr Chris Edwards debunking Jacob's claims. Here's the link to the article that I recommend all Jacob's supporters read very carefully http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/13-09-25// Fatootsed (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Despite outward appearances, I think many here have been trying to keep an open mind. But, after reading Edwards' article, it seems this is indeed a fairly clear-cut case of systematic use and promotion of Jacob by his mother. Much of the text in her book is based on things said by people like Tremaine that have been changed in calculated ways to build a false image of Jacob as one who has disproved Einstein, debunked Big Bang, etc. The conclusion is now unavoidable: we are faced with precisely the dilemma that David Eppstein described above: BLP vs NPOV. Deletion is surely the lesser evil here, as a kept article will necessarily paint Kristine (and by extension Jacob) in a very unflattering way. Agricola44 (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • I agree completely with what you say and on rereading my comment above it does appear rather strongly worded which wasn't my intention. My comment was made through the prism of the Skeptic Society article which should leave little doubt in most people's minds that Jacob is being cynically exploited which made me angry. There are so many questions that remain unanswered regarding his mother's version of events. Fatootsed (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just read the Edwards article and would describe it as the sort of healthy skepticism to which all bestsellers should be subjected. I have still yet to see an appropriate source for the claim that "Jacob is being cynically exploited". I think we are all in agreement about Jacob's scientific impact to date. The claim that Jacob scored higher in an IQ test than Einstein might have done if he had taken it appears to be upheld, although Edwards makes the point well that IQ is not everything. Social, communication and emotional control skills can be just as important; these are often lacking in people affected by autism and AS. I doubt if Edwards would take the view that Kristine is doing anything other that which she thinks is best for her son. Claims of cynical exploitation are therefore the unsourced original research POV's of those contributors who are making them, are hurtful to Kristine, and should be ignored by whoever is in line to determine the fate of this article. Viewfinder (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that Edwards' article is more critical of Kristine than you're letting on. A few quotes, e.g. "Kristine’s claims about Dr. Tremain’s reaction to Jacob’s theory are, at best, a misrepresentation", "here’s the baffling thing. Kristine writes that 'Jake had scored 170 on the Wechsler Fundamentals.." (discussing how his IQ myth has been promoted), "I suspect there’s probably something else going on here, not to mention that this attitude is more than a little condescending" (on Kristine's statements on her refusal to allow Jacob to participate in math competitions, where Jacob might not do well), and "Kristine Barnett and her publisher...by misrepresenting the emailed words of a single physicist...have hyped [Jacob] into a genius", make it pretty clear what Edwards' opinion is. Agricola44 (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Many thanks to Viewfinder for taking the time to write your comment (and of course to Agricola44 too). I think sometimes things look more strident when written than when said. Think of it as a case of strong words softly spoken. I think it's also helpful to note that there appears to be a mini industry surrounding this young man and we have no way of knowing if someone from his mother's publisher is defending her here. My concern at present is that Jacob is being given enough rope to hang himself (which could damage his future especially with how his potential colleagues might treat him) and he should be allowed to grow up and when he makes a genuine contribution to science we can document it with an encyclopaedic entry. If you type in "jacob barnett" into google as you type the third option down is "jacob barnett hoax". This is very troubling given his age. However, I do not believe that wikipedia should be used as a PR exercise in stemming such criticism by using only sensationalistic sources. Regarding the article I linked to, I must have read it differently to you as I didn't get the idea that Edwards believes Jacob has a higher IQ than Einstein, but rather that a comparison was impossible as Einstein is not believed to have taken an IQ test. Plus of course, the IQ test that Jacob took was designed for children not adults (something the sensationalistic articles appear to have overlooked). Also, do you believe that the things Scott Tremaine said have been deliberately taken out of context by his mother and their PR to create the hype around her son in order to sell her book? Of course there is the possibility that she didn't understand what Scott Tremaine's kind and encouraging words to a child interested in physics actually meant. I also encourage you to check out Jacob's Facebook page. Whoever is running it does not correct the gushing fans who think he's disproved Einstein or that he's received a PhD which again doesn't help Jacob's standing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatootsed (talk • contribs) 16:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
apologies I forgot to sign my comment Fatootsed (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that Mrs. Barnett willfully misconstrued the Tremaine quote. I am a published astrophysicist, and probably one of the few commenters in this discussion who has seen the original video that Tremaine was responding to. There is simply no way that he would have speculated on the matter of a Nobel in Barnett's future. I believe that the misrepresentation was willful because prior to publishing her book, she deleted that very video from the YouTube video feed. That video, if it had led Tremaine to make any prognostication of the young Barnett's grand future, would surely have been an important milestone. However, it was not after all: mathboysmom deleted it from her YouTube video timeline because it was not a milestone (and I'm being very charitable in this characterization). Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not seen Jacob's FB page and in any case it is surely not appropriate as a source. I an not sure if skeptic.com qualifies as a source or how harmful it would be if we used it. I would say that we can balance the article adequately and safely with a link to Plait. Something a bit like "Claims that he has disproved relativity (etcetera) have not stood up to expert analysis" should be OK. The Tremaine quote is open to wide ranging interpretations and there are differences between Mrs Barnett and Dr Edwards. She does not appear to have made any false statements. She does not quote Tremaine as stating that Jacob is in line for a Nobel, only that he would be if his theory held. Tremaine may have gone on to imply that that is very unlikely, in which case she may simply be being economical with the truth, something that can be said about most publications. In any case I don't think it is appropriate for us to accuse anyone of willful misinterpretation or cynical manipulation, even if we can claim that our original research upholds such accusations. Aside: if a contributor is a publisher with a conflict of interest (s)he should declare it, but on the other hand, is there any way of knowing if someone opposed to the article is canvassing his or her colleagues? Viewfinder (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:COI is absolutely not about not allowing experts in the field to contribute to Wikipedia. Such a reading of policy is poisonous and antithetical to our goal of being a serious encyclopedia, and you would do well not to pursue such an accusation further. Speaking for myself, I obviously have no conflict of interests, since there are no interests to conflict with. If Mr. Barnett had actually published something that I was attempting to undercut, that would be unethical and a clear conflict of interests. But the fact is that the young Mr. Barnett has not published anything in astrophysics. Indeed, there is no clear evidence that he even knows any astrophysics at a level worthy of publication! If you didn't credulously believe every hyped up story you read, and instead concentrated on things like verifiable facts (per policy), you would see how utterly without foundation such an accusation is. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The COI issue was raised above by Fatootsed when (s)he asked if we could be sure that an article supporter was not employed by Mrs Barnett's publisher. It was not directed at you SB. Anyone should be encouraged to contribute provided they declare any interest. Viewfinder (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. The reply was threaded below mine, which made me think it was directed at me, but thanks for the clarification. Obviously, in a BLP article it is inappropriate to declare that someone deliberately distorted the truth for financial gain. Rather, in an article we can present verifiable facts. The facts do seem to lead to that conclusion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sławomir, please accept my apologies that you inadvertently got caught up in this. I'm new to wikipedia and hoping to help edit mathematics and physics articles. I was not sure how one goes about raising COI issues. There appears to be multiple stakeholders in the official version of Jacob's story. The film rights to his mother's book have been purchased by Warner Bros with the film being given the tentative title "Scattered Skills". Here's a link to an article in Variety http://variety.com/2011/film/news/warners-buys-rights-to-autism-memoir-1118047505/ Fatootsed (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he becomes the subject of a feature film made by Warner Bros I don't see how we can possibly not have an article about him. Viewfinder (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Warner Bros do in the future actually make a feature film about his life then yes, I agree with you that he should have a page. His page could be deleted now and then recreated once the film actually exists.Fatootsed (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re Viewfinder's comment. It regrettably looks like a BLP vs NPOV issue. I wasn't intending to use his facebook page as a source for the article but rather asking you to have a glance at it to see the way that he (or whomever is running the page) isn't challenging any of his fans' wildly inaccurate views of him and his "work". It's useful as part of the background picture one can build up of the people promoting him. I believe the Skeptics Society is a credible source and the article was written by someone who bothered to do due diligence on Jacob's story and therefore should carry more weight than the sensational echo chamber articles which you appear to like. I believe Dr Chris Edwards as a published author of books such as "Teaching Genius: Redefining Education with Lessons from Science and Philosophy" would qualify as an expert in child prodigies. If Jacob's article remains then we have to add something from Dr Edwards' article. I think also we should add the comments from Kristine Barnett's book relating to the Mathematical Olympiad: “He’d found a sample Mathematical Olympiad problem set online the night before and had stayed up until two in the morning blowing through it for fun. It hadn’t been a challenge for him, and he didn’t want to take a win away from any of the kids who’d been studying so hard to get into the competition. ‘They’re all trying really hard, Mom. It’s not fair’.” Terry Tao and Grigori Perelman are former gold medalists at the olympiad so for Jacob to think he's better than them is interesting. Thanks to Sławomir for your useful and valuable comments.Fatootsed (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not oppose the inclusion of a link to the SS article although I don't think it would be appropriate to include MO quote. Returning to generalities, I can understand the frustration of thousands of lifetime astrophysicists who have noticed young Barnett receive so much mass media attention while they have received none. But the reality is that Barnett, because of his age and autism, has, rightly or wrongly, received such attention. That is why we have an article about him. It is not for us to be the judge of whether or not he should have received that attention. To my mind, the case is more about childhood autism than about astrophysics. Viewfinder (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's interesting to see you say that you think Jacob's story is primarily one about childhood autism. It would appear people view things entirely differently. I see from your comments above that you suffer from Aspergers and so he must be an inspiration to you. On the other hand, I am coming to this article from a mathematical physics background and want to make sure the article accurately reflects his actual scientific achievements. Of the people I've spoken to about Jacob (and for fairness only counting the few that had actually heard of him), nobody discussed his autism or his age but rather his extraordinary claims regarding disproving Einstein and the Big Bang plus the claim that he's smarter than Einstein.Fatootsed (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something on the lines of "(Book......) ... but the book has generated some controversy (link to Skeptics article)" would surely be OK. The Skeptics article does not use undiplomatic language or say anything unkind about Jacob, it is already on the web, and I really don't see why the inclusion of a link to it on Wikipedia should be a problem for anyone. Viewfinder (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for considering to balance Jacob's wikipedia article with the Skeptics article. If the article has to stay then that's a good way to potentially keep it NPOV. I still think it would be prudent for the time being to delete the article and recreate it if either he does something of genuine scientific merit or has a major motion picture made about his life.Fatootsed (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you. I believe other contributors have recommended in previous posts that this entire discussion should be removed if Jacob's page is deleted.Fatootsed (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have replaced your closure request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure with a neutral message. Calling the subject a "vulnerable minor" at a highly trafficked noticeboard predisposes viewers to have a negative view of retaining the article. Cunard (talk) 04:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is is inappropriate conduct to delete another editor's message and replace it with your own. I have reverted. If you wish to comment on that page you should add your own comment. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure says, "Please ensure that your request for a close is brief and neutrally worded." Please reword your message to remove the "vulnerable minor" portion. Cunard (talk) 04:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re your post here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure is transcluded to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, a highly trafficked noticeboard. Many uninvolved editors may see your non-neutral post and visit this AfD with preconceived notions before this AfD is closed by an admin.

Posting a non-neutral message violates the noticeboard's instructions.

A non-neutral request for closure biasing viewers to support retention would be: "AfD on a BLP that has numerous reliable sources" rather than "AfD on BLP about vulnerable minor". Neither non-neutral message is appropriate.

I repeat my request for you to replace your non-neutral message with a neutral request for closure. Cunard (talk) 04:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologies I was not aware that only established contributors (even if they are scientifically illiterate) were allowed to be involved in discussions. I joined in the hope of helping to edit and improve articles relating to mathematics and physics, as it appears science articles are getting vandalised by people who either know nothing about science or who hate it. This was an interesting looking AfD entry about a person I had originally come across a couple of years ago and having seen his original youtube videos and with a background in mathematical physics I thought I was therefore in a position to contribute to the discussion. At the risk of repeating myself, a lot of your sources are laughable I'm afraid (and do have the whiff of an echo chamber), and the cbsnews link above doesn't really help Jacob in my opinion as it shows he's being labelled as an autistic savant with an exceptional memory. I'm not sure if any of these savants go on to make groundbreaking creative discoveries as the creative part of intelligence that IQ tests don't touch upon might be lacking (although hopefully for Jacob this won't be the case with him). Also the article states that Jacob was hoping to complete his undergraduate degree, which was something he ultimately didn't do. He did go on to do a 'masters level' course at the Perimeter Institute though, but again that's not really enough for notability as a child prodigy it appears. If the article does stay then some quotes from his mother's book should be included (especially relating to exactly what IQ test Jacob took and also about his stance on the Mathematical Olympiad), as well as the documented reasons for him not completing his undergraduate degree. It's reason like this that I felt it would be better to delete the article for the time being.Fatootsed (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies I was not aware that only established contributors (even if they are scientifically illiterate) were allowed to be involved in discussions. – those are you words, not mine. Nothing in my post said that only established editors could participate in discussions.

    Instead, I am thankful that you joined the discussion because you contributed the Skeptic magazine article whose reliability has not been contested by you or other editors supporting deletion. Cunard (talk) 04:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry, I wrongly thought you had an issue with me being new. My thanks to you too for highlighting the cbsnews article link as you've pointed out to me that Jacob still suffers from a serious disability (I mistakenly thought he was fine now judging from his videos which I apologise for). I'm not sure whether it could ever be appropriate to have an article regarding a minor with a severe disability (I do not claim to have any knowledge of autism although the cbsnews article makes it sound serious). If a NPOV can't be achieved at present due to us having to take into account his disability and his age, perhaps delete this for now and review it when he's an adult?Fatootsed (talk) 05:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries. This AfD's positive effect is that through a community effort, it has helped unearth reliable sources that present different sides of Jacob Barnett's story.

    I believe NPOV can be achieved while taking into account his disability and his age as long as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight is followed. Cunard (talk) 05:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I'm still hoping this article is deleted but if it isn't I'd be happy to work with you to try and make it into a good NPOV article that's fair to both Jacob and the truth. A colleague of mine has just pointed out an issue that I'd totally missed: By people claiming Jacob as Einstein's heir apparent who's about to revolutionise physics with his new grand theory if he does anything less than this extremely difficult task (for example just turns out to have a mediocre but fun career as a research physicist) he could be deemed a total failure in the eyes of the public (or even worse). Not all child prodigies go on to Terry Tao levels of greatness and perhaps this is another significant reason Jacob's wiki page should be deleted. He's a disabled minor who might not achieve what some people hope he might. Fatootsed (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is moving in a direction which I like better. But I don't like seeing people with Asperger's syndrome referred to as a "disabled". Following this discussion, I think we should be given time to try to create an article which will not be harmful to its subject. Xxanthippe, removing this article will not remove the media hype. On the other hand, an NPOV article here, with links to articles that challenge claims that suggest to some lay readers that he about to revolutionize physics, may actually help to dampen the unrealistic expectations which some contributors to this discussion fear. None of the authors of these articles want to discourage him. Viewfinder (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry that you don't like people with autism / Asperger's being referred to as disabled but it's a widespread phenomenon and it was not my intention to cause offence. I didn't use the word lightly, but rather after reading locally about the Disabled Student Allowance that people with Asperger's / ASD can apply for within the UK http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/disabilityadvisoryservice/supportatimperial/funding . The question I'm grappling with is: should wikipedia even have BLP articles about minors with disabilities? Have more experienced wikipedians raised the question with the wiki powers that be about whether it's a good idea to allow any BLP pages regarding any child who's disabled? Should there be a blanket ban to protect them? I don't think this debate is helping anything anymore and I think we are all going to go around in circles until it's decided whether or not to delete Jacob's page. If they do delete it then hopefully they'll delete this whole discussion page too. If not then we'll try to work together to make it a better article in the hope that we won't be stuck in an infinite loop of AfD debates.Fatootsed (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite so. Accuracy is what we are about. Not flattery. Viewfinder (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're now circling back to an old argument. The problem is that, if the article is kept, all it will be is a stub having (1) some biographical minutiae and (2) a narrative of the "Jacob Industry" and the numerous outlandish claims made by him or on his behalf regarding non-existent accomplishments in physics. Agricola44 (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The outlandish claims can be balanced by sourced material that challenges these claims and will leave the informed reader in no doubt about their outlandish nature. Maybe the BLP problem will remain and the final result will be deletion, but some of us on both sides have at least agreed to work together to try to write an NPOV article. It is interesting that this AfD is still open. If I were admin I am not sure that I would have closed it in response to prodding with the unsourced POV that "a vulnerable minor is at risk", which implicitly points the finger at multiple international publishers. For my part, I am supposed to have retired from editing Wikipedia, but as the central issue, autism/AS, affects me, I am willing to come out of retirement to help. Viewfinder (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GHITS is not notability. The only aspect I'm trying to raise here is that, by his own words, Jacob himself is "in on it" (though perhaps by conditioning from a young age) in the sense that he (1) believes these aspect about himself, e.g. 11:30 to 12:02 about an important astrophysics problem he's solved or the Tremaine bit ("some guy at Princeton", 13:02 to 13:21) and (2) is patently wrong about lots of things, e.g. Newton was not proved wrong (12:46 to 12:52) and Einstein did not suffer under the Nazis at the time he was developing relativity theory (because he went to Switzerland already by 1896, 8:30 to 8:45). The point is that this seems to be another case of well-crafted and well-covered self-promotion by someone who is not what they profess to be. We have typically deleted such articles in the past (e.g. Smarandache and Haramein) on the basis that all the sources are under false pretenses. That is certainly the case here. Agricola44 (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Hits are not the exclusive measure of notability but his view count is still worth mentioning. I rather liked the way he explained that Newton's Laws, regarded as solid for so long, did not explain the orbit of Mercury, and how Einstein set out to expand and succeeding in expanding on Newton's Laws to explain that orbit. That is what Jacob has been trying to do to Einstein's theories. I am not an expert on the subject but I suspect there was anti-Semitism in Switzerland too. Viewfinder (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pardon, but it sounds like you've bought into the myth yourself: "what Jacob has been trying to do to Einstein's theories" doesn't count for anything. There are certainly thousands of cranks around the world trying to "do" the very same thing right at this very moment! Agricola44 (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • You're probably right about the cranks! But it is Jacob who, rightly or wrongly, has captured the world's attention, even if we do think he is just another crank. Viewfinder (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • He didn't solve any of the problems that he has claimed. This has already been established above. Agricola44 (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I don't have time for more of this argument today - my Keep (strike double vote Xxanthippe (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)) stands! Oleryhlolsson (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Millions of people around the world promotes themselves or someone close to them - that's hardly new to anyone. I don't get your point? Oleryhlolsson (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have a look at the TED video: Jacob himself is shown making false claims, not me. This is nothing more than another case of a promotional industry started around a child and a pack of untrue claims, in which the child him/herself is eventually grows into and carries over. I hope someone closes this soon because we're just spinning our wheels now. Best to you in the future. I'm signing off. Agricola44 (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • This article was written by journalist Paul Wells of Maclean's. I agree that it is a high quality independent reliable source about the subject. Cunard (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category