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. Sandstein 18:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of child prodigies[edit]

List of child prodigies (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)

The term "child prodigy" is inherently subjective; it would be impossible to create an unbiased list. The list describes itself as "haphazard" and that it "probably [does] not represent the typical experience of a child prodigy." ―Susmuffin ^Talk 15:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep--material is well referenced, as it is much of the material on Wikipedia is more subjective than I would like. That means improve, not delete.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (and I'm a bit surprised at myself for this), seems to easily meet WP:LISTN. It could use some work to help determine inclusion criteria, maybe something like: subject needs an article on WP and has to be explicitly described as a prodigy by a WP:RS. Just a quick idea there, but I'm sure something better can be hashed out if there's some need. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this does not meet WP:LISTN at all - " One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Noone has given any reliable source (or any source at all) that treats all - or even most - of the people listed here as "prodigies".--Smerus (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The concept child prodigy is notable, and that's what we should expect "discussion as a group" to look like for this topic. And no doubt sources on that concept even include discussion of certain examples and comparisons. If you're instead interpreting that guideline to mean that there should be a source that lumps together the same entries as our list, that's neither necessary nor a reasonable interpretation, as that would basically require that we've copied our list. postdlf (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I have pointed out (below) the article child prodigy is headed by a sourced definition of the term, and that is what we should use as a criterion here, for consistency. It is for those who wish to interpret the term differently to justify doing so.--Smerus (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was responding to your argument that LISTN wasn't satisfied. Did you mean to insert your comment elsewhere in this discussion? As you now seem to be talking about verifying individual entries rather than whether the list should be deleted or kept. postdlf (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the whippersnappers. I don't believe child actors merit inclusion however, Shirley Temple excepted, but that's an issue for cleanup. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, clarify, and upgrade per Deacon Vorbis. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 08:09, 05 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but include only those names that are described as child prodigy by reliable sources. Shashank5988 (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. It's all too vague and subjective. What does it mean to suggest keeping those described as prodigies by 'reliable sources'? When there is no accepted definition of prodigy, however reliable the source, it's going to be subjective. The only possible exception is musical prodigies, where there is some consensus in terms of appreciated performances or compositions. André-Marie Ampère a child prodigy, when he wrote about stuff at the age of 13? William Rowan Hamilton read Hebrew at the age of 7? My Israeli nephew reads it at the age of 4. Anne-Marie Imafidon got a scholarship to Oxford at 15? So what? Ricky Schroder got a Golden Globe award age 9 - that fos for acting a 9-year old, not for being a prodigy. Come on, folks, let's get real.--Smerus (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, to be constructive, I have begun an attempt at tidying it up of its worst excesses, by sticking to the sourced definition in WP child prodigy 'A child prodigy is defined in psychology research literature as a person under the age of ten who produces meaningful output in some domain to the level of an adult expert performer.' Only a minority of those on the list meet this definition.--Smerus (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should have waited for consensus. The lead describes the list as those "who have come to the haphazard attention of history or current news." I think if a reliable source describes them as a prodigy, they should be included. That is as much tidying up as should be done. Subuey (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If the entries are blue linked to their own Wikipedia articles, and they are referred to as child prodigies in reliable sources, then obviously this list article is valid. Dream Focus 15:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, on the basis that I personally found this page useful as a reference material on the subject of "Child Prodigies." Vecht (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)— Vecht (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete as a POV fork when the idea of "child prodigy" is subjective, and Wikipedia is supposed to be nuetral. Promoting personal opinions in ways like this goes against such a principle. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral The significant problem with list entrants is the sourcing. Many seem to throw the word “prodigy” in as a substitute for talented rather than justifying the descriptor. I believe the list is and would be more useful if the term was not as subjective as it currently stands. It may be a bit too difficult for us to develop specific criteria for inclusion. There are lots of smart and talented people out there, but at what point do they ascend to prodigyhood (without the assitance of professional marketing/PR or parents getting involved)?--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 13:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, and perhaps rename to something along the lines of "List of children considered prodigies". As others have pointed out, it's hard to decide on criteria for the list, but a RfC may help. As it stands, I'd prefer both these actions over deletion. Nanophosis (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2019 (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.