Deletion of Jacob Barnett (3rd nomination)

Comment: No pass of rof. The rest is  generated by churnalism from an ambitious relative. He can be added to the list as above
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: nbsp; Wikipedia WP:GNG notability has increased since the last AfD which closed as keep.&nbsp; WP:PROF does not override WP:GNG.&nbsp; The argument of  has been refuted.&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: I thought we had come to a consensus to retain a short article per . Nobody disputed the claim that the subject fails . I do not want to reproduce the material that I contributed to the long debates debate that followed the last nomination, other than to point out that there has been considerable interest in the subject, and that our article is still getting 300 hits per day
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PROF)

Comment: Subject is unwitting victim of predatory journalism engineered by others and is being exploited by advocacy groups. o no harm should prevail
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Disambiguation (WP:D)

Comment: I've been involved with this article for a long time and am reasonably sure it will be kept because of what I would call "blind allegiance to sources"...indeed, there are numerous sources, but they're all wrong, a fact established long ago at AfDs and talk. The problem with this article is that it is one of those relatively unusual cases that violates the journalistic tenet of coverage. Specifically, we generally assume sources exist ''because'' of some encyclopedic reason for coverage. In essence, we take sources as a proxy. Here, the collusion of sensational "journalism" and tireless promotion by his mother led to an edifice of coverage devoid of any arguably justifiable record of accomplishment. It is a case of reporting preceding deed, of being famous for being famous, etc., which is no basis for an encyclopedia article...that is, unless the article is ''about'' the collusion and promotion.  Therein lies the problem for a BLP...and we've already decided against this option on ethical grounds. As has been observed, Jacob is now trying to make a real go of it in physics, but has not yet come anywhere near standard thresholds delineated by PROF. I think he will at some point. A proper article could then cover his actual accomplishments in detail, with a few side notes regarding his autism, mother's book, and media focus that surrounded his childhood. 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: The subject fails both  and . That he fails  is obvious and, I think, not under dispute. Barnett appears to have no accomplishments of his own except for studying physics at an unusually young age. As for , I'm not convinced that being the subject of human interest stories makes someone notable. People may be of greater or lesser interest, and Barnett is of somewhat greater interest because people are impressed by child prodigies; but I see no reason why that interest rises above the level of trivial
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG||WP:PROF||WP:GNG)

Comment: With no intended disrespect, it is too soon to have an article on Mr. Barnett. The situation with this article is very similar to : a person known only for being a child prodigy, but not ''yet'' for doing anything with that genius. For non-public figures, we should not be swayed too much by human-interest news pieces, which can be attributed to the 24 hour news cycle and a natural interest in child prodigies. It would be better to wait until the subject has some more substantive achievements before having an article. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)