Deletion of Jacob Barnett (4th nomination)

Comment: It is not Wikipedia's job to police the media who make mistakes in sensationalism (which is the basic story here on which notability claims are based), but neither is it Wikipedia's duty to document those mistakes. |Ignore all rules exists for a reason. This is an |encyclopedia, dammit, not |an indiscriminate collection of information. No encyclopedia needs this article that will cause further damage to a person on the sole basis of a desire by some editors here to include, include, include without consideration of the real life consequences
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR||WP:ENC||WP:IINFO)

Comment: Passes , , , yada yada... This is all in the public domain and widely known, deleting the WP article will not change any of this. Any  issues need to be addressed within the article, not by deleting the article. Even if this is done, I don't think it will change much in the article.  and  mean that information supported by reliable sources can be retained whether perceived as positive or negative, and claims that are unsourced or poorly sourced are best removed regardless of whether they are perceived as positive or negative
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:V||WP:BLP||WP:RS||WP:NPOV)

Comment: No pass of rof. Only reason for media entries is churnalism generated by exploded claims of scientific breakthroughs. Exploitation of vulnerable young person by others leads to delete under  policy: o no harm
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:BLP||WP:D)

Comment: for all the same reasons I voted delete in the three previous AfDs: although there is plenty of media coverage, it consists entirely of puffery, and much of it is verifiably false. If we have an article, the only thing we can say about the subject with any intellectual honesty is that he is known for the false claims that he would soon overthrow Einstein, in promotion of his mother's book. That is just an embarrassment to the subject, that is going to stand as an obstacle to the legitimate scholarly career he appears to be aiming towards (but has no notability for yet). He is very far from , so it is not possible to recenter the article to ignore the media circus and only discuss his academic activities; an article alone those lines would invite an immediate A7 deletion, because he has no claim of significance as a researcher yet. Better to have no article at all. That all said, I expect this article to be kept, just as it has in two of the three previous deletion discussions, by the legions of editors who see the many high-profile sources about the subject but do not put any critical thinking towards the quality of those sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Fails otability|notability and , , and though he may well become notable in future, right now it's . As I see it, this lad got a round of publicity for something his mother claimed while promoting the book she wrote about him. The BBC said he was 'tipped for a Nobel Prize." They failed to  mention he was nominated by his mother.  If he had done something in theoretical physics that set the academics all agog over him, then yes, that's certainly notable. If he were a professor, then he would certainly have an article. But as it stands right now, he's not got any real notability beyond the false claims his mother made and the over-the-top hype by journalists looking for click bait. He was part of a TED talk but even there his claims were not verified. Mind, I'm not saying he isn't a smart fellow, but that's not enough to satisfy notability guidelines. As this article keeps reappearing, I think it best to salt it for now
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:ACADEMIC||WP:BLP1E||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: Subject is notable enough in having been mentioned in a number of news reports and two books (although one was by his mother and not really independent). 8,000 pageviews a month is a fair amount of interest. {{u|Power~enwiki}} and {{u|Viewfinder}} seem to object to the article inevitably pointing out that the fringe theories the subject put forth (or was reported to put forth) were erroneous, which is necessary because it's exactly why he is notable. This is a useful article for someone curious about references to the subject. If the nominator wishes to object to how the article is being presented he should take it to /N.  does not apply because the subject is notable on the basis of news reports
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:PROF)

Comment: As I wrote at the previous AFD: "With no intended disrespect, it is too soon to have an article on Mr. Barnett. The situation with this article is very similar to WP:BLP1E: 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."  I also want to point out that |the general notability guideline specifically says that occasional exceptions will apply, and that it needs to be treated with common sense. In this case, the BLP1E issue is more than enough to override the general rule of thumb in the notability guideline. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Editors are supporting deletion because they assert that the article violates . When Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (3rd nomination) was closed as "keep" in November 2016, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacob_Barnett&oldid=751718408 this was the state of the article. The article primarily contained facts about his schooling. It did not contain undue original research like a paragraph saying https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacob_Barnett&diff=786047983&oldid=786036102 Barnett solved a problem incorrectly on a TV program even though no reliable source has said this.To address the  concerns, I propose reverting the article back to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacob_Barnett&oldid=751718408 its November 2016 version, which had been stable for nearly two years since https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacob_Barnett&oldid=640752378 David Eppstein's trimming of the article in January 2015. I also propose removing the "child prodigy" descriptor so that editors won't feel the need to add information saying "the claims for his being a child prodigy were based on falsehoods".An article containing only the facts and no analysis about whether he is or is not a child prodigy will comply with  and .{{tl|db-a7}} will not be applicable because the presence of significant coverage in the "References" section will "credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:BLP||WP:BLP||WP:NPOV)