Deletion of Jacob Barnett (2nd nomination)

Comment: It's a BLP.  Of a minor.  We don't have BLPs of minors unless they're ''very'' well supported.  This is supported by normal-standard (i.e. extremely poor quality) science journalism.  It's not well supported.  He doesn't even remotely come close to meeting .  Nor does being really intelligent necessarily mean that we can get our  balls out and predict you'll have a good academic career - you need to be able to consistently channel that, and a bit of luck along the way doesn't hurt.  There's no significant linking from other articles; it's one off trivial nonsense
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Fatootsed has raised an interesting point.  I think it would be a mistake to rule categorically on whether it is appropriate to have an article on disabled minors at all.  We already have a policy  that provides very firm safeguards on biographies of living persons.  Generally, I think that such safeguards are more relaxed if the subject is a "public figure" (this term has a precise legal sense).  However, if the subject is a minor and there is evidence that his status as a public figure is the result of exploitation, then I think one could argue that the subject is a victim of circumstance, and our BLP policy advises special care in such situations.  What I think has become clear here is that there are a few quality sources that exist to balance the mother's account that has been repeated in a large number of tabloid sources.  So it is probably possible to meet the demands of  with the sourcing that we now have.  So it seems that the question that needs to be settled is indeed whether the  concerns outweigh the need to comply with .  If so, then the article should be deleted.  If not, then it should be rewritten to conform to  (and will necessarily convey a much more accurate and less flattering picture of the subject
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:NPOV||WP:BLP||WP:NPOV||WP:NPOV)

Comment: One article on GS with 17 cites. Not enough to pass rof. What else is there
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)