Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia Brown (child prodigy)

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 delete. --

desat 02:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Georgia Brown (child prodigy)

Recentism. How is she notable? There are plenty of children out there who may be just like her but haven't taken an IQ test. If you argue that she's notable for being the youngest member, when the next youngest member joins should this article be deleted? There's also the concern of her being a minor (which she will be for another 14 years). Non-notable imo, but it's probably too controversial to be speedied. Strong delete. – Chacor 12:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A
^{(Talk to me)} 13:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
- Please take a look at our new Wikipedia articles are not news reports policy, and then tell us how you propose that this purported biography of a 2-year-old who made the news yesterday will grow beyond a perpetual stub article. Not everything in Wikipedia requires presentation in the form of a biography. Uncle G 14:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps I should have made my recommendation above Weak keep. I'm not convinced that leaving this article weakens Wikipedia, per
    ^{(Talk to me)} 15:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Delete - There are two lines of text and the rest of the article is full of links. When she grows up and actually, maybe makes something notable of herself, this article can be recreated without the "(child prodigy)" appended to it. For now though, she is non-notable. --tennis man 13:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BBC article points out she is in the "top 2% of the population for her age." By that rationale Wikipedia ought to be listing the top 2% of all age groups. --Oscarthecat 13:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the very good points raised above. The subject's only claim to fame is that admission to MENSA, albeit at a record young age. There is nothing else to back up her notability. - SpLo T // 13:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Record holders have a degree of inherent notability for their records. However, the subject is adequately covered at the parent topic (Mensa International); there is simply insufficient content to allow for a standalone article. ~~I'm ambivalent about whether to delete or redirect.~~ Serpent's Choice 15:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With the additional disambiguator "child prodigy", it would seem a highly unlikely search term, so probably no need to leave a redirect. – Chacor 15:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, indeed. Amended my comment. The mention in the Mensa International article and a link there from the Georgia Brown disambiguation page should be quite adequate for now. Serpent's Choice 15:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think, at this moment in time, there is any reason for this to be on wikipedia, although the information could be added to the current Mensa article. michaelCurtis ^talk+_{contributions} 15:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
John Vandenberg 15:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, how can we realisticly write a
John Vandenberg 15:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Agree with above comment - Delete and merge the line into the MENSA article. Corpx 17:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Mensa --Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. I think it's natural to retain and expand on this article as this child is obviously going to receive a lot of public attention. __meco 19:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you figure that she will receive such attention? - SpLoT // 03:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Being the youngest member of MENSA ever it is obvious that this child will serve as a poster child for the organization and in addition to her hereditary advantages will hence be propped up and given all sorts of opportunities and stimuli in order for the self-fulfilling prophecy of her becoming (or retaining rather) her shining star to come true. Is that a far-fetched conjecture, you think? __meco 08:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - As with all records, this one stands to be broken. I'm not entirely sure that opportunities would indeed be thrown her way by MENSA or any other organization, but I understand where you're coming from. Thanks for the clarification, - SpLo T // 09:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: Even were this to be the case,
      WP:CRYSTAL and hence is inadmissible here. --Nonstopdrivel 05:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
- Delete. I have changed my opinion based on arguments put forward on this page, reading the article again and realizing that she has indeed not yet done anything remarkable. I think we will be much less hesitant in accepting an article about her once she has "performed" som notable feat. __meco 19:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:CRYSTAL arguing that someone "is obviously going to receive a lot of attention" is not convincing as a "keep" argument. Edison 20:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: To put this into perspective, a group this size is equivalent to one-third of the population of the United States, and is larger by at least an order of magnitude than most countries in the world. Yes, it's impressive that two-year-old made it into the group, but the potential population in reality is huge. --Nonstopdrivel 21:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:NOT#NEWS. She's not even the youngest Mensa member ever, just the youngest girl. Clarityfiend 20:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:NOT#NEWS. Or, merge into Mensa. The only thing that can be said about her is "youngest girl in mensa". Ok, why does that need a separate article? Resolute 22:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete in spite of press coverage, this is a case where i would invoke BLP--although the material is favorable (in a sense) there is no way a two year old could have consented to any of this, even if particularly bright~~her mental age is above 3 (which is all IQ 152 means).~~ Not strictly relevant, but I wonder at the mental age of her parents. I'm not concerned about the folly of a 17 year old or an adult; I am here. Nonetheless I do not delete it myself--I think it would take considerably greater harm than this for me to do that, especially as my take on this may not be shared. DGG 23:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, what you say above:"even if her mental age isbove 3 (which is all IQ 152 means)" is untrue. That is a ratio IQ and isn't used, all IQ's now are "deviation IQ's". See Marilyn_vos_Savant#IQ for more info. Also the talk above about 2% is misguided also, Mensa's requirements are IQ's above 2%, but a 152 on the stanford-binet (sd 16) would put her in the top .06% of the population[1].Tstrobaugh 03:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still not convincing solely as an appeal to the numbers. 0.06% of the world's population is not quite 4 million people. I know Wikipedia isn't paper, but... I really think the coverage at Mensa International is more than adequate; she is an age/gender recordholder in a well-known, notable organization. That's worthy of a sentence or two, but with nothing else (and at age 2, there is nothing else) just doesn't support a standalone article. Serpent's Choice 05:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update on interpretation. I've fixed it. DGG 00:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. The story is ridiculous, but I've had the dissatisfaction of seeing it all over the place. The info is notable. Since the article is so short, however, perhaps it would be better off merged. Everyking 09:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we can expect more to come of this girl; also, I'm tired of Wikipedia users 'filibustering' some articles by nominating them for deletion, therefore locking out any possibility of future improvements to the article. Disgraceful. --71.230.64.251 23:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC) — 71.230.64.251 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- WP:CRYSTAL. Her article can be recreated if and when she does do something that warrants an article, so your second argument is invalid. Resolute 03:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete Wikipedia isn't a news outlet, and there's no sense in keeping an article because she might become notable. If she becomes notable, great - create the article then. fuzzy510 05:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see if there is an anti-IQ bias here. What do you all think about
Baby_81 with regard to the arguments you have made here? Thanks.Tstrobaugh 19:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Non-notable. --ざくら木 21:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT covers this quite well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I read the sourced articles and quite frankly I'm surprised she even aroused local interest. If she had done something more profound than know her colors, identify shapes, and count to 10 by age 2 then there might be some notability. However she hasn't done anything millions of other toddlers haven't already demonstrated. This is probably an example of the
because there's a news blurb there should be a Wikipedia article phenomenon. Talmage 18:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I see
Baby 81 has not been nominated for afd, so my question has been answered.Tstrobaugh

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.