Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional Child Prodigies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus to delete. Could probably do with more sources, though. Neil ☎ 10:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional Child Prodigies

Fictional Child Prodigies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I do not believe that this constitutes encyclopedic material. It is obviously incomplete, and is unreferenced and completely originally researched. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Is unreferenced and completely originally researched. The article would need to have a suitable source covering the subject. --SmokeyJoe 12:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    Keep. Excellent references have been added, and they demonstrate that this is a notable subject. --SmokeyJoe 06:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Original Research...also agree with nom on encyclopedic value Bjewiki (Talk) 15:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Convert to category - this is what categories are for. — Quasirandom 18:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Categorize. Per Quasirandom, this sort of scattershot, indefinitely long list is definitely a category sort of thing. (I also question some of the article, like the Fullmetal Alchemist examples - sure, Ed and Al are prodigies in alchemy, but nothing else, and their alchemic abilities only come from the Gate of Alchemy in the first place). --Gwern (contribs) 19:00 26 October 2007 (GMT)
  • Keep Looking at the relatively short list of items, and the relatively full descriptions, Ii seems most of them are clearly notable for being fictional child prodigies, as the major element in their characterisation. Thus it is not indiscriminate, the subject is encyclopedic, and sourcing is easily possible from the reviews of the material. Selecting notable material for an article is not OR. Problems can be dealt with by editing. DGG (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is just a heap of stuff that was recently unceremoniously dumped out of Child prodigy. It was inappropriate there and inappropriate here. It's just a heap of random assignments of the term "child prodigy" to juvenile fictional characters. --Tony Sidaway 16:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 05:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Appears to be just trivial and original research. RobJ1981 17:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
selecting notable material for an article is not OR.DGG (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as I have made numerous improvements to the article by expanding the opening prose and adding various newspaper and scholarly references. The topic has attracted media and academic attention. The article itself is presented in a clear and encyclopedic manner. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Fantastic. Thank you. I am honestly surprised at the quality of references you found. Should Jack the Bodiless be on the list? --SmokeyJoe 06:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - saying "I do not believe that this constitutes encyclopedic material." is pretty much the definition of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exit2DOS2000 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's stubbish, obviously needs some expansion and polish, but has the potential to be a genuine encyclopedic article. (Though I agree with whomever believes this does not belong on the child prodigy page.) HeWasCalledYClept 05:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
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.