Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cerebrals Society


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Cerebrals Society

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability of organizations. No reliable sources have been found for the article, even after a previous PROD. After further diligent search and discussion on the article talk page, it appears that no reliable sources can be found about the organization or its activities. Therefore the article is nominated for deletion discussion for lack of notability and lack of reliable sources. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I did give you a reliable source twice in the discussion page. Please, note that this source is already included into the article. For your reference, here are my replies to our discussion on the article talk page:
 * Along with Mensa, Cerebrals Society is featured into the Genius Ressources section of the Ron Howard's movie "A beautiful mind" website. This fits quite well with Audience recommendation of the Wikipedia guidelines on notability of organizations: "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." --90.41.2.178 (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course. (Sorry, I'm not familiar with Wikipedia). Go to http://www.abeautifulmind.com/main.html. Then, click on the fourth formula (actual link is "Formulas"). Under the "About genius" section, chose "Genius Resources": the fourth link here is Cerebrals. --90.41.2.178 (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)"
 * --92.150.56.72 (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * * Thanks for your reply. I think under Wikipedia policy it is reasonable to conclude that 1) that is not actually a reliable source, as it appears to be a paragraph passed from a publicist from Cerebrals Society to a Hollywood movie publicist, and 2) in any event, the movie website does not describe any activity of organization in sufficient detail or with sufficiently recent events to even verify the continued existence of the organization, much less to establish its notability or to verify encyclopedic statements about the organization. Since then, the organization appears to have been invisible to all independent media. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * So, you're saying it's not sufficient to be notable, but also to be continuously notable as proven by multiple unrelated sources? Can you please substantiate that with any official Wikipedia policies (same as your speculation about origin of Cerebrals reference on the Beatufil Mind website)? Otherwise, you can speculate like that endlessly and come down to disguising personal preferences under badly interpredted Wikipedia policies. StevanMD (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * How about making the affirmative case that the article is about a notable organization based on sources that are indisputably reliable? See WP:BFAQ for examples of issues to keep in mind for any article about an organization. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you please identify "sources that are undisputably reliable"? If that's easier, can you please draw comparison with references for this page for example? It would be helpful to know. Also, can you state what makes a reference on a major movie website unworthy of notability claim?


 * Besides, a test originally started by and used for Cerebrals Society organized contest has at a later point grown to become a test published by a major global test publisher for professional use by licensed psychologists (a contribution that sets apart Cerebrals Society from all other high IQ organizations, including Mensa), however you can't find that information on the internet, so you see how general notability claims of Wikipedia can become a little ridiculous. How does one enter non-internet references, and how do editors, such as yourself, check and verify those references? Please, let me know, as it is certainly a warranted reference for the Cerebrals Society article. StevanMD (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What are the sources for any of the factual claims you have just made about the society or about the test? To answer your kind question, the way I verify sources is by looking them up through Internet searches (the most convenient way, which should generally be available to most Wikipedians) and also through library requests through a major metropolitan public library or a major state research university library system. Both of those library systems give me access to interlibrary loans that can reach across the entire United States. To answer your other question, the Wikipedia reliable sources policy has been located at the same URL on Wikipedia for a long time. A helpful paragraph in the lede of that article says, "How reliable a source is, and the basis of its reliability, depends on the context. As a general rule, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sources for the factual claims, as I said, are only partially and incompletely obtainable on the internet and would require you to either blindly trust them or research them live. Source for the claim that the test was published by a major global test publisher can be found here: http://www.ecpa.fr/ressources-humaines/test.asp?id=1742
 * You will also need to check that it corresponds to the 2003 Cerebrals Contest here: http://www.cerebrals.org/wp/?page_id=100 which you'll need to interview the test author and the test publisher about. Question becomes, whether it is unnotable because it requires live verification as oposed to simple internet "point and click" approach? Of course not, but please, do let me know whether adding this information to Cerebrals Society article will stop it from being deleted as it properly should?


 * With regard to: "How reliable a source is, and the basis of its reliability, depends on the context. As a general rule, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.", I don't see how that discredits a reference on a major movie website, which itself has a rather lengthy Wikipedia entry and was a project involving hundreds of people working over a period extending for months if not a whole year on research and realization of both the film and related material? StevanMD (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing the link to the test publisher website. The APA-styled reference is already given in the article. Answers given by several members of Cerebrals have been used in order to analyse high-range items of an experimental cognitive ability test. This test along with related psychometric analyses were then peer-reviewed and published by the ECPA (which is to my knowledge the French branch of Pearson Education, Inc.). --Xavierjouve (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:ORG. The high point for this group is apparently having a movie website link to their site.  That's both a little funny and a little sad. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  00:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Does funny or sad in one man's personal opionion qualify for deletion per Wiki policies? What matters is whether the source is credible and notable, not whether it makes someone laugh or cry. StevanMD (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2010 (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.