Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IQ scores

IQ scores
IQ scores was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete

This is an unreliable compilation, starting with a hypothetical 250-300 IQ for Sidis, which is not credible or even meaningful. The original poster won't engage on the talk page, or via user talk. I think there is little factual content here; we could have an article about how people come up with 165 for Beethoven, but a list like this is below WP's standards. Just delete. Charles Matthews 09:34, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Coolgamer 00:33, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete --Blade Hirato 09:40, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not an encyclopedia article.   &mdash; Asbestos | Talk 14:06, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fantasy. (BTW, Watson and Crick had 120 and 110 IQ's.  There are so many weaknesses of the IQ test that it's not even funny, and, in particular, many of the great geniuses would absolutely not have had high IQ's, as they would have had biased intelligence ("special talent"), where they'd have pegged every verbal, for example, and been poor on the spatial relations, or pegged the math and been average on verbal, and that would have given them a 10/10 on their special section (with the potential to have gotten 50/50, but only 10 were asked) and 5/10 on another and, therefore, not the vaunted 200 or 185, etc.). Geogre 15:16, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the current status of the research is, but I once read a book by a psychologist who had what he called a "structure of intellect model." He had worked out a 6 x 6 x 6 matrix of nameable mental-capability-thingies, and basically his whole program of research consisted of working through all 216 of these capabilities, devising tests for them, and showing that they actually measured something separate from and uncorrelated with all the others. At the time I read the book I think he had verified more than half of them; that is, he had tagged, isolated, and designed tests for over a hundred different, distinct uncorrelated mental abilities. All of which were clearly related to what people think of as "intelligence" (not "emotional intelligence" or anything). In other words, according to him, you'd need a couple of hundred separate scores to characterize someone's intelligence adequately. Not quite what Spearman had in mind. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:55, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Concur with Geogre.  [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 15:21, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Terminate with extreme prejudice Unencyclopaedic drivel. Sjc 15:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. [[User:Norm|Norman Rogers\talk]] 15:56, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to IQ. --LeeHunter 16:22, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverifiable, unless verifiable sources are provided for all included entries. Given that IQ scores are generally considered confidential, it is hard to believe that many of them could be verified. "Estimated IQ" is just silly. I believe the consensus view is that the IQ test truly does measure something, there's a whole subdiscipline of psychology devoted to statistical validation of test instruments. The debate is to whether what it measures should a) be called "intelligence," or b) is of any value whatsoever for anything. But it is meaningless to talk about the IQ of a person to whom the test has not been administered. It would make just as much sense to read biographies of Swedenborg, Newton, Voltaire etc. and tabulate their estimated penis lengths based on one's judgement of their virility. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:26, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) P. S. Don't IQ tests have ceilings way below 200? I thought that psychologists didn't consider any score over a number specific to the test to be reliable, and that for most tests that number was surprisingly low, like 160. Is this a list of "what I think their IQ scores would be if IQ tests were different from what IQ tests actually are?" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:35, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Stanford Binet tops at 145, I believe.  Most go to 150.  I think there was an innovative one that went to 180.  The "200" is for "off the chart."  There may be one IQ test somewhere that goes to 200, just like Spinal Tap's amps went to 11, but the same question applies:  why not have it go to 150 and have 150 be the top?  (Since it's supposed to be mental age vs. chronological age in one standard, one wonders what a person with a 200 IQ is supposed to be:  "I'm 30, but I have the mental age of someone who has been dead for 10 years.")  Geogre 17:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Disagreeing with comment, agreeing with deletion. IQ as mental age vs. chronological age only holds up to a certain age (14 years, 3 months or so). After that it's just a measure of how far someone is away from the mean - every 20 (or 30?) points is one standard deviation. - Andre Engels 02:25, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless evidence is provided that this is any more accurate than the U.S. Presidents IQ hoax. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:38, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. Good catch by lister. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 19:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Madonna has a 140 IQ? Gimme a break. -- Scott $e^{i \pi} \,\!$ 20:29, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Without sources this is useless. DCEdwards1966 20:55, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, totally unverifiable. As far as scores over 200, the Guiness book of records (at least the 1989 edition I had as a kid) listed Marilyn vos Savant as having an IQ of 228, the highest ever recorded. So obviously there are some tests that go well above 200. Shane King 23:18, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Madonna's IQ is pretty high, actually, but IQ scores are easily misinterpreted and a list with scores out of context and without verifiable sources is at best misleading. Wyss 23:36, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * If any of these numbers are valid, then it might be interesting to merge them into the IQ page, but I doubt they are, and the list itself isn't inspiring, so I vote delete. BTW I took a "high IQ test" when I was a child and recorded an IQ of 160. Sadly, my more recent tests results have been much less inspiring. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 00:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: fantasy. Hey, how about Madonna's GRE scores? Now that is something we all want to know about. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:36, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unverifiable and ultimately pointless list. Though I am curious about how well Aslee Simpson did on the New York State Bar Exam. --Calton 04:11, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to IQ. On a side note, I find it hard to belive that Nathan Leopold is smarter than Ted Kaczynski and that Bill Clinton is smarter than Al Gore. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 04:28, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Unverifiable, and, in some cases, pretty clearly bogus. Delete or redirect to IQ (no merge, obviously). -R. fiend 08:11, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: even if it could be verified, it seems kind of biased Lectonar 13:47, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 19:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * delete but I am sure the Stanford-Binet test goes at least to 149 FWIW Pedant 00:30, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.