Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian geniuses


 * 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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

List of Italian geniuses

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Also nominated: List of Italian polymaths. per the (old) precedent at Articles for deletion/List of geniuses, I don't believe that having people listed by attributes which are very hard to define exactly but are (much too) often used in biographies, newspaper articles, and so on is a good idea, per WP:NOTDIR. The lists can be expanded quasi endlessly (e.g. this book is about three Italian poets, Umberto Saba, Giuseppe Ungaretti, and Eugenio Montale, calling all three geniuses, but none of them are in the list), since so many people have been described (rightly or wrongly) as a genius, and all these people are already (or can easily be) listed for the things they are truly notable for, not for one hard-to-define general characteristic / description. Fram (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, The article is a well researched, anachronistic delight, triggering lots of further reading. Chienlit (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete because "genius" is an opinion. Kitfoxxe (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Delete lolwut? yes, obviously delete as per CultureEurope; on closer examination he has indeed created a maniacal work that is extremely well sourced. There may be some slight wordsmithing that could occur vis a vis the definitive use of the term "genius" (perhaps simply an edit to the title of the article), however, it would be a disaster and monstrous waste to simply delete this great expenditure of time and effort he has contributed. Further, his attentiveness to good style and grammar throughout indicates a dedication to the highest standards of WP and to simply delete this would discourage the future participation of a valuable editor. We need to actively encourage more editors like CultureEurope who are in scarcer supply as this place becomes more and more inundated by PR flacks. To underscore how seriously I take this, I would like to note my last 18 opinions in AfD have all been for DELETE, and this is my first KEEP in months. (That said, I am also a fan of Fram's work and - in the extremely unfortunate event this ends up being deleted - it probably won't impact by Framdom at all.) Also, on an unrelated note, what an extremely pleasant and genteel response he made to this AfD, which is not usually typical of newer users who more often react bombastically to having an article they've written AfD'ed. I intend to give him a Barnstar. BlueSalix (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I respect your opinion but I disagree. I've done an amazing job. Each name on the list has its reliable source (The New York Times, University of Oxford, INTELLIGENT LIFE Magazine, USC Sidney Harman Academy for Polymathic Study ...) The cancellation of the list is ""questionable."" A maniacal work. Precise And Perfect. However, I will accept any decision. I worked hard on these two pages of wikipedia... --CultureEurope (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep both - The sourcing in both articles is exemplary, and it appears that every entry has a reliable source or sources backing up the assertions of genius or polymath for the subjects in the respective articles. Thus, both articles pass Wikipedia's notability test. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I would love to see these kept, but the following two AfDs should be taken into account. WP:Articles for deletion/List of people who have been called a polymath and WP:Articles for deletion/List of Renaissance men -- unhappily Martin 4 5 1  20:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly we can work around this by simply renaming the article to "List of Italian Thinkers" or something like that. Such verbiage would be consistent with precedent that exists with List of people related to Cajun music, List of brain tumor patients, etc. I recommend Keep and allow CultureEurope, and anyone else who is interested, to slowly and deliberately consider possible other appropriate names on the talk pages of these articles for the next several weeks or months. BlueSalix (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your answers ! --CultureEurope (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: my nomination of this page had nothing to do with "the article creator did a poor job", my nominations are based on the potential of a subject, not on the current state of an article (except in extreme cases, but this obviously isn't one of them). The potential for these pages is to become nearly endless, since so many people are labeled "genius" in reliable sources, devaluating the term completely and making it basically meaningless. It is not a well-defined criterium to base a list on, unlike people's occupations (army officers, painters, ...), awards (Olympic medalists, ...) and so on. That's the reason I think these should be deleted, not any objectin against the creator of them or the work he put into them. Fram (talk) 09:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I worked hard on these two pages of wikipedia. Each name in the list has the best sources (University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, University of Pennsylvania, Yale University, The New York Times, The Times, INTELLIGENT LIFE Magazine, USC Sidney Harman Academy for Polymathic Study among others.) A maniacal work of the highest precision. I hope that my efforts will be rewarded. Thank you. --CultureEurope (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, with regrets. Per reasoning on WP:Articles for deletion/List of people who have been called a polymath, it is based on highly subjective criteria – and even the authors who wrote quoted WP:RS must have applied necessarily subjective criteria. There is no objective criterion for being a "genius", sorry, and the category is way too open-ended to be encyclopedic. No such user (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Clearly there is no consensus and the AfD should be closed, though possibly revisited in 90-180 days from now. BlueSalix (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless it is a WP:SNOW close (or speedy deleted or withdrawn), then it needs to stay open at least a week. No consensus should not be shut after a couple of days. Martin 4 5 1  22:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, of course - sorry, I didn't mean to jump the gun! BlueSalix (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 19:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)




 * delete as indefinite, per precendent of similar lists. Mangoe (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete As noted by others, definition of genius is too subjective. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have worked for nothing. For each name in the list I have done an exhaustive research. I have lost three hours for name. I'm very disappointed (...) Goodbye. --CultureEurope (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - the eight year old AfD has little bearing given that consensus can change per WP:CCC. Unfortunately, because they were deleted, the more recent AfDs also have little bearing here because it is no longer possible to see if their members met WP:GNG. All members of these lists are notable per WP:GNG, so meets WP:CSC. Selection of the list members appears to meet WP:NPOV. Perhaps a change of title(s) would resolve the issue (e.g. List of notable Italian thinkers). VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:LISTN, we could use some evidence that this sort of compendium has been done in other external sources so here's a couple of reasonable examples: Sprezzatura: 50 Ways Italian Genius Shaped the World; The Italian 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Cultural, Scientific, and Political Figures, Past and Present. Andrew (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think The Italian 100 is a suitable source: it includes characters like Lucky Luciano and Al Capone. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. (Response edited, as this debate seems to cover both a list of Italian geniuses and a list of Italian polymaths. My general conclusion is the same in both cases.) I can see that one editor has done a great deal of work on these two lists, and I wish I could reach a more pleasant conclusion, but I think we'd be unwise to retain these articles. The problem, as I see it, is that Wikipedia strives to be firmly grounded in fact. We do our best to avoid matters of opinion. But when I look at www.dictionary.com I find that a polymath is simply a person of "great and varied learning", while a genius is someone with an "exceptional natural capacity of intellect". I don't know of an objective way of defining these, and the references to the lists seem to consist of writers saying "so-and-so was a polymath/genius" as a matter of opinion. If we had a definition (a polymath has a minimum IQ of X, speaks Y languages, has written Z papers in Q different disciplines, etc., or a genius has a minimum IQ of W) then we would remove the matter of opinion. At present, though, we don't have such a definition (nor could an editor just create one, as that would be "original research"). Right now these lists are composites of many people's opinions, nothing more, so I feel they should be removed. Sorry. RomanSpa (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Perhaps one way forward would be to rework these lists into something like "Notable Italian Contributors to the Sciences and Arts" or "Notable Italian Thinkers". This would have the advantage of being something that we can work with - we have a clear definition of notability - and is something that would be useful for our readers, particularly if the list could be sorted in date order. I don't know if such a list already exists; if it does, a "merge" should allow us to preserve what is good here. We can then leave our readers to decide who they think is a polymath or a genius or whatever: we simply provide the facts, they can form their own opinions. RomanSpa (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Best Thing I've Ever Read. A work of great quality. + 1 --Daedalus&#38;Ikaros (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think many of us agree that the quality of the work is good. However, what we're concerned about here is whether it's suitable for Wikipedia - that is, whether it is encyclopedic. If this list were turned into a book I might well buy it, but I probably wouldn't put it next to my dictionaries and encyclopedias, I'd put it with other books on cultural studies. And that's the problem. RomanSpa (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would put it next to my dictionaries and encyclopedias and decorate it in mint leaves to draw attention to it and add a fragrant odor so that, when people opened it, they would be treated to a pleasant aroma. I hereby reiterate my Strong Keep. BlueSalix (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * IMPORTANT Comment. (Sorry to use capitals, but I hope someone will read this.) I feel deeply uncomfortable with Daedalus&#38;Ikaros. It is disturbing to see from his user page that this user claims to be "no longer very active on Wikipedia", but from his contributions list we can see has returned just in time to join this debate. I also note with some sadness that this user displays similar turns of phrase to CultureEurope - see for example the characteristic use of "Goodbye" on the user's talk page. I'm unhappy that so much support for this article displays florid language, similar to that of the article's creator, and I am unhappy that inspection of the contributions to Wikipedia by these two ostensibly different editors show such similarity of interest. Of course this is merely an unhappiness on my part, but I hope that someone more qualified than I will examine this further. With regret, RomanSpa (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have looked at their edit history, and what I see is a common interest in Italy (but little overlap in any given article), a lot of constructive edits and no sign of any disruptive behavior. Frankly, even if they turned out to be the same person, I'd say good luck to them. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I hate calumny even more
The moderator will do justice for me. I am serene because I did nothing wrong. "I Have Nothing to Hide." No problem. Goodbye. --CultureEurope (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not this user. The moderators can shed light on the problem. I am serene. Goodbye. --CultureEurope (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Even the article on genius points out that "whether the notion itself has any real meaning has long been a subject of debate." A list that is based on a vague superlative like this borders on advocacy. To justify inclusion of individuals in this list, frequently resorts to florid fanzine language; and although this language could be removed, it's a symptom that the subject of the list is incompatible with a neutral point of view. Any material that is worth keeping can be distributed among the many lists such as List of Italian painters and List of Italian scientists. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

To justify inclusion of individuals in this list, frequently resorts to florid fanzine language
 * I respect your point of view, but I don't agree with you. Each name in the list has the best sources. Almost-maniacal attention to detail is one of my flaws and strengths. I am a mathematician. Goodbye. --CultureEurope (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment It's been weeks now and we are nowhere near a consensus. I move to close the discussion. BlueSalix (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no point in your moving to close the discussion. It will be closed when an uninvolved admin gets around to it - see WP:CLOSEAFD. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep the main problem with a topic like this one usually is the inability of building a decent article, and this one is an excellent one, much better than I could expected and higher than the standard for articles of this kind. I would not be surprised to see it, after a bit of work and expansion, assessed as a good article. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Cavarrone 12:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a list. It can be a featured list, but never a good article. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2014 (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.