Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of People Believed to be 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   snowball delete. the wub "?!"  00:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

List of People Believed to be Geniuses

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

List based upon subjective qualifications Mblumber (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Highly subjective. Even if reliable sources were quoted, it would nevertheless remain subjective.  And despite the hyperbole surely Michael Jackson isn't a genuis alongside Leonardo da Vinci. --Oscarthecat (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh for crying out loud. Delete as astonishingly subject hodge-podge. --Calton | Talk 16:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I realize that this article was created in good faith, but it falls in the same category as trying to make a list of men considered to be hunks. The objective definition of genius is a person with an IQ over 140.  Suffice to say that there are many well-known people who have an IQ over more than 140 who would not be popularly described with the word "genius".  And there are many people who are subjectively described with "He's a genius!".  Sadly, the media never refers to a female, no matter how accomplished, as a genius, not even if its Marilyn vos Savant or Marie Curie.  Mandsford (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete For two reasons. One. Any body can be "believed" to be geniuses, when they are just really smart, so this list is pretty much filled with original research. And because the author didn't put me on the list :P KMFDM FAN  (talk!) 17:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with other people's concerns of this being entirely subjective. And it's totally unsourced.  Perhaps, if some context were given and the material were adequately sourced, material referinging individuals referred to as "geniuses" could be added to the main page on Genius.  This would be the encyclopedic way of doing it...not creating an unsourced and rather arbitrary list like this.  Cazort (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for all the good reasons already listed. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Chime chime, snow snow. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete if this is kept I insist on adding myself. Ostap 19:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Allow me. I put you under "Music and Entertainment." Drmies (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * lol :) Ostap 20:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Otherwise we'd have to include all of Category:Mathematicians (per and ) and that would be way too many people for a manageable list. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're just jealous cause you got one 'p' too many in your name. Move to strike this NPOV vote. Drmies (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. My name is not on the list. — Rankiri (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2009 (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.