Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous members of Mensa (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Nandesuka 12:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

List of famous members of Mensa (2nd nomination)
Mensa International is a social organization that requires annual dues for membership, which they will neither confirm nor deny. Being a member does not represent a lifetime achievement (unlike List of Eagle Scouts or List of Nobel laureates), but merely a genetic predisposition to score higher than 98% of the population on a certain kind of test.

"Member" is also unqualified ... should former or deceased members be listed as well, such as Ian Meldrum and Isaac Asimov?

Six million people in the US alone are "Mensa qualified", although less than 1% (around 50,000) are currently members ... most "famous" people (like anyone who has won a Nobel Prize or a Pulitzer Prize) are by definition potential members, but for reasons of their own, they have chosen not to pay the annual dues.

Mensa may be "the largest, oldest, and most well-known high IQ society in the world," but there are several others whose requirements are much higher and restrictive (1:1000 as opposed to 1:50), and whose members are more worthy of being considered geniuses.

If anything, this should be a Category with a Tag, rather than just an arbitrary list that will require constant monitoring. The History of the article shows that it is a magnet for trolls and vandals.

See also: Articles for deletion/List of geniuses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennette (talk • contribs)
 * This AFD was incomplete. Fixed now. Yomangani talk 00:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - Original AFD here (Speedy Keep). Yomangani talk 00:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sorry for the snafu ... it's my First Time. :-) --Dennette 00:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge hall of fame info to Mensa International, create Category:Mensa members, and delete (Phew!). Nothing inherently non-notable about Mensa itself, just that this list is opinion (I won't say POV or Uncle G will be after me), likely to not be maintained, and could and should be handled by a category. Yomangani talk 00:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The Hall of Fame is just a copy of a list from the American Mensa Web site (and has nothing to do with the international organization) that's already linked to the bottom of that page ... and none of them were ever members, anyway. --Dennette 01:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, the official hall of fame is pretty awful, though - no list of names, instead I have to guess who the pictures are? And I can't even open the links in tabs, because they're not real links? Not the smartest bit of web design I've ever seen. I would have hoped for something more intelligent from Mensa... ;) &mdash; Haeleth Talk 16:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete (but as per Yomangani) --MrArt 03:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. At best a category. Robertissimo 10:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Whoa, like, deja vu all over again ... see Articles for deletion/List of Mensa International members ... looks like someone added "famous" to recreate the list after it was deleted once already! (Should those previous delete votes be included here?) --Dennette 15:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That would only apply if the contents of the list were substantially the same. I honestly can't remember what was in the deleted list, but I suspect this is an original creation rather than a repost. However, arguments from that debate may well be relevant here, so it's good to have the link for people to review. Well spotted. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 16:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The titled is too subjective, its basically a list of anyone thats been in Mensa that has a wikipedia article, cant we make it a cat and just put all the members in it? I mean if the person is famous enough to be mentioned then shouldnt they get an article, perhaps the red links if any will inspire people. Even then I am not sure if this is really appropriate for a category, but I will stay out of that discussion if it arrises. SO delete or make a category to slap on certain articles. -- zero faults   ' '' 16:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * comment nearly every US state has a list of famous people from that state. Should those be gotten rid of as well? -Ravedave 16:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes and saying "other things do not make sense so I should be able to make things that do not make sense" is barely a defense. -- zero faults   ' '' 09:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The existence of citations does make this stand out from most such lists, but the quality of those citations seems to be rather shaky; for example, Stephen Hawking is listed, even though AFAIK he is not a Mensa member, with a "reference" link which leads to something that appears to be an entertainment gossip website (!) that does not make any such claim! WP:RS this ain't. So, what do we have? A list that, if kept, must be split and/or retitled, and for which the verification process must be exhaustively repeated because the present citations are demonstrably unreliable, and which, after all that, will still be an original-research magnet and vulnerable to vanity entries and spam. The usual arguments for keeping lists do also apply. The subject is clearly of interest; Mensa is notable, and people reading up on it will naturally want to get an idea of what kinds of people join, and listing members they have heard of is an effective way of answering that question. And this list does things, like geographical categorisation and centralising citations, that a category could not do. As such, while I think this list should not be kept in its current state, please disregard my "delete" recommendation if a genuine effort to resolve the problems I have cited has begun by the time this debate is closed. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 16:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Plenty of problems here, like the fact that the hall-of-fame part of the list should actually be under the heading List of famous people Mensa wishes had been members, and the inherently subjective question of how one defines "famous" for the rest of the list.
 * Uh ... better make that List of famous people American Mensa wishes had been members, since it is neither compiled nor maintained by Mensa International. And keeping this list is a slippery slope that leads to List of people in prison who are members of Mensa (there is a Special Interest Group for them), or others who are "famous" by virtue of their infamy. --Dennette 19:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete since there is no objective definition of "famous", and the list is potentially vast. I'd not even categorise it, unless there are actually a significant number of people who are notably connected with Mensa. Just zis Guy you know? 17:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per JzG --Guinnog 17:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is only a subjective definition of "famous". There are probably many more Mensa members who are famous, accompanied with the number of people who are qualified for Mensa but have not joined Mensa International. Also, with the number of people who daily make articles on Wikipedia on non-notable people (which basically contributes to half of Afd), there is bound to be edit wars in the future on who should be on the list and who shouldn't. -- Nish kid 64 21:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment/"Vote" Since the topic itself is too subjective to stand on its own legs as a seperate article, an admin should delete the article, but perhaps a bit of this should be readded. It appears that the primary contributors to this were in the Mensa article itself, and that the information was removed and placed in its own article. Therefore, I propose a bit of a quasimerge which places this list back into the article under "trivia" (albeit a bit abridged). The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 *  abstain delete - for now - this is borderline to me and I don't have strong feelings either way - I do think that it would be better as a category - "Mensa member" than a manually sorted/maintained list -- Trödel 03:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Revised my view based on discussion below -- Trödel 06:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I thought that Categories were sorted automagically ... and this way, mention of Mensa membership in someone's article (referenced or not, like Ian Meldrum and Isaac Asimov) can be found with a simple search, and the tag added. That also puts the burden of any dispute on the article in question and its Discussion, not the list article. Notability (they're already in Wikipedia) and current membership status (which cannot be verified anyway) then become non-issues. --Dennette 03:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For all of the reasons you mention a category would be much better. -- Trödel 09:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep If List_of_people_with_epilepsy can be a featured list than this list should stay. They are the exact same type of thing. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 04:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment The difference is (a) there is a Category:People with epilepsy, (b) each and every person's article has "epilepsy" one or more times in the text (besides the tag), and (c) most of them have a good citation. The articles for most of the people on this list (e.g., Adrian Cronauer, Joyce Carol Oates, Karen A. Page, Alan Rachins, Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr., James Woods) have 'no' mention of their membership, and/or very weak citations (like a questionable Encarta page). Making a Category:Members of Mensa would make them "the exact same type of thing". A simple bot could then traverse "What links here" for Mensa International, add the tags, and create the initial list, which would be much more complete and authoritative than the current one. (OTOH, someone would have to manually remove fictional entries like Lisa Simpson :-) --Dennette 05:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment How is the Mensa list inherently different than List of Skull and Bones Members (where membership is dues paying and secretive, and does not reflect a life achievement), List of famous tall women (no dues, hard to keep secret, but is no more selective than Mensa), and other such lists? Carlossuarez46 21:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Everyone on List of Skull and Bones Members is also in the published list of members through 1971, so they are all verified. Someone's height can be easily verified from public records (e.g., Driver's license). What makes having been a member of a social club for only one year notable if they're already famous? --Dennette 01:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Query This list was already deleted last November after a single day's discussion (Articles for deletion/List of Mensa International members) and it was then recreated under a slightly different name ... what's the holdup? It will only be useful and maintainable if it is a Category. --Dennette 01:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete with extreme prejudice! This article is yet another bloody smeggy list and as all the lists I have found seems to be in violation of both No original research and What Wikipedia is not. The article has a very brief one sentence introduction. Also I really do not see how this article can ever be verified as either complete or accurate. It may be better if it were a category. Displaced Brit 01:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete with extreme prejudice! Per displaced brit. Extreme Prejudice... I like that. --Targetter (Lock On) 02:24, 23 August 2006 (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.