Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters by IQ (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. Valley2 city ‽ 18:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

List of fictional characters by IQ
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Due to this article being kept at AfD about a year ago, I only have entered into this AfD only after extensive consideration of policy. I have however found it to be falling short of our inclusion criteria. I believe that the prior AfD did not lead to a delete because the nominators argument("Delete Listcruft") was not particularly cogent.

My reasons for thinking this article should be deleted is because I feel it constitutes original research as well as fails our notability, verifiability, and reliable sources criteria.

I would like to begin by pointing out that lists are indeed covered by the above policies. It is a somewhat common misconception that they are not.


 * Lists

"Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others."


 * Verifiability

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."


 * Reliable sources

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources."

Of the 47 references provided in the article:


 * 42 are primary sources that refer directly to episodes or promotional material from the creators of the episodes
 * 2 are blogs which are not considered reliable sources
 * 1 is off topic talking about the intelligence of super heroes without talking of specific heroes or IQ
 * 1 is a Wikipedia article which is of course not a reliable source
 * 1 is in fact a valid source on the subject of Sherlock Holmes' intelligence, unknown if it covers IQ specifically:

Of all the citations given only one is a reliable third party source on the subject of just one of the characters.


 * No original research

"If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about the topic."

Please note that it says "topic". A single reliable source on the intelligence of one fictional character is not a reliable source on the topic of the IQ of fictional people. While there is a book about the intelligence of Sherlock Holmes, there does not seem to be anyone out there that has written about the IQ of fictional characters in general. I have done some searching around and have only found copies of this Wikipedia article and a few forum posts where people are guessing the IQs of fictional characters.

Wikipedia is not the place to introduce a newly constructed subject, rather it is meant to reflect already existing and documented subjects. The former is original research, the latter is verifiable.


 * Notability (fiction)

" Significant real-world information must exist on the element beyond what is revealed in the plot of the fictional work"

"Merely listing the notable works where the fictional element appears, their respective release dates, and the names of the production staff is not sufficient "

"A topic about which there are no significant secondary sources cannot pass this guideline "

"the general notability guideline requires the use of reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"

Our notability guidelines seem to be very clear that simply citing what is revealed in a fictional work is not adequate to establish the notability of the topic. It is also clear that if a topic has no significant secondary sources then it cannot pass the guideline.


 * Conclusion

For the reasons given above I suggest this article be deleted as not being an encyclopedia topic. Chillum 19:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability (fiction) is a guideline which has failed 3 times to become a guideline. Many editors were concered that editors such as the nominator would use the policy to attempt to delete articles. They were right. Ikip (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree that the list is an unencyclopaedic topic. It is sad to see so much honest effort made to compile and reference the list as if it was encyclopaedic, but it is to no avail. What does the list mean? As far as I can see it means nothing. Different authors pick different large numbers to tag their characters with in passing mentions to their intelligence (or otherwise). The list is of no use in comparing the intelligence of fictional characters. It might as well be a list of random numbers. Is there any evidence that the subject of the IQs ascribed to fictional characters has been researched externally to Wikipedia? I can't see any in the references. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete To accept that this list is for real requires me to suspend all disbelief, and accept the premise that someone has been watching 40 or more different television programs, happening to catch whichever of the many episodes happens to discuss the character's IQ would be discussed, and to make a note of it during the moment that the information is mentioned. Doing this once means that you watch too much TV.  Doing it multiple times means that people are going to think that the citations are bullshit.  While I suppose someone could google this information, trying a name at random-- (as in "Steve Urkel" and "IQ" ) comes back to this page.  Mandsford (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep I think this could be a reasonable topic, and while I understand the hesitance to accept primary sources, this is one of the relatively uncommon areas where a primary source would be acceptable or even preferred. I don't think the goal here is comparison, as it's generally accepted that the very idea of IQ is subjective and varies by testing method and other circumstances.  But that doesn't invalidate the article as an information source. Needs pruning, perhaps, but not deletion. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And what do you think of our no original research policy? It says "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about the topic." It would lend much to your argument if you could address this point. Chillum  20:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that's a good reason not to have an article like IQ of Homer Simpson, but it doesn't necessarily prohibit the IQ of Homer Simpson (etc.) being addressed in another article. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no problem mentioning it in individual articles or character summaries (although it could be seen as trivia) but as soon as they are collated into a list (a list sorted into numerical order) it invites comparison. Why else collate a list? --DanielRigal (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed vote to delete from keep. Having second thoughts on this. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  00:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Pure listcruft. Absolutely unencyclopedic. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep The nominator gets the award for the longest AfD nomination I have ever seen. Unfortunatly for the nomination, a brief look at the long nomination show that real policy arguments are lacking. Ikip (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Real policy arguments are lacking? I thought I made my policy based arguments clear. I will try harder next time. Chillum  15:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't know if I can add to the exhaustive nomination except to say good job sorting all that out.  Them From  Space  21:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a very useful list, who would want to browse characters by IQ? Lets  drink  Tea  22:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per the excellent and very comprehensive nomination. This also fails WP:TRIVIA and WP:IINFO. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Placing these values all in a single list implies that they're all comparable to each other or to real people's IQs, which simply isn't the case - many of the numbers here were probably chosen by authors for humorous effect (for instance, the Alakazam Pokemon with an IQ of 5000, or Homer Simpson with his IQ of 55) or as a generically high value (like Sherlock Holmes's 190), rather than as a realistic measure of intelligence. As Starblind and DanielRigal mention above, this sort of information is okay on individual articles; the issue is simply with juxtaposing them like this. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 22:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination clearly fails WP:BEFORE in that the nominator seems to want more sources but only made this demand upon the article's talk page a few hours ago and fails to demonstrate that such sources cannot be found. I have made a brief search myself just now.  This is not easy because the nature of the topic does not seem provide a good keyword but I have already found one good relevant source: Yardsticks: retarded characters and their roles in fiction.  This demonstrates that the topic of intelligence (or lack of same) in fiction is notable and this article provides a reasonable start in addressing this topic.  The article therefore just requires improvement in accordance with our editing policy and deletion will not assist this. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The article was nominated for deletion last year for the same basic concerns as the current nomination. You seem to be proposing an article on another topic; there's nothing stopping you from writing an article on IQ in fiction or similar. The synopsis of the book at Google books doesn't imply that it contains anything like the material needed to properly cite this article ("Puccinelli identifies the retarded character's role in narrative in terms of the following five categories: the yardstick (the most prevalent of the five), the wise fool, the catalyst, the window pane, and the accessory. Though this discussion is limited to American fiction, the analysis perseveres in other national literatures and in other media, including film and television.") Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree. The portrayal of people of unusually low or high intelligence in fiction is definitely a legitimate topic but is also a different topic from the article we are discussing here. It is unlikely that an article on that topic will focus much on IQ scores attributed to characters or that this article could provide a useful starting point for such an article. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your view is contrary to our editing policy. We do not require deletion to change the title of the article or amend its contents.  And since the proposed reworking is based upon the current content, it would violate the WP:GFDL to remove credit from the previous authors who helped to get us to this point.  AFDs are not for cleanup or article improvement drives.  Per WP:BEFORE, If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am assuming that the new article would not use any of the current content because it would be a different subject and the current content would not be a useful starting point. Of course, if it was thought a useful starting point then I would agree that it should be handled as a continuation of this article. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and tag for sources and improvement as per WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, as giudeline instructs. No need to then violate guideline to make a point. Like DGG last APril, I suggest ignoring !votes like "listcruft" as meaningless equivalents of "I dont like the article but can't give a reason". And calling all 47 sources "primary sources", seems to assume others might not actually look and see such as Business Week, The DC Comics Encyclopedia, Flowers for Algernon Book Notes Summary by Daniel Keyes, "Chapter 107" ISBN 1-4215-0242-9, Intelligence of Sherlock Holmes: And Other Three-pipe Problems ISBN 8-2791-6004-3, Hulk: The Incredible Guide. ISBN 0-7566-4169-1. Huh?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The business week article dealt with the intelligence of superheroes, but did not deal in any way with IQ or any specific character. The DC comic encyclopedia is by the same people who make the comics and not an independent source. The Flowers for Algernon reference was an exert from the book. The incredible hulk was also by the same people who make the comic and not an independent source. The Sherlock Holmes reference I myself pointed out in my nomination. I assure you I gave the sources due consideration. Chillum  07:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per common sense. That's freakin' everybody! How much more indiscriminate can you possibly get? MuZemike 00:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not everybody. Perhaps you missed the introduction, "This list only intends to include fictional characters whose IQ score was explicitly revealed in the work of fiction.".  This seems quite a narrow and discriminating citerion. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The criteria "Their IQ was the subject of an independent reliable source" would be the criteria that we would prefer. It does not however seem that such sources exist for this article. Pouring through television episodes and books and documenting their contents for an article is original research. We need to base our content on reliable independent sources not through a novel synthesis of primary sources. A fine endeavor anywhere else but not appropriate for Wikipedia. Chillum  14:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, nom already quite exhaustive and well argued. Not much to add but completely fails WP:N, WP:V, and its primarily WP:OR with in-universe "sourcing" that does not actually meet any requirement for "significant coverage from reliable, third party sources." -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A distinctive characteristic of characters in fiction. If the characters are important,as shown either by having Wp  articles of significant mentions in articles about the fiction, and the IQs are definitely stated in the fiction, then the material is a/ notable and b/verifiable.   One might object if one thinks secondary sourcing is needed for the data,and that's simply wrong.  Perhaps one might think Wp should cover fiction only minimally, but that is a prejudice, just like the prejudice against lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 00:48, 22 March 2009
 * Delete. This is just a trivial and indiscriminate list that isn't notable for Wikipedia. Move to a fan wiki if possible, but it certainly doesn't belong here. What's next: List of fictional characters by age or height or weight? RobJ1981 (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * delete per the excellent nomination, particular OR and the failure of notability for fiction.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete- I really can't add much to the excellent nomination. Common sense says lists of unimportant trivia should be discouraged. Reyk  YO!  07:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per the most wonderful nomination. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd like to congratulate the authors for finding even a single independent reliable source for this topic. You might be able to find another one here: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=iq+%22forest+gump%22&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N Nerfari (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I must say the google result "Can instructions to nonverbal IQ tests be given in pantomime" looks very intriguing. Chillum  20:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, of course! This is a very unique list &mdash; in fact, I'll bet Wikipedia is the only site on the whole net that actually has a list of fictional characters by IQ! I wonder why don't make more of these trivial lists. Why don't we start? I've got a few in mind already: List of fictional characters by weight, List of fictional characters by blood type, List of fictional characters by SAT scores. The list goes on! Yes, were it not for Wikipedia supplying these lists, lots of people would go absolutely nuts looking for this information on other sites.
 * Seriously, strong delete per the nomination statement.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 03:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per superb nomination. This list is entirely trivial, and fails WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Robofish (talk) 04:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Excellent work by nominator. Vartanza (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as Wikipedia is not a platform for original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Besides the problems listed by the nominator, I have a problem with the very premise of this list. I mean, what's the purpose of listing fictional characters by IQ. What's next? By age? By height? By weight? By shoe size? There is also a problem with the very notion of comparing these characters in one list. This leads to suggest that they all exist in the same universe. Can you actually tell me, that Shredder is so much smarter than Batman for instance. --Maitch (talk) 07:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- WP:INTERESTING != WP:NOTABLE. (Nor is WP:USEFUL.) Strong arguments above. A list of disparate fictional characters, sorted by a fictional attribute, apparently providing such a list to anyone who might be interested rather than because it is a genuinely notable topic in the sense that credible third party writers have taken note of it. FT2 (Talk 14:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a violation of original research by synthesis. Although it may at first glance seem to be a simple summary of source material (which is permitted), I don't think that is the case here. The ranked list attempts to introduce new information regarding which works have the most intelligent characters. The creators of these fictional characters did not write up an IQ for purposes of comparing them to other fictional characters, but as a plot point for their work, and their work only; the IQs of these characters are therefore too loosely associated to justify bundling them into an article. Case in point: The IQs of Holly from Red Dwarf (12368) and Alakazam from Pokemon (5000) are not meant to reflect their supposed results on an IQ test at all (these scores are impossible on IQ tests), but rather a cute literary device to hammer in the point that they are supposedly really intelligent. The two figures are not comparable, you cannot say "Holly is smarter than Alakazam" by comparing the IQs given in Red Dwarf and Pokemon. Trying to make a ranked list as to which is the most intelligent is like arranging a contest "which author can come up with the highest number". Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Sjakkalle above, in that the IQ scores for fictional characters are irrelevent and insignificant, except as a generality that one has a low, average or genius IQ. The exact number is irrelevant even in the same fictional universe, unless a character compares it to another's in a rivalry or something. 4Russeteer (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding to my thinking, I was reading the previous nomination, with a keep reason including "IQ is notable and I would strongly think that some popular culture encyclopedia in a library will have some discussion on it" and the discussion above "there's nothing stopping you from writing an article on IQ in fiction or similar" which I agree with. An article describing how IQ and intelligence is depicted and used in fictional works could definitely be notable. 4Russeteer (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Obvious delete - I was shocked to see that this article previously survived AfD. WP:SYN might as well just be made a redirect into this article. Oren0 (talk) 07:16, 25 March 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.