Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people by reported IQ

List of people by reported IQ
List of people by reported IQ 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.

Isn't this essentially the same as the IQ scores entry that was just nuked? --Calton 05:42, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The list that wouldn't die. Delete. --fvw *  06:58, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
 * Delete. Consistent with my listing of the other such list. Charles Matthews 09:36, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete as imbecilic, moronic, or idiotic. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:03, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) For the same reasons given for the other list, namely:
 * An IQ is a specific score on a specific test, administered by a psychologist. An IQ score is meaningless unless the particular test instrument used is specified. This is particularly true in the case of high scores (e.g. 187) since most tests do not go that high and do not claim to be capable of producing valid measurements (of whatever it is they measure) in that range.
 * Since IQ scores are confidential, it is hard to see they can verifiable in most cases. Here, Cite your sources is essential, not just desirable. (And the verification should not be someone else's garbage list!) This list contains only two citations. The one for Bobby Fischer turns out to be a book review in which the reviewer says that the book's author "claims that Bobby Fischer once scored 187 on an IQ test." The second is a Salon article which says "For the record, Mansfield advertised her I.Q. as 163." Even if you accept these as convincing authority, which I do not, that leaves you with a list of... two.
 * As for estimated IQ's of historical individuals who had an IQ test administered to them, you might just as well read their biographies, judge their amorousness, and present those judgement in the form of a list of estimated penis lengths. You can't make such POV nonsense encyclopedic by prefixing it with a disclaimer. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:03, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: "Reported" IQ is rather like "reported penis length" in the locker room. You can't believe it.  And then there are the usual problems with people who had the grave misfortune of being born before the IQ test was invented.  Geogre 16:42, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unverifable and unmaintainable. Jayjg 19:39, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Heh, heh. This list was found by because I redirected the old IQ scores here. It should survive this VfD just as it survived the last time it was here. The interesting thing about the article is that these people have had their IQs reported (the scores themselves are actually of lesser interest - because it is not really possible to compare). Admittedly this article needs greater sourcing to be really good, but we don't delete articles just because they need work. The votes above seem to be assuming that the we are claiming the IQs themselves are supposed to be of interest. Kind of seems like they haven't the page or the talk page. Pcb21| Pete 22:57, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. I've accordingly removed the dubious, unverifiable, and uninteresting portions of the article while keeping all of the interesting and verifiable information. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Which means it's now a short commentary on IQ tests, followed by a couple of lists of random names. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 06:56, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * IQ scores, the page which now redirects here but which used to have substantially the same content, was previously deleted however this article pre-dates that page. This article has been edited by a number of contributors during the past year though many of the edits were minor disambiguations.  The current contents of this article are an apparently rank-ordered "list of people by reported IQ" but the IQ scores themselves have been removed as "dubious" which I take to mean unverifiable.  Without the scores, this page is nonsense.  With the scores, I abstain.  Rossami (talk) 02:49, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - was unverifiable junk before, with the scores removed there's not much left that's not already in IQ. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 06:56, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete useless. EventHorizon 03:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is now such a good introduction to IQ missusage: IQ was and is meaningless out of therapeutic, pathlogical context. ( I am delighted to read previous comments which make it so plain! ). What is the point of publishing such a list: it is invalid, useless and missleading. Gtabary 10:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, an IQ score can be a useful diagnostic tool when used in context, but lists like this are no more meaningful or notable than lists of famous people's blood types. Wyss 12:15, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: How did such rubbish get onto Wikipedia in the first place? Brianjd 12:22, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, 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.