Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have been called "polymaths"


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

List of people who have been called &quot;polymaths&quot;
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Problematic list. The definition of a polymath is broad and subjective. Quote: “... A polymath may simply be someone who is very knowledgeable. Most ancient scientists were polymaths by today's standards”. I can't see the added value of listing all these people, not to mention all the bias and objectivity problems additions and changes have. It has become over 110 people long and the end is not in sight, as many want their favourite polymath on it. I am by far the first to question this article (see its talk page) Joost 99 (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC) (add. see Articles_for_deletion/List_of_polymaths for a discussion of its predecessor). Joost 99 (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - this list details individuals who have had been referred to as polymaths by reliable sources, and hence there are few problems with inclusion. If it gets too large, we can break it up alphabetically or chronologically. Being a polymath is subjective, but being "called" one is not. --S Larctia (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I can't see the added value of deleting this list. The topic is notable as Robert Root-Bernstein, for example, has studdied thousands of polymaths &mdash; see Multiple Giftedness in Adults: The Case of Polymaths.  Dealing with disputed cases is just a matter of ordinary editing not deletion, per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Robert Root-Bernstein studied thousands of polymaths". Thank you for supporting my point ;-) That the topic is notable, is not being denied. Genius is notable and no doubt we can find a lot of people who were called that by a reliable source, but does that make a long list of Geniuses of any value? The reasons for inclusion may be objective, but that does not add any value to the list imo. Joost 99 (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.

— Logan Talk Contributions 19:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep List on a notable subject with substantial references. Criteria for inclusion does not seem as squishy as the nom suggests. I disagree that calling someone a "genius" and calling someone a "polymath" is comparable. Most people don't throw the latter term around like they do with the former. I support the reasons for KEEP given above. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that in practice Genius is different, but in essence it is exactly the same: a subjective term to describe a persons abilities. I don't think you or I can decide that a subjective term is used wisely and coherently enough (i.e. not using the squishy definition from Wikipedia itself) throughout the world by reliable sources to give this list value. The list theoretically cannot stop including non-polymaths who were named as such (I know, verifiability not truth). If we want that, okay...Joost 99 (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Transform to Category It's much easier to maintain categories than lists like this, particularly with tools like HotCat that seems to be getting lots of use. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The rules state that favoring category is not a valid reason to eliminate a list. No reason not to have both.  A list also offers more information than just a name and is thus more useful by far.   D r e a m Focus  18:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Listing all the famous polymaths throughout history is notable, and notice all the blue links?  D r e a m Focus  18:21, 10 September 2011 (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.