Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have been called a polymath


 * 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. L Faraone  02:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

List of people who have been called a polymath

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The premise that this subjective list is acceptable as it is a "list of people who have been described as a polymath by reliable sources" is inherently flawed as reliable sources are only reliable for statements of fact and not for statements of opinion (see WP:RS). As there are no objective criteria for determining who is a polymath and no recognised scholars of polymathism, all the references in this article which describe someone as a polymath are necessarily statements of opinion rather than fact and therefore cannot be considered to be reliable sources. As one example, The Independent is a reliable source for news, but when the Independent leader for 24 July 2002 opines that Rowan Williams is a polymath because he "can speak seven languages and lecture in five" (confusing polyglot and polymath) that should not be considered a reliable source for Williams being a polymath. In fact the Independent leader describing Williams as a polymath is no more reliable than a blog by Joe Bloggs or any other unreliable source, so it is fallacious to have an article defined as being a "list of people who have been described as a polymath by reliable sources" as there are no reliable sources for describing polymaths. This article is on the same par as List of people who have been called nice, and should be equally unacceptable on an encyclopedia. On the other hand, compare this list with List of polyglots which is acceptable as there are objective criteria for determining polyglotism and reliable sources for how many languages someone speaks. BabelStone (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article has been previously nominated for deletion under the titles List of polymaths (delete) and List of people who have been called "polymaths" (keep). BabelStone (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep If reliable sources call them a polymath, then they are on the list. If you see anyone on there not backed up by a reliable source, then they'll be removed.   D r e a m Focus  15:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And what does an unreliable source look like in this instance? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * See the talk page for an example. See how it easy it is to read the actual source, and determine what's reliable and what's not through proper discussion?   D r e a m Focus  17:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Note to nominator, List of polyglots does not exist except as a redirect, there no such list. And all information on Wikipedia on any subject is backed up by reliable sources, so it no different here.   D r e a m Focus  15:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.  D r e a m Focus  15:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Much too vague. No precise requirements exist for being a polymath, and there are no authorities whose opinion should be particularly trusted (in contrast, even something like list of people who have been called filmstars - "filmstar" being a subjective term with no clear qualification criteria - could rely on authorities like the American Film Institute, and would therefore be slightly more objective, but there is literally no respected body with any authority to say who is a polymath). Examples of people called polymaths by multiple sources could be included in polymath, to help elucidate what the term means and how it is used, but it's impossible to have a representative list of polymaths in view of the differences of opinion (of course it's even more impossible to have a comprehensive list, but a list doesn't have to be comprehensive). --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I've been vaguely disconcerted by this article ever since I first encountered it. BabelStone has very ably put his or her finger on the precise problem with this article, and for that deserves our thanks. It's just too subjective. Any person in the world can be "called" a polymath in any marginally reliable source, and he or she gets a listing in this article. Even Gawker will do, as was made very clear to me in the talk page of this article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If the same reliable sources used in this article, are used in other articles, do you discredit them also? Gawker is used in over a thousand Wikipedia articles. Gawker is used only on one entry, which has several other references as well for it.   D r e a m Focus  19:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're totally missing the point of this debate nomination. What matters is the total subjectivity of this list. But yes, the sources aren't so hot either and no, I don't think that we should be including people in this list based upon what a gossip website says. Coretheapple (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Maybe its title could be changed, or inclusion criteria clarified. All the included people bar one have a blue linked article. This list is useful, interesting and well sourced. The only problem is the inclusion criteria, and that should not be a reason for deletion.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The inclusion criteria should be a reason for deletion. If there is different inclusion criteria then it is in fact a different, albeit related article. The fact that the people are notable doesn't mean this is. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete too vague and subjective a criteria for which there are no WP:RS because there appears to be no authority on polymathy. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete--Per several above, particularly colapeninsula. I was actually considering AfDing this article myself. Way too vague a premise, with the potential for endless bickering and abuse therein. Called by whom? The title says nothing about reliable sources, and who do we consider reliable in this context anyway? What definition of a polymath are we using? As pointed out on the article talk page, one of the sources used to justify people here also includes George Foreman, yet he's not on the list, so clearly we're not going by just what the reliable sources say.  What, then, is the definition we're using, and why are we using it? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The George Foreman bit was not from a reliable source but a blog, which a guy said he just asked people around his office who should be on a list, it not something that passed quality standards of a magazine editor for a proper article. This was discussed on the talk page.  We wouldn't allow things like that to get into the article.  And the title doesn't have to be unnecessarily long since List of people who have been called a polymath by news media and books considered reliable sources by Wikipedia standards of notability wouldn't look as good.  There isn't really any endless bickering other than from one guy who keeps appearing as different IP addresses that have no other edits usually, and making the same exact whinny argument to remove him, despite what four reliable sources in the article say proving he was a polymath.   D r e a m Focus  23:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There's been serious questions raised about the Steve Jobs entry, by logged-in and not-logged-in users, not just one user with different IPs. I for one do not believe he should be on the list, and that the list itself is ridiculously subjective, based on the opinion, often offhand, of anyone employed by websites like Gawker. Coretheapple (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This is an important list especially from the viewpoint of inspiring young people to aim high and accomplish difficult tasks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakunneed (talk • contribs) 13:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Inspiring young people isn't a rationale for keeping, sorry p  b  p  20:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Agree with the above - this is an article based around opinions. We could also have an article on "List of people considered 'a great asset to the community' or 'hard workers'" and also find reliable sources saying so, but that would not make the article proper.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. A list of people who have been described using a particular word? Utter nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with AndyTheGrump that the list is utter nonsense. It's like a list of "Geniuses" or "Brilliant people" or "Talented people." The living or recent entries just seem to be to honor public figures someone likes. The labellings of someone as a "polymath" are often just casually thrown into a bio article and hardly qualify as reliable sourcing that the person has met some accepted standard of achievement in some required number of disciplines or arts which are sufficiently varied from one another. Sometimes the person does one thing for money, and has a hobby of music or painting and has appeared on TV or written something related to his main lines. These days it is common for rich celebrities or entrepreneurs to appear in media, or to launch product lines. It meant something different hundreds of years ago, when most people had little or no education. Now it is dirt common for a college graduate to have multidisciplinary concentrations (law, music, English literature for one, or statistics, music, computer programming for another who comes to mind, or physics, music for another). Selective colleges even expect to see polymath tendencies in the applicants they accept (any of: won a science competition, on champion athletic team, writes popular blog, plays cello, winner of mathematics competition, published author).  It fails reliable sourcing, because the refs typically express the casual opinion of someone that the individual has the quality. Similarly, an article in a "reliable source" like Time magazine or the New York Times, might say that some female celebrity was "sexy" but no collection of such opinions should justify List of persons who have been called sexy. Edison (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's like a list of "Geniuses" or "Brilliant people" or "Talented people." ... or even a List of Renaissance men. BabelStone (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a list of people who have many/multiple areas of expertise, not just what you would expect from the average person, but people who are famous in more than one area. e.g. Da Vinci was one of the best painters ever, he also designed a helicopter hundreds of years before it was invented, and did substantial work on anatomy. It is an article that deserves to be on wikipedia, but unfortunately looks like it won't because there is no absolute definition. I think this is a failure of wikipedia, but that failure is based up WP:OR which is fundamental to the encyclopedia.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The List of Renaissance men is another list with daffy inclusions, like Teddy Roosevelt. Let's see his diverse areas of excellence: he went around shooting animals (the great explorer, hunter and naturalist), shooting people (the great militarist), running for political office (as befits a great militarist), and writing about his shooting, travel, and politics. Kind of a narrow slice of the spectrum of human endeavor. You could as easily include George W. Bush: Militarist (national guard aviator), sports figure (owned a baseball team), businessman (Harvard MBA, on corporate boards), humorist (created more malapropisms than Yogi Berra), politician, author, and since his retirement, motivational speaker and painter. He sounds like more of a renaissance man than Teddy. Many of the renaissance man entries are just respected public figures who don't really meet the definition.  Edison (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As an illustration of how arbitrary this list is, consider the situation where a foreign-language source is used. As an example, Google translate tells us that 'yleisnero' is Finnish for 'polymath' (see also Finnish Wikipedia entry, and Google translation , which seems to suggest that 'yleisnero'is a synonym for 'Renaissance man') but does it mean exactly the same thing? Quite possibly not - it seems to me that it would original research to 'decide' what was meant in a particular context. Or is this just a list of people who have been described as 'polymath' in the English language? If so, it violates WP:NONENG policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I see the point. This article will be deleted for the right reasons, but that deletion will be wrong. It is just a pity there is no absolute criteria for inclusion. I suspect list of Renaissance me will also go in the next week as well.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This list is well-intentioned and I've actually added a couple of entries to it myself (the explorer Richard Burton and T.E. Lawrence). The problem is that by listing people "called" polymaths, which on the surface made good sense, it opened the door to subjectivity. The "renaissance men" list has its own set of problems, and in some respects it is more open to abuse and fancruft. Coretheapple (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Just because a journalist writes for a big newspaper and uses a word or because somebody publishes a book published by a big publishing house does not mean that a common use of a single descriptive word makes the basis for an encylopedic list. (We all worship the chimera of so-called "reliable" sources too much, by the way. I'm in the middle of a book project with a big academic publisher and trust me when I say the information in it was more reliable until those guys got their inept hands on it....) Carrite (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. This isn't a list of polymaths. This is a list of people who have been called polymaths. Or people who have been called something by somebody else. It really doesn't work under any circumstance. It might be knowledge, but it's certainly not encyclopedic --Richhoncho (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per AndyTheGrump. Ridiculous article with some highly ridiculous entries (Steve Jobs?!?).  It's extra silly because it's entirely unnecessary: the historically legendary polymaths such as Da Vinci are already noted in the Polymath article. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong delete: meaningless distinction. I echo Andy and Cola's concerns.  p  b  p  19:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - The nom says: "reliable sources are only reliable for statements of fact and not for statements of opinion" And if it was List of polymaths I could perhaps agree. But, while being a polymath is (maybe) an opinion, to be called a polymath by the source is a fact (the fact being, "sources call X a polymath"). As such, being this the list of people who *have been called* polymaths, no problem of subjectivity. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a statement of fact that Coretheapple has been called an idiot, but that still makes it an opinion. A valid opinion, perhaps, but still an opinion. Coretheapple (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And here we're discussing facts, not opinions: the fact that sources call several individuals a polymath. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep After reading through the discussion, it seems that we need to have well-defined criteria to include people in this list. To minimize the role of subjective preferences, we can consider people who have been very versatile in the arts, craft, and sciences. Wikipedia is a good source of information and it is important to expand the information base, while ensuring accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakunneed (talk • contribs) 20:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And your non-subjective measure for someone being "very versatile in the arts, craft, and sciences" can be found where, exactly? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have struck through this user's vote because he already voted above. But I echo Andy's concern that neither of his votes have sufficient rationale for keeping  p  b  p  20:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To illustrate just how arbitrary this list is, I note that it includes Alok Bhargava, an Indian-American professor of economics, citing a book review published (or at least, available) on a University of Houston College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences website: the sole use of the word 'polymath' occurs here: "In many ways, this is the most interesting chapter with the greatest amount of uncertainty over relationships, interventions, and research methods. It is a long chapter, but I would have liked to have seen even more of this forward-looking work, perhaps also drawing links between undernutrition and overnutrition as two sides of the same dysfunctional food-governance system. Perhaps there could be more of a political perspective, but this would be stretching even Bhargava’s polymath powers." And on the basis of this single word, we include Bhargava on a list that includes Pythagoras, Aristotle, Omar Khayyám, Roger Bacon, Leonardo da Vinci... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a content issue, and as such it has little to do with deletion. If you disagree with a specific entry or you want to narrow criteria, this can be done, but it has nothing to do with the article per se. -- Cycl o pia talk  12:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't be ridiculous. The fact that the list is arbitrary, and based entirely on a single word being used about a person, is the reason it is being proposed for deletion in the first place. I'm not arguing that Bhargava should be deleted from the list (as it stands, his listing meets the arbitrary criteria), I'm arguing that we shouldn't have created an arbitrary list in the first place. If this is a 'content issue' it is an issue with the entire content of this list. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Then let's discuss inclusion criteria. Again, this is an issue about content, not the topic of listing people that sources address as polymaths. I would totally agree on requiring e.g. three independent sources for each entry. -- Cycl o pia talk  14:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Replacing one set of arbitrary criteria with another set of arbitrary inclusion criteria won't solve the problem the the criteria are arbitrary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "arbitrary", in this context? Are there Wikipedia article inclusion criteria written in the laws of physics? I thought we were meant to take this kind of decisions -after all, the very deletion/inclusion criteria for articles we debate here are "arbitrary". Anyway, if sources consistently refer to someone as a polymath, I see nothing whimsical in that, and much of informative and reliable. -- Cycl o pia talk  18:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd think that a "list of people who have consistently been referred to as a polymath" would be a rather short one. Does every source on Leonardo da Vinci refer to him as a polymath? I very much doubt it. Or would 'consistently' just mean 'often enough to suit whoever is editing the article at the time'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per Edison's cogent analysis above. Deor (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The requirement for entry says: "The following is a list of people who have been described as a polymath by reliable sources", which translates to "The following is a list of people who have been called a polymath by anyone". The reliability of a source is expressly dependent on the claim made. Since the list is "people who have been called a polymath", not "people who are polymaths", all sources are in fact reliable for what they have said. In essence this means the entry requirement for this article is: if anyone has ever said X is a polymath he goes on the list. That is so vague as for it to be meaningless to have an article, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Narrowing the inclusion criteria can be discussed, of course, but it has little to do with the article existence per se. -- Cycl o pia talk  12:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have a different inclusion criteria then you include different people and you exclude others. It will be a different list, with its own arguments for and against deletion, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Its not a "list of people who have been called a polymath by anyone". Its by reliable sources obviously.  If any there are any entries you don't agree with, then discuss them on the talk page.   D r e a m Focus  17:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What counts as a 'reliable source' for an assertion that someone is a polymath? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A college level textbook, a major newspaper, a science related magazine, etc. Obviously some gossip magazine wouldn't be taken seriously for this, nor someone's personal unpublished rant on a blog somewhere.   D r e a m Focus  18:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? There is nothing in WP:RS that states that 'science related magazines' for example are necessarily reliable sources for statements that an individual is a polymath. And how exactly is anyone going to know what 'etc' means? All you are proposing is to add a layer of subjectivity to already arbitrary criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I was giving examples of good places to look. Those things would be reliable sources for any article, with the gossip tabloid or a personal blog not considered a reliable source anywhere either.  You can go to WP:Reliable Sources and read the explanation there.  Or if something looks doubtful to you, talk on the talk page of the article, or ask for more opinion at the reliable sources noticeboard.   D r e a m Focus  19:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not misrepresent WP:RS policy. There is no such things as "reliable sources for any article", and if you really still think that after your years of editing Wikipedia, I have to question your competence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, a university level textbook, a magazine like Wired, or a major newspaper like the New York Times would be considered a reliable source in any article.  D r e a m Focus  20:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Utter bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you link to one article where these sources I mentioned are not considered reliable sources?  D r e a m Focus  21:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop making BS up and read our guidelines like WP:MEDRS and WP:HISTRS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Guidelines? WP:HISTRS is just a personal essay without enough support to go to the guideline stage. WP:MEDRS only deals with medical articles. Neither has anything to do with this.   D r e a m Focus  21:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The BBC entertainment section calls Howard Marks a "polymath and pothead". Would that be suitable for inclusion? What about ?  Josh Ozersky ? The fact is that lots of people are called polymaths, even though they don't appear to be actual polymaths, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A brief unexplained bit on a movie review, what looks like a site that lets people self published just about anything, and a blog where someone talks about barbequing for the holiday. Would any of those be considered reliable sources for any Wikipedia article at all?   D r e a m Focus  20:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So, if a satirical program on the BBC (a reliable source?) called a less-than-academically known entertainer "a polymath" then they would be entitled to be added in this list. It is, after all, a list of people who have been called a polymath, not a list of polymaths. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The start of the article explains the inclusion criteria. "The following is a list of people who have been described as a polymath by reliable sources."  Obviously a satirical program isn't a reliable source.  The name should be changed back to List of polymaths, its just people kept arguing if various people were or weren't, so to end that pointless debate, the name was changed to list of people who have been called a polymath.  We could add "by reliable sources" in the article title, but that'd make it needlessly longer.   D r e a m Focus  12:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A statement that 'X is a polymath' is opinion, not fact. All sources are reliable for their own opinion. An opinion stated in a source cannot be converted into a 'fact' on the basis of 'reliability'. This list is arbitrary, unencyclopaedic and devoid of merit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: A hopelessly indiscriminate list that would even include little old me, as I was described as such by some reporter when I graduated from high school. Sorry, but the criteria for this list are far too broad abd subjective, and I highly doubt that there is any hope of writing more selective and objective ones. I don't see much encyclopedic value in doing so. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2013 (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.