Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neha Ramu


 * 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. Keeper |  76  03:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Neha Ramu

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notable only for a single event. Claims such as "she is more intelligent than Stephen Hawking, Bill Gates and even Albert Einstein, who are all thought to have an IQ of 160" is not neutral and is highly biased (further, there is still disagreement over using IQ as an absolute measure of intelligence). There seems to be a list of high IQ people (of Mensa society), but again the list contains only people who are notable for other reasons as well. Propose to delete. -- Obloid cow (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - One of the source says "Neha scored 162 on the Cattell IIIB test, putting her within the top one per cent of people in the country," a spokesman for British Mensa said. Having top 1% of people in country certainly notable. This is not that next year she will be in Mensa list, She has scored 162 which is highest ever. Covered by UK and Indian media widely. If we say the claims are highly biased then both countries media has been biased towards these people and have something against like Stephen Hawking, Bill Gates and even Albert Einstein?.  KuwarOnline Talk 09:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply: You are taking my comment out of context. I never said that the media is biased.  But again I wouldn't consider any non-peer reviewed report (including those from popular news papers) as an authoritative source on how intelligent Stephen Hawking or Bill Gates is.  Also, where does the 160 IQ figure come from?  As far as I know, Einstein took no standardized IQ test.  I doubt that the other two took one too.  So this is just pure speculation.  Moreover, this is just the result of a test conducted by a single private organization, Mensa.  The top x% argument doesn't hold much water because of this.  All that said, the article still fails inclusion because of WP:1E and WP:NOT. -- Obloid cow (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - First thing is Mensa is not just small/unknown/unrecognized organization it is world largest and oldest organization. So the top x% is notable and recognized around the world. If you read references provided to this article carefully it says "Einstein never took an IQ test as none of the modern intelligence tests existed when he was alive, but experts believe he had an IQ of around 160. Being in that 1% is certainly notable.  KuwarOnline Talk 11:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply: First of all, it's important to understand that Mensa is not the only organization in the world who does standardized IQ tests. If IQ tests were something that was done only by Mensa, it would have been different.  But that is not so, and countless universities around the world have psychologists who would be able to do that.  Further, Mensa is just an "elite" club, no more relevant to psychometrics than the Flat Earth Society (which is old and the only one of its kind) is to geophysics.  Being certified by Mensa is not recognizable in itself.  Finally, all the articles says that the test used was the Cattell IIIB test.  What about other tests like the Stanford-Binet test?  Is Mensa a recognized authority in psychology?  Do they have established psychometricians as members? -- Obloid cow (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Further, I would challenge that being in the "top 1% in the country" is notable per se. To put that in perspective, she's from India, which has 1.2 billion people.   Therefore, the "top 1%" of India comprises approximately 12 million people.  If you just want limit this to her new country -- the UK -- then she's still in a cohort of 650,000 people.   Are you saying that ALL these people are inherently notable?  Well, they aren't.  They need to be notable for something other than that to set themselves apart from the millions of other 1%'ers.   So far, we've not been shown that. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 19:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please see the comment/reply provided to Uncle Milty .  KuwarOnline Talk  09:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * delete -Not a notable person. The article should be deleted quickly. On the basis of IQ tests, noone can compare himself/herself with the notable persons like the Albert Einstein. Notability depends on the contribution of a person for the social welfare. Albert Einstein solved the theory of relativity. What is the contribution of Neha Ramu in society? I did not find any notable work done by the Neha Ramu. This page should be deleted quickly. Jussychoulex (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I would recommend to read WP:BIO which clearly says that "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Getting score like she did is not something ordinary. It is not something average score, it is highest till date by any person. Its definitely "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Which is recognized by many media around the world.  KuwarOnline Talk 12:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - None of the notability guidelines set a "top X%" threshold of notability. She has yet to do anything notable with her gifts. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON applies here. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  13:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Were are talking about person who is on Top. The score she got is highest till date. So she is not just in 1% of brilliant people, she is most brilliant person among them. Also the article got 8795 views in just 8 days(since creation of this article) which is extra ordinary which actually means people searching for that person and got that many time of hits to this article.  KuwarOnline Talk  09:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply Claims and certifications made by a single organisation who has no academic authority doesn't carry much weight. As long as none of the inclusion guidelines give any weightage to viewcounts, I don't see how that is relevant either.  For instance, if I create an article giving directions to obtain recreational drugs in my city, I'm sure it would get a lot of hits, but would it be appropriate? -- Obloid cow (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 7 March 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.