Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of geniuses (Catharine Cox Miles)

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. No prejudice against creating an article about the related book. RL0919 (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of geniuses (Catharine Cox Miles)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's possible the book that contains this is notable, but the details of the table aren't notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but re-name to something like "List of geniuses from history" - this would make it clearer what this list is. Vorbee (talk) 08:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is one person's ranking in a single article. Maybe the ranking system is notable - I don't know - but the actual listing isn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No Einstein?!? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the omission of Einstein is a problem with this list. I don't know the lifespans of all of these people, but none of the ones I have checked were alive at the end of 1926 (the publication year). Miles may have intentionally excluded people who were alive and active from her list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not encyclopedic. A list of notable "geniuses" is also a no-go; what would be the inclusion criteria? b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 12:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what possible inclusion criteria could we include that could function? And all but the most insanely strict would give us a functionally endless list. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion criteria here is being in this person's book from the 1920s. I agree that a generic "List of geniuses" is impossible. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this list may be of interest to wikireaders (i am surprised that we dont appear to have a general list of geniuses article or even a category covering this, although i acknowledge the difficulties that would arise from such), but without appropriate references this is a delete, btw, agree with nom that the book Genetic Studies of Genius: The Early Mental Traits of Three Hundred Geniuses is notable. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a list of geniuses from history as selected by one author and retrospectively assigned IQ scores. However, nothing here indicates that these IQs could ever be validated, that the author's method is reliable enough that other psychometricians would give similar scores to the same historical people, or even that the author's calculations are considered notable under WP:GNG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a list taken out of one person's work, not notable. CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.