Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of noted polyglots

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 of the debate was no consensus/keep. - Turnstep 15:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_noted_polyglots[edit]

The article contains plenty of text which argues that it can never contain actual verifiable information. The first paragraphs are a great disclaimer that the list is nothing but anecdotal. Mlewan 11:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as possible original research. --Arnzy (Talk) 12:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverified, unverifiable listcruft. --ES2 15:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a lot of claim, very little verification Karlusss 19:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fascinating list, and there are plenty of blue links on it. I agree the first paragraphs are nothing special and most of those could go, but the list itself is viable. It is not true that "it can never contain actual verifiable information", because all Wiki needs for verification is a published source, and presumably that's where the info came from in the first place.Tyrenius 03:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A published source isn't really enough. A published reliable source is needed. And the sad fact is that the content of that page has been disputed at least in parts for about two years, and still there is no reliable source for the actual language skill level for any one of those "polyglots". I agree that it is fascinating reading, but it is not factual.
- I admit that it is a noteworthy fact Mezzofanti is supposed to have spoken one hundred languages. It is always interesting to see how people were perceived. But it is not possible to compare that (likely erroneous) claim with a (probably equally erroneous) claim of forty for WJ Sidis, as the people who spread the two rumours most likely had different criteria. In short: this should not be a list. Mlewan 06:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the Wiki editor's job to decide whether a source is telling the truth as that would be original research. It is the editor's job to report what people have stated.Tyrenius 15:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, even though it's interesting. Would make a good addition to a trivia site, but not Wikipedia -- Hirudo 04:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I love the page, it's very interesting and well put together. Let the readers verify for themselves whether each case is legitimate and modify the page accordingly. shorestrack3200 16:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For many of the individuals the information seems to be verifiable, and the sources should be contained in the blue-linked articles where they belong. Note that the verifiability criterion is not whether these individuals actually did speak that many languages, but whether or not that claim has been publicly made about them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if taken to an extreme this page could end up listing every hotel clerk in western Europe, but the degree of polyglotism represented here is truly notable, and it should be possible to obtain verifiable sources for most people on the list. --phh (^t/_c) 22:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as badly-defined and hence unverifiable list. See WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Fut.Perf. --DV8 2XL 16:04, 29 April 2006 (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.