Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of polymaths (2nd nomination)

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 and redirect to Polymath. There is a clear consensus that this article should not exist. There is some disagreement as to what should be done with the content, but it is properly noted that the present content of the article reflects arbitrary rules of inclusion, rather than conforming to a reliably sourced externally generated meaning of the term. Therefore, the content is deleted rather than being merged, and the title is redirected as a reasonable target for this search term. bd2412 T 20:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of polymaths[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)

Despite an excellent attempt by Sammylor095, I don't think this is a plausible topic for an article. The list is unavoidably original research. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 00:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per WP:OR. Can't see the merit as a list topic. Ajf773 (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Polymath. Criteria is going to be difficult, standards for that criteria are going to change over time, and there's ultimately no reason the content that's here can't just fit into the main article's prose. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "proposed criteria" are useless and rather arbitrary, but we just have to rely on reliable sources, e.g. the BBC article "Does the world need polymaths?" cites da Vinci, Thomas Young and some others; "In Defense of Polymaths" in the Harvard Business Review names da Vinci, Benjamin Franklin and Paul Robeson. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We would benefit from having a separate page since the list could get as long as this one "johnchiappone's polymaths". The criteria may need work and collective effort, but we must define some basic but strict criteria. This is not hard to do as there are plenty of reliable sources with respect to these giants. The criteria should also be based on Wikipedia's well established standards of notability Sammylor095 (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Polymath. The BBC source looks good but there don't seem to be many more good sources so, to avoid endless OR and squabbling, it would be best to keep this at the main article, where the reader will expect some indisputable examples like Isaac Newton but not an exhaustive list. Andrew D. (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Polymath. Small and useful list that can still serve encyclopedia. Accesscrawl (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After observing the arguments below. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect, definitely not 'Keep' or even 'Merge' to any substantial extent. This is WP:OR, plain and simple. Many lists suffer from a lack of clearcut inclusion criteria, but that is not the case here. This one has stringent criteria, ". . . polymath[s] listed here must have notable achievements within at least five out of thirteen subcategories, including at least one arts subcategory." The problem is encapsulated in my immediate response on reading seeing that, "Says who?" As the list itself is really a table demonstrating how they fulfill the arbitrary categories underlying the arbitrary criteria, I don't see how anything here can be saved except the names themselves, and even then they would need a direct citation to some WP:RS calling them a polymath, rather than basing it on what we find in Wikipedia articles, as has been done here. Do we keep the namespace and replace all the content? I would say no. The fact is that there are no hard and fast criteria of what makes someone a polymath, and we are better off giving a small number of specific examples on Polymath than trying to list anyone who has ever been called a polymath by anyone. Agricolae (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure this has to be OR, as we could instead make the inclusion criterion be about published sources that use the exact word "polymath". But I don't think doing that would be a good idea and in any case inclusion in this list is too subjective (whether it be the opinion of our editors or our sources' authors) to make a good Wikipedia list. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Agricolae and David Eppstein. Often, lists are problematic because the inclusion criteria are vague, while in this case, the criterion is specific, but arbitrary. The result reads more like a forgettable blog post than anything that can be edited into being an encyclopedia article. XOR'easter (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments made above: the inclusion criteria are specific but arbitrary; any set of criteria would necessarily be either subjective or arbitrary, whether developed by Wikipedians or the authors of outside sources. Cnilep (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, noting that there are already some examples (with pictures) at the main article, and a more substantial merge may run into the same issues re. inclusion criteria. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:31, 1 September 2018 (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.