Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable people by intelligence quotient test scores

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable people by intelligence quotient test scores

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

Walking

WP:BLP nightmare in concept. Current primary source looks sketchy and doesn't give its own sources or inspire confidence. But beyond that, I just doubt we can get solid sources for such a slippery concept as "IQ". These tests are administered privately and it's difficult to prove or disprove claims. I just don't think we want to be going down the path of ranking living persons by intelligence. Herostratus (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete An article that relies for one of its two references on a stunningly unreliable website called "The Richest" is off on a bad foot. Given the lack of agreement on how to define and measure IQ, I am unconvinced that an acceptable encyclopedic article on this topic can ever be written and maintained. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete
talk) 07:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to List of Mensans. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor concept for a list article and potentially can violate
WP:OR. Ajf773 (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Poorly sourced with no rigour (what tests were applied? how old were they at the time? what conditions was it conducted under? how reputable is the test?). The list of Mensans has validity as a list of notable members of an obviously notable organisation. It might be possible to cover this topic in an encyclopedic way (e.g. scores on highly-regarded tests, with references); but there's a reason we don't have lists of people with 4.0 GPAs or first class honours degrees, there's just too many caveats and it's too trivial. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as merging to list of Mensans seems wrong. Isn't that a formal organization? Would be like adding all people with a liberal bent to "List of Democrats." Hyperbolick (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quite apart from the extremely random selection, the fundamental data for this is not reliable. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2017 (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.