Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 discounting new users and IPs. Jaranda wat's sup 07:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mega Society

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Appears to be a non-notable society. I am informed there are only 25 members My vote is

  • Delete Jefffire 15:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: seem like an advert, see article talk page Byrgenwulf 16:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are some good reasons not to delete it: first, the Society has been written about many times in mainstream publications; second, it has been listed in various listings of international organizations since its founding in 1982; third, it is the oldest and best known of the "ultra high IQ" organizations.

Size alone is not a good indication of "encyclopedic" nature in this case, because the nature of the Society limits its size. A better criterion would be "utility." Currently the entry is referenced several hundred times per day. That qualifies it at as a useful entry.

My vote is

  • Keep Canon 16:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment. "Utility" is not an accepted criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. Jefffire 16:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I agree that being small is no reason not to include it, but I'm not yet seeing the notability. Could you point us to some of the articles in mainstream publications you mention? Google News and the NYT archives have nothing. In Google itself I found a couple of media mentions (one in Esquire, one in The Wave), but nothing that qualifies as "written about". Thanks, William Pietri 17:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment. The Wall Street Journal first wrote about the Society on April 19, 1992; I am aware of articles in Omni Magazine, Esquire Magazine, and Republic Magazine that discuss the Society. I believe there have been others. The Society appeared in several editions of the Guinness Book of World Records. I don't know if Mensa International counts as "mainstream," but the Mensa FAQ has listed the Society since the early 1990s. Canon 20:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep 4.156.123.30 17:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Anonymous users first and only edit. Jefffire 17:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep [User: Kevin Langdon, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The Mega Society is small because it attempts to select members at the one-in-a-million level. Many issues of our excellent journal, *Noesis*, appear at our website, http://www.megasociety.org. I am currently the Editor of *Noesis*. If you want to vote on retention of this listing please take a look at our site. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevin Langdon (talk • contribs) 19:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I am wondering why the editor of their newsletter has an IQ of 150 and claims to be a member. Obviously not a legitimate organization. DaturaS 15:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I have IQ scores considerably higher than 150. It's strange that the assertion that my IQ is "only" 150 seems to be accepted uncritically by certain posters to this discussion. Kevin Langdon 08:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It's not strange at all. They can read your deleted edits on the article's Talk page. No one who understands the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia would start a Wikipedia entry that way. If your IQ score is higher than that (and I sincerely doubt it is), then what is it? And on what test? DaturaS 20:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not a member of the Mega Society though I spent two years trying to join it. There is shamefully little work being done in the area of high-range psychometrics (above 4 SD) and the founder of Mega is one of the few experts in the field. Now you might well think that the concept of g, general intelligence, is not valid, and that therefore not only high-end psychometrics but all psychometrics that attempt to measure IQ are not valid. But many reputable scientists would disagree with you. It is not in the category of, say, astrology. Since you (hopefully) wouldn't dream of deleting the article on IQ, why delete one of the few societies pioneering its use and measurement on the far right tail of the bell curve? Brian
Two more points. The Mega Society article has been one of the most vandalized I've seen; check the history. Also, it is NOT affiliated with a society of a similar name that endorses CTMU. Brian
Well, provide with some citations about the worthwhile scientific research this society is conducting, and then the article ought to be able to stay. Until then, it hardly meets criteria for notability. Byrgenwulf 21:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The criteria for notability, and indeed the notion that notability is even relevant, have been hotly debated. I notice that some of the debate concerns inclusion of college fraternities. What scientific research do they conduct? (And some fraternities are open to charges similar to those leveled below; they are elitist, sexist, racist, etc etc) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.117.7 (talk • contribs) 22:55, July 15, 2006 (UTC)
After checking the page history, the Mega Society article has never been vandalized, although I fail to see how it would be relevant if it had been. I agree with Byrgenwulf that some sort of reference as to what the Mega Society actually does might be useful. -- NORTH talk 20:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment North neglected to note that my moderate and balanced comments (before the present deletion debate) were moved by one of the editors to the "Talk" page. 69.19.14.28 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Also in January 2005 comments were inserted that were non-neutral, by one "Asmodeus". Kevin removed them and they were restored by Gregor B in May 2005. That's what I meant by vandalism; if I misused the term I apologize. I've seen homophobic slurs and silly jokes inserted into the pages of other high IQ societies, but never on Mega. Brian
    • Comment Wikipedia is not here to perpetuate a farce. Notable or not (and it is not), I would like to see some evidence that this society actually does what it says it does. Are there any meetings or activitied of these one-in-a-million members? The short answer is "No". You have a handful of pseudo-intellecuals with phony credentials (or none like the editor) who have created a bogus group and advertised it on Wikipedia. Independent verification requested. DaturaS 15:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment The higher up the scale the cutoff percentile for a high-IQ society the smaller it tends to be. Mensa has lots of local meetings but this is impracticable for a group like Mega. The primary activity of the Mega Society is the publication of its journal, *Noesis*, which is available on the Web. Note the abusive language in the above comment. Kevin Langdon 08:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep 87.116.189.131 21:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There's no point in deleting it, since it is in no violation of any rule whatsover. On the other hand, if deleted, same could apply to any article on any other HIQ society. By extension, a whole HIQ Society Wiki article can be deleted for no good reason at all.
Comment - HowlinWolf is no sockpuppet - he is my brother - will send a family photo to get this scum off the web. I definitely agree with HW that Langdon is a known fraud. Defrauded Omni readers in the 1980s of more than $30,000 after Omni published a version of a test he made up and bilked readers for scoring fees. Sanctioned by the State of CA medical board - see judgment here. Vanity page for this lowbrow wannabe. DaturaS 22:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment The above accusation of fraud is actionable. I demand that the author thereof provide proof of his assertion; in the absence of such proof, I demand that the editors of Wikipedia remove it from the Web. Kevin Langdon 08:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment Mega is not a large society, but the idea that there's only one active member refers to the so-called "Mega Society East," founded by Mega member Chris Langan (not Langdon). Langan insisted that his society was the real one but not even one other member of Mega went along with him and he lost a court decision and is now prohibited from using any form of the name "Mega Society." He also lost an ICANN arbitration regarding Mega Society domain names. Details can be found on this page: http://www.megasociety.org/about.html . The real Mega Society has many active members, as is obvious when one examines recent issues of *Noesis*. As for Langdon being a bigot, his jokes pages contain jokes about many different ethnicities, religions, etc. Categories include: Arab, Horrid Nursery Rhymes, Black, Interbreeding, Misc./Mixed Ethnicities, Buddhist, Irish, Polish, Celebrity, Jewish, Polish/Italian, Chain Letter, "Johnny," Polish Pope, Christian, Knock Knock, Redneck, Commercial Parodies, Lawyer, Scientology, Dead Baby, Lightbulb, Sex, Dyslexia, Mexican, and Space. It would be pretty exhausting to hate all of these groups. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.182.196 (talk • contribs) 22:27, July 15, 2006 (UTC)
Comment - This is about no one other than Kevin Langdon, a fellow who pretends to have a high IQ but sadly does not. Langdon's so-called Mega-society has NO MEMBERS except for unqualified Kevin Langdon and a handful of hangers-on with dubious IQ credentials. Maybe Kevin Langdon can tell us what his IQ score is (150) and what test he took to get into the "Mega" society. Totally bogus. Yes, please click on Langdon's "Dead Baby" joke page before you vote for this sick puppy. DaturaS 23:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment The Mega Society has a number of members other than Kevin Langdon, as can easily be ascertained by looking over recent issues of *Noesis*. I *can't* tell you what test I took to get into the Mega Society because the founder of the predecessor 606 Society (6-in-a-million cutoff), Chris Harding, didn't explain the basis on which he invited members. Members of 606 were grandfathered into the Mega Society when it was founded. However, as the limit of what can be measured with reasonable precision is somewhere around the 606 qualifying level the difference in cutoff levels is academic. Mega does the best it can to select members at its nominal cutoff level. It may be that the actual cutoff is a few points lower; that's the price you pay for pushing the limits of psychometric science. Kevin Langdon 08:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Commment Does it strike you as strange that this person is looking down his or her nose at IQ 150 (the one in a thousand level)? This IQ elitism is characteristic of Mega Society member and sore loser Chris Langan. In fact, when several Mega members took the Mobius Test, by Edward Cyr, an extremely difficult test, I got the highest score and Ron Hoeflin was just one point behind me. The objection to my compilation of jokes is irrelevant and absurd. The study of jokes is as valid as the study of any other sociological phenomenon; I am not endorsing prejudice and the butt of many jokes which stigmatize whole demographic groups is not the group stigmatized but those who stigmatize them (as in certain jokes about Blacks which really target the intolerance of rednecks). --Kevin Langdon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.59 (talk • contribs) 15:38, July 16, 2006 (UTC)
We don't allow people to go get family members to back up thier votes. Please let wikipedians sort this one out. Votes from anons, accounts created after the vote started, and accounts with very few edits are usually simply ignored by the closing admin. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Theresa - I will tell HW that he needs to run crosstown and visit the library (like another on this page) if he wants to cast his vote. Have moved comments. DaturaS 23:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Commentthey have published over 180 issues of their scholarly magazine, many of which can be read at their website. Have a look. Kevin's not a bigot, but in any case this is a red herring. Brian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.117.67 (talk • contribs) 21:32, July 15, 2006 (UTC)
A "scholarly" journal that prints comments like this (from the society's founder): "If I were a black person and were as intelligent as I now am, I'd probably regret that my black brethren tend to be less competent than members of other races, on average. I would see two possible future outcomes for my race: (1) after the less competent blacks are culled from the population through homicide, AIDS, homelessness, etc., there might be a flowering of black civilization as the more competent blacks began to compete more successfully, or (2) the blacks might cease to exist as a race due to interbreeding with other races." [1]. Come on. Byrgenwulf 21:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
This quotation is extracted from a longer section in which Hoeflin is arguing that biological evolution is an ongoing process. This is the same point that Nicholas Wade makes in his new book Before the Dawn (ISBN 1-59420-079-3). While I don't persionally agree with the argument, there are scholars who do. However, how did we get to discussing whether the Society is "scholarly" anyway? The original reason given for deleting the article was that the Society was not "notable." This ambiguous criterion was then defined as requiring that the Society has been discussed in the "mainstream" press. That criterion has been satisfied. Canon 00:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment Those remarks seem pretty reasonable to me. Blacks, like other populations, are subject to evolutionary pressures. This isn't racism or bigotry, but one has to wonder about the motives of those seeking to have the Mega Society listing deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.182.196 (talk • contribs) 22:27, July 15, 2006 (UTC)
Comment Known bigot. Neither Hoeflin nor Langdon have IQs anywhere near the supposed level of this bogus society. No qualified members as far as I can tell. Other contributors to his racist rag are not qualified either. What a joke. HowlinWolf 21:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment How do you suppose this Wolf guy has the inside track on other people's IQs? --Kevin Langdon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.182.196 (talk • contribs) 22:27, July 15, 2006 (UTC)
Comment This commentary confused the action of the California Board of Psychology against what it saw as "the unlicensed practice of psychology" with *Omni's* lawsuit. I don't know where the $30,000 figure came from, but *Omni* sued me for *a million dollars* after I received an overwhelming number of answer sheets in a very short time (the test was taken by over 27,000 people after appearing in the April 1979 issue of *Omni*), most of them within the first few months after publication. I had problems with my computer (they were even more buggy back then) and it took me many months to catch up with my backlog. When I did I supplied *Omni* with a list of testees and they verified that I had, in fact, gotten results to most of them (some had moved during the period of delay); the lawsuit was settled and I didn't have to pay a dime (I'm sure glad they didn't get my million dollars :-) ). The cost of scoring was $2.50. How would you like to have to open all those envelopes, input the data from each answer sheet, score all these tests, and mail out results and interpretive materials for $2.50 a pop? As for the California Board of Psychology's objection to my IQ testing activity, it's unconstitutional. The First Amendment's right of freedom of assembly guarantees very-high-IQ people the right to form societies and select members any damn way we want; we sure can't rely on the standard tests to select at our target level. The abusive language above indicates that HowlinWolf has some kind of axe to grind. It should also be noted that his accusation of fraud is libelous. --Kevin Langdon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.182.196 (talk • contribs) 22:27, July 15, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Byrgenwulf; it is a non-notable club. (The magazine titles cited by Canon are not enough to establish notability.) IMHO, it seems that Byrgenwulf is the only editor who has expressed an opinion on this that is coherent with deletion policy. AfD is not a vote. HowlinWolf's comments should not have been struckthrough, even if he is a suspected sock puppet of DaturaS. Everyone's comments are welcome, provided that they are civil, and everyone's comments will be taken into account by the closing admin. That being said, the closing admin does hold the right to discount comments made by anonymous IPs and accounts created for the sole intent of "voting" in this discussion (which appears to apply to the majority of the comments here). Please keep this in mind on the off-chance anyone here has plans to participate in future AfD discussions. -- NORTH talk 00:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
If the closing admin (or anyone else) wishes to read HowlinWolf's comments that had been refactored, I restored them on the talk page. -- NORTH talk 00:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment How is an unsubstantiated accusation of fraud "civil"? And how can members of the Mega Society who don't happen to have edited Wikipedia entries before defend themselves against the false accusations made against the ssociety without creating new accounts and weighing in? This should not be a criterion for taking people's comments seriously. 69.19.14.28 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear, are the citations I've provided insufficient to establish "notability" because (1) the publications cited are not "mainstream", or (2) I did not provide issue dates, or (3) I did not provide enough citations, or (4) "notability" is not established by citations. I can deal with each of these, but I'd like to know where the deficiency lies. Also, as should be pretty obvious by now, the society is certainly "notable" in that a lot of people are very interested in it, which the members will agree is not always a good thing. Canon 01:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The answer to your question is #2, 3, 4, and 5. Saying that you are aware of an article in such-and-such magazine is not enough. Show us the article. However, even if you did tell us which articles in which issues of the magazines you listed mention the Mega Society, I still doubt that would be enough. Just because it's in a magazine, even if it's mainstream, doesn't make it notable. We are an encyclopedia, not a magazine, and our standards are just a tad bit higher. Mentions in magazines are a factor in determining notability, but only one factor. Which brings me to #5, which granted you didn't apply an actual number to. Another factor for determining notability is whether "a lot of people are very interested in it" -- although again, interest alone is not enough. But I'm curious as to why you say it "should be pretty obvious" by now that a lot of people are interested in it, because it's certainly not obvious to me. -- NORTH talk 01:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment The comment above refers to points 2, 3, 4, and 5, but there are only *four* points in Canon's remarks above it. Has something been censored? --Kevin Langdon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.59 (talk • contribs) 15:38, July 16, 2006 (UTC)
Nothing has been censored. This can be confirmed either by reading the page history (something I am doing constantly when trying to catch unsigned comments), or by reading my comment, in which my reference to #5 is a clever joke, referring to a point Canon made, but did not assign its own number. -- NORTH talk 20:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The articles I've referenced are either about the Mega Society itself or about ultra high IQ societies in general and the Mega Society is discussed as an example. There are many more articles that merely mention the society. In what format do you want me to "show you" the article? For reasons I've previously stated, I believe that the Mega Society page on Wikipedia is looked at by several hundred people per day. That's a pretty clear demonstration of interest. Canon 01:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
You haven't referenced any articles, you've listed magazine titles. If this is a notable society that is still active today, surely there is some recent reference that you can show us online? A Google News search yields none. A mention in the Wall Street Journal 14 years ago does not constitute notability.
You did not state any reasons previously as to why you believe this page is looked at by several hundred people per day. You only said, "Currently the entry is referenced several hundred times per day." Is it? By who? -- NORTH talk 02:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I mentioned that the Wall Street Journal article was an early reference. I have found a page (not affiliated with the Mega Society) that specifically cites many "mainstream" articles and was maintained up through 1999 (http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/refer.html). That is a broad enough sample of "mainstream" to establish "notability." As for Google News, many "notable" organizations will not have generated news articles in the recent past; a search for "mega society" in Google Groups returns over 350 hits and in Google proper over 9000. Finally, we can determine that several hundred people view the entry each day because several dozen people follow the link to the Mega Society home page. Canon 04:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Here are some citations.

Baumgold, Julie (February 6, 1989). "In the Kingdom of the Brain". New York Magazine Graham, Ellen (April 19, 1992) "Minds of Mega", Wall Street Journal Prager, Joshua (May 14, 1997) "Let's see now" Wall Street Journal "Genius Issue" (November 1999) Esquire Magazine (reprinted in http://www.uga.edu/bahai/News/110x99.html ) see also http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/history.html#Mega Oh, and one more I forgot: Guinness Book of World Records 1989 page 29, "The most elite ultra-high IQ society is the Mega Society" I am unclear why very recent cites are required; even a defunct society -- which Mega is not -- may be of historical interest. Surely a group which has for almost 25 years made a careful and credible attempt to select the one in a million most intelligent people is noteworthy. I've finally figured out the four tilde thing, and I've tried to go back and sign some of my earlier comments. Brian 70.234.150.40 18:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

More recent citations are preferable precisely because the Mega Society is not defunct. -- NORTH talk 20:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Homebrew high IQ society of no notability. If people with high IQs are so smart, how come they don't realise what a bogus, discredited concept IQ is? -- GWO
You seem to contradict yourself when you appeal to a common sense notion of "smartness" and yet in the same sentence deny the existence of intelligence. However, this probably is off the subject of whether the Mega Society entry should be deleted; maybe we should move the discussion to sci.psychology.theory or comp.ai or you can email me directly. The only relevant point seems to be your use of the term "homebrew" which implies "slipshod" which is simply not true; Hoeflin (and Towers, and others) have done an enormous amount of first rate work in assembling and norming these tests. The details can be found here (http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/hoeflin.html). Canon 13:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment In fact, the concept of IQ has not been discredited. It's part of mainstream psychology. See *The g Factor* by Arthur R. Jensen. Kevin Langdon 08:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, it is not appropriate to call for evidence of notability on the talk page of an article and then put that article up for deletion in less than an hour. The Mega Society has been written up numerous times in the media. It is probably the best known high IQ society, after Mensa. Anyone looking into IQ societies and high IQ tests will immediately encounter references to it. I personally have known about it for 8 or 9 years. (And for the record, I have no association with it whatsoever.) Because Jeffire and Byrgenwulf have acted so hastily, who could possibly have time to track down offline articles from numerous periodicals over more than two decades before the vote is completed? I'm certainly far too busy in my personal life to do so in a few days.
In my experience, thoughtful Wikipedians do their own searches for evidence of notability and discuss their results on the talk page of an article, and only then bring it up for deletion when there is clearly no evidence of notability. On Wikipedia, editors bringing an article up for deletion have a responsibility to give valid reasons why they think the material is not notable, not simply claim it appears to be not notable. They also have a responsibility to allow time for an appropriate discussion; with a less-trafficked article it would be easy to band together and rush into delete it before those in the know even have time to find out about the vote. This is not a race to delete; this process should be handled with care and deliberation.
I strongly encourage Byrgenwulf and Jeffire to read Wikipedia:Notability. In particular, you need to understand the important difference between notable and famous. Just because an organization is obscure, does not mean it is non-notable. In this particular case, the Mega Society is highly notable for anyone wanting to know more about high IQ subculture. That is the appropriate context in which to analyze the Mega Society's notability.
And as for some of the other points raised in this discussion, this is not a debate on the merits of IQ or even the Mega Society. —Tox 14:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Actually, it is. There is no evidence that this is a legitimate group. It's only vocal member has an IQ well below the supposed admission standards. Seems to be totally bogus. DaturaS 15:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Uh, this does not jibe with my own knowledge of the group. You can look at numerous issues of their journal online. Furthermore, there are other notable current or past members (especialy Christopher Langan, who had a total falling out with the group and especially Kevin Langdon — gee, wouldn't he have blown the whistle long ago if the current group were a hoax perpetrated by Langdon?). And furthermore, it is only an argument for putting evidence documenting the hoax in the article, not an argument for deleting the article itself. As a hoax it might be even more notable. —Tox 06:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment This "hoax" idea is bizarre. One may quarrel with the notion of IQ and with the selection criteria employed by the Mega Society but it's a real society that's existed for almost a quarter of a century. Kevin Langdon 08:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment Actually, Langan has been trying to "blow the whistle" (actually the tuba) on me and the real Mega Society for years, but he's had very little success in making his case. 69.19.14.28 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment. My username is being consistantly mispelled in an identical manner by many of those voting to keep. For future reference, J.E.F.F.F.I.R.E. Jefffire 14:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment What Jefffire is calling a misspelling is a consequence of the long-established rule in English prohibiting triple letters. Note also that he misspelled his own user name above (I wonder if he takes his car to Jeffylube ;-) ). --Kevin Langdon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.59 (talk • contribs) 15:38, July 16, 2006 (UTC)
My username isn't english language, and identical misspelling of it may be indicitive of sock-puppets. Jefffire 15:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment The point is that the readers of this English-language article have certain usage habits; they don't expect triple letters and so they tend to overlook them. Kevin Langdon 08:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
It is entirely appropriate to list an article for deletion if one suspects non-notability, regardless of whether an announcement was made on the talk page, or when that announcement was made. This article was created in December of 2004; the time to cite sources and assert notability was then, not now. -- NORTH talk 20:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be nice if Wikipedia worked like a formal debate. But it doesn't. Anyone who's been around here for any length of time quickly finds out there are thousands of articles with no references on relatively obscure topics.
In a formal debate the judges would quickly cross out arguments not backed up, but here we are not judges but editors, and this is not a debate but an encyclopedia. Our job is to improve the quality of the article or seek out convincing data that it should be deleted, not rush to cross out what wasn't done right in the first place because someone else should have done it right. We all always have the burden of backing up our own actions, especially deletion of an entire article. This is the only way of gaining consensus and preventing our actions from being undone by other editors.
It is entirely appropriate to list an article for deletion if one suspects non-notability and does research or engages in discussion on the talk page to bolster their suspicion. I have seen great care taken in removing mere references to obscure topics in an article, let alone an entire article itself. Mature editors do their own research into a topic before bringing it up for AfD. If you read Wikipedia:Notability you will see that it clearly states non-notability is ambiguous and that if you use NN as a reason for deletion you must carefully qualify your reasoning. Jefffire and Byrgenwulf did not qualify their reasoning, and they are the ones who decided to bring it up for deletion (in less than an hour, a page that had been around for 2 years and was ineligible for speedy deletion).
Keep in mind that the AfD process is over in a matter of days. It is easy for many Wikipedians who care about an article to miss the AfD process entirely. If the article is not well-trafficked a group of individuals desiring deletion, by random chance alone, could easily overwhelm the debate during a time in which proponents of the article are absent. That is precisely why those bringing an article up for deletion have an obligation to do their own research into the notability of the topic instead of brazenly bringing it up for deletion. —Tox 06:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
"It is entirely appropriate to list an article for deletion if one suspects non-notability and does research or engages in discussion on the talk page to bolster their suspicion." This is patently false. WP:V states, "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, depending on one's POV), Wikipedia is not the U.S. courts system, and one is not innocent until proven guilty. The onus is on editors wishing to include the material to show why the topic is notable, not for those who wish to delete it to show why it is non-notable. Nevertheless, Byrgenwulf (in his follow-up comments) as well as myself and William Pietri have shown why we believe the Mega Society is non-notable; other editors have stated why they believe it is notable, although IMHO it is not enough.
You are correct that there are thousands of articles on Wikipedia with no references on relatively obscure topics. And many of those are on AfD, or will be when someone discovers them and takes the time to nominate them.
Wikipedia--or at least the AfD process--does work like a formal debate. When the closing admin (the "judge", if you will) views this discussion, s/he will ignore (thus "crossing out") arguments not backed up, because as you read the tag I had to put at the top of this page, "deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads". -- NORTH talk 07:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

CommentThis deletion debate horrifies me. When I read 1984, where anyone whom the ruling elite didnt like was made an "unperson" and all records of him erased, I thought, thank God that's fiction. When I read about the old Soviet Encyclopedia, and how anyone who fell out of favor had his article (as well as his life) deleted, and all users were sent a letter by the NKVD telling them to cut that article out of the volume, I thought, thank God I dont live there. But this is chillingly real.

There are two aspects to my horror.

1. I have devoted my life to halping the ultra-high IQ societies gain the credibility they deserve. I first heard of the Mega Society almost 20 years ago, thanks to a cover story in New York magazine. Some of its members became famous, just by being accepted. It is as respected among us as MIT or Harvard are in the world at large. To find that there are people out there who have never heard of it is as shocking to me as when I moved to the Midwest and found people who have never heard of Wordsworth or Rodin. It means that perhaps my life so far has been in vain.

2. I was at first skeptical of Wikipedia, and the whole notion of a grass-roots internet encyclopedia. I've edited a few entries over the years, but I hesitated to devote much effort to work which could be deleted by the first vandal who came across it. But as time passed I became a believer. The thing worked. But now, in the one area I know about, I have seen just HOW it works. Nameless, faceless, ill-informed accusers can at any time delete an area they object to. They pretend to be a democracy but must out of necessity be an oligarchy. And, since no group of a few hundred people can know everything, they must out of necessity be ill-informed about most of the subject matter they consider for deletions. It's a sad (yet almost humourous) blend of Kafka and Joseph Heller. It doesnt much matter now. Wikipedia is young, and one of many souirces of information. But what happens when it becomes the gold standard? What happens when it becomes the Mega Society of the information world?

Brian70.234.150.40 18:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Thanks for allowing comments. There appears to be very little advantage to deleting information and some benefit to keeping it. Why restrict the knowledge or information, unless patently fradulent? Editing, of course, is desirable, as with all submissions, but deletion actually subtracts value from Wikipedia, and retaining it can only add to it. I know nothing of Langdon, but if he is a fraud, or a racist, or the second coming of the Messiah, publish that information and the controversy in the Mega article. In fact, if he is all those things, it actually adds weight to it's inclusion, in order to keep Wikipedia readers well informed. Should we eliminate comments on Enron, or the NSDAP? It is all information, and it's relative value is it's accuracy, not it's politics, legal compliance, recent impact, or obnoxious opinions. Thanks again for soliciting comments! Don Zacherl (dzacherl@t3-tigertech.com) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.17.65.193 (talk • contribs) 16:19, July 16, 2006 (UTC)

DaturaS claims that the Mega Society is a "bogus group" composed of members with "phony credentials," has "no activities" and "one active member." As a long-time member of the Mega Society, I can assure you that these claims are not only false, but preposterous. Please ignore this crackpot until he provides evidence to support these allegations.Zorro24 20:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Zorro24.

—The above user's only edit is to this discussion. [2] -- NORTH talk 20:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment in response to Tox, who states, "In this particular case, the Mega Society is highly notable for anyone wanting to know more about high IQ subculture. That is the appropriate context in which to analyze the Mega Society's notability." This is wholly untrue. In order for any topic to be notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, which Wikipedia is, it needs to be notable period, not notable just for people wanting to know about high-IQ subculture. A group of 25 people with extremely high IQs does not make a notable club. A group of 25 people with extremely high IQs that does something might, depending on what that something is. Some of the people wishing for this article to be kept stated that the group does some scientific research, but never explained what that research was. Magazine articles used to establish notability must do exactly that--establish notability--not just prove existence. -- NORTH talk 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment The Mega Society doesn't do scientific research--and neither does a scientific journal; both report on research done by individuals or small groups of them. Kevin Langdon 08:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no such thing as being notable period. Values are subjective, so "notable" is in the eyes of the beholder. These "eyes" change as one descends into the bowels of an encyclopedia written above the eighth grade level. For example, here is a sentence extracted from today's featured article: "The only important British honours over which the Prime Minister does not have control are the Order of the Garter, Thistle, and Merit, and the Royal Victorian Order, which are all within the 'personal gift' of the Sovereign." This is a fact that is "notable" only to (some) citizens of the UK. But this sentence is entirely appropriate in the context of an article on the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. What is "notable" depends upon the context in which the article is likely to be looked at. In the Mega Society article's case, this context is likely to be the context of high IQ societies. I take it as established that the existence of the Mega Society in that context is "notable".
The new requirement that the activities of the society be "notable", as opposed to the existence of the society, strikes me as pushing an already ambiguous standard further into dangerous territory. The assembly of the society required bootstrapping over a period of years starting with Mensa International. Science has been defined as the process of "torturing nature for her secrets" and the study of many phenomena is best done where these phenomena are extreme. This is why we build high energy particle colliders, for example. Hoeflin and Langdon are pioneers in the area of testing for high intelligence, an area that traditional psychometrics largely ignores because there is very little economic incentive to explore it. Sometimes we need to look over the horizon a bit and go beyond immediate economic value. Assuming that intelligence is an important thing to understand, they are trailblazers in a potentially fertile area. The society is notable because it is possible in the same way that climbing Mount Everest is notable because it is there. Canon 00:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Allow me to refer you to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations): "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source." This requirement is not new, it was first posited about 6 hours into this discussion when Byrgenwulf said, "Well, provide with some citations about the worthwhile scientific research this society is conducting, and then the article ought to be able to stay. Until then, it hardly meets criteria for notability."
I agree that the whole notion of notability on Wikipedia is ambiguous, and Wikipedia:Notability takes the form of an essay, not guideline or policy. However, it is written as an extension of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, both of which are official policy. Your assertion that the Mega Society is notable because it is possible (not even that it exists) is what is scary, not our request for citations of its scientific research.
Marilyn vos Savant is notable not just because she may or may not be the smartest person in the world, but also because she was the author of a popular column, and because she was one of the primary players in the media craze caused by the Monty Hall problem. The Mega Society is not notable because, as far as has been verified, it is nothing more than a group of 25 really smart people. -- NORTH talk 00:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment Marilyn vos Savant is a member of the Mega Society, but she hasn't participated actively recently. Kevin Langdon 08:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Marlyn participated briefly 20 years ago and has had nothing to do with the "old" or "new" group since. DaturaS 14:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The criterion about scope in the context of the proposed criteria for organizations in the essay on notability is clearly intended to exclude purely local organizations like my Boy Scouts troop. The scope of the activities of the Mega Society is international in that it (1) has members in more than one country, and (2) publishes a newsletter that is distributed to more than one country. One of the Wikipedia articles that I've contributed to is Crystal Cove State Park which is as far from international as it is possible to get. Nonetheless, no one is suggesting it be deleted. However, this is descending into mere wordplay. I've read the essay on notability and I think it is quite clear that the Mega Society is notable as defined in that essay. I am willing to let the Wikipedia editors judge that for themselves based on the record assembled in this article. Canon 01:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The scope of what activities? -- NORTH talk 01:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The members interact and this results in essays that are published in the newsletter (latest issue: http://www.megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm) that is read by tens of thousands of people each month. Several members are working on a Web site (http://www.mental-testing.com) that pushes the state of the art in testing for high intelligence. So far over 50,000 people have tried this test. Canon 01:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The way I'm reading Issue 177 of Noesis, the mental-testing website appears to be done by one person independently of Mega Society. (Incidentally, the Mega Society's own newsletter is not valid for establishing notability; I did find one third-party reference here that links the Adaptive IQ Test to Mega Society.) Is there a third party source you can cite for the newsletter's readership figures?
Comment The mental-testing site is the work of Mega members but is not officially a project of the Mega Society. *Noesis* is now a Web-only publication; we get lots of hits. Kevin Langdon 08:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment The Mega Society's only *public* activity is the publication of *Noesis*, but a high-IQ society provides an avenue for highly-intelligent individuals to interact privately with one another and there is a considerable amount of such interaction among its members. --Kevin Langdon 69.19.14.28 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, you should be adding this material to the article itself, otherwise even if it's kept, we'll be going through this whole procedure again in a couple of months. -- NORTH talk 02:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
There are several sites that link to http://www.mental-testing.com, but I'm not sure what needs to be "third-party verified" since it obviously exists. It seems to me more relevant that a third party finds it credible, and in fact the independent review site http://www.iqte.st/iqtestreviewarchives/index.html ranks it second on the Web. This is quite gratifying since the test is a high-range test and thus does not look like a traditional IQ test. As for the usage statistics, if you email me directly I can arrange for you to verify these. Your point about preserving (some of) this material to streamline future reviews is taken; I will do so and preserve it on the article talk page. Canon 02:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
No, you fail spectacularly to see my point. Again, it is not enough that the Adaptive IQ Test exists; what needs to be "third-party verified" is that the Adaptive IQ Test is a project of the Mega Society, and not a single individual independent of the Mega Society.
The Mega Society article itself must make a claim as to why it is notable (not its talk page). All these wonderful things that you feel make the Mega Society notable should be in the article, so that people who might nominate it for AfD can see that it's notable and make their decision based on the article, not material provided after the fact. -- NORTH talk 03:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. NORTH's concept of notability clearly concerns importance. However, importance and notability are not synonymous. Both notability and importance are subjective, but their respective sepectrums do not line up. Wikipedia:Notability discusses this to some extent. There are plenty of things that are notable but unimportant. For instance, if I overheard a conversation about so-and-so who died and clearly perceived this was some famous person, but did not hear enough information to acertain what they did, I might come home and look that person up on Wikipedia. Not being a fan of most team sports, if I were to find out it was a basketball player, I would find that person unimportant, however, I would clearly understand why they were notable and listed in Wikipedia. And, one of the major reasons they would be notable is that you are likely to hear their name and (if you don't know who they are, you need somewhere to look them up). That is why the importance of the topic itself is different from the importance of having the topic in Wikipedia. Notability is much more closely related to the importance of having the topic in Wikipedia than the importance of that topic in the grand scheme of things.
The same applies to the Mega Society. If they do absolutely nothing and have no important impact on society that doesn't matter so long as you are likely to encounter their name and need a place to look them up. Since they have been in major periodicals multiple times over the last couple decades, that is a definite possibility. Furthermore — and this is where context especially plays a role — if you were to research high IQ subculture (and/or measurement of high IQs) you would immediately encounter the Mega Society, the Mega Test, Christopher Langan, Marilyn Vos Savant, Mensa, Kevin Langdon, and Ronald Hoeflin. I know because years ago I got interested in the subject and upon looking around the Web I quickly encountered all of those topics. Since high IQ subculture, including high IQ societies, is a notable topic, and the Mega Society is a highly notable element of that subculture, it becomes important to understanding the subculture itself.
NORTH, you keep harping on the argument that Wikipedia being an encyclopedia negates the desire to have an obscure topic in it. There are reasons not to have an obscure topic in a 20th century encyclopedia, but not a 21st century one. Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. The reasons to leave the Mega Society out of a 20th century encyclopedia are fairly obvious: the physical constraints of searching through, carrying around, and storing a paper encyclopedia. Since with Wikipedia we no longer have those constraints, we can and definitely should include topics that are less obviously notable on a grand scale, but are highly notable in notable contexts.
The obscurity of a topic makes an article on it more useful, rather than less useful. The less likely you are to know about a topic, the more likely you are going to need an article on it. The relationship between obscurity, notoriety, and importance of a topic, and expected information return from an article gets quite complicated (and would probably be highly interesting research on the information content of Wikipedia and its resultant utility). The ideal topic for a Wikipedia article (as far as information return is concerned) would be a maximally obscure, maximally notable, and maximally important topic. That would entail a topic that you have a high probability of not knowing about, that you have a high probability of encountering, and that has a high level of intrinsic information (ie its effect on the world is great). Of course, in the real world these parameters are going to affect each other and this post is already too long for an AfD to look at the interrelationship.
Suffice it to say, Wikipedia becomes useless if you can't catch the tail end of an NPR piece, see a reference to some organization in someone's CV, or thoroughly research the various aspects of a specific topic (ie high IQ subculture or Canon's example of the British Prime Minister). I want a Wikipedia in which I can do so. What use is Wikipedia if I can only look up what I would find in a 20th century encyclopedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tox (talk • contribs) 05:45, 17 July 2006 GMT.
Oops, that was an accident; I'm writing too many posts in a rush tonight, as I have to get up for work in only a few hours. Sorry. —Tox 06:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is one of the saddest-looking AFDs I have seen in a while. A lot of people seem to have forgotten that Wikipedia is neither a soapbox or a battleground, and I can't help suspecting there's some vanity involved here. Setting that all aside, the references I've seen don't for me establish enough verifiable, notable information that I think we can make a good article. William Pietri 06:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, William, and I apologize dearly for leaving you out of my original comment when I said that Byrgenwulf was the only one who expressed an opinion coherent with deletion policy, as your original comment clearly was. -- NORTH talk 06:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Response to User:Kevin Langdon: You say that the Mega Society doesn't do scientific research, it merely reports on it (contrary to what other Keep "voters" originally said). Then what is it the Mega Society does? Does it do anything other than publish Noesis? The Alexa rank for megasociety.org is 3,944,660 (approximately 200,000 lower than the 50-person discussion board I run), so clearly it's not getting nearly as many hits as you think. -- NORTH talk 09:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The Alexa rank for http://www.mental-testing.com is 2,217,499 which is considerably higher than the Alexa rank for www.megasociety.org, which is 3,944,660 (as of this morning). However, the actual site visits to mental-testing.com are about half those for megasociety.org. Thus Alexa is inaccurate this far out on the curve, which is not surprising since it is based on sampling. Nonetheless the usage numbers given in this article can be verified if you email me directly. Canon 17:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Since when was an e-mail from you a reliable source? -- NORTH talk 18:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment An e-mail by itself is not evidence, but it can *contain* evidence. --Kevin Langdon 69.19.14.28 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP The Mega Society has existed for 20+ years with media exposure (e.g. Omni) from the start. ("Mega Society" = 9,100 google web hits.) The Wiki article receives a steady stream of hits. That passes the notability test in my eyes. As for many of the other claims here, such as whether it performs scientific activity, its membership level, the validity of its entrance requirements or of the concept of IQ in general: these are simply irrelevant issues. A lot of other society articles would suffer deletion if judged by the same criteria. I think there is some deletion agenda here, possibly spill-over from the fighting at CTMU, Mega Foundation, Chris Langan et al. --Michael C. Price talk 10:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Though I don't know much about the subject and didn't read through all of the comments on this page, I think the fact that google gives 9,090 results, that they have an own magazine, the fact that such a small organization creates so many public reactions (for instance the ammount of comments on this articles-for-deletion-page), its connection with the validity of IQ as a measure of intelligence, etc. prove its notability. Sijo Ripa 10:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
They do not have their own magazine, they have their own web publication, which according to the Alexa rank isn't read all that much. -- NORTH talk 10:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect, they do have their own magazine. It used to be paper based (I have some), now it's electronic.--Michael C. Price talk 11:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
They had their own magazine. Now it's a non-notable online newsletter. -- NORTH talk 18:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Right, and that's got nothing to do with whether the society is notable, which is defined by the level of interest in it -- the tirade here is evidence that it is of interest to many. --Michael C. Price talk 19:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment Those who think that a paper-based journal is the only valid kind are woefully behind the times; many scientific journals are online-only these days. --Kevin Langdon69.19.14.28 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A couple of comments:
  1. The society verifiably exists, and does what it says it does.
  2. Number of members is irrelevant, given the one-in-a-million qualification level.
  3. IQ is not bogus. If IQ is bogus, then how come that people we perceive as "smart" typically achieve high IQ scores, while the people we perceive as "dumb" typically achieve low scores? Pure coincidence? I don't think so.
  4. The only (relevant) controversial question here is the quality of the test used for admission, i.e. 1) does it really measure intelligence, and 2) is purported one-in-a-million cutoff reliable enough. This should be discussed in the article, just like any other controversy. GregorB 17:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
No, that isn't a relevant question at all. I don't give a hoot about how the IQs of these people are or what tests they use to establish this, howsoever valid these tests might be. I want to know what this society has done to make it notable, i.e. encyclopaedic, and this article is not vanity or an advert. How much Internet traffic a website gets doesn't matter either. Byrgenwulf 17:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
It has been noted, repeatedly, in the media. That makes it notable. What do you mean by the word? --Michael C. Price talk 17:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Being commented upon by a media is not enough to constitute notability. It must be shown that the society does notable things, and is widely known by others. Jefffire 17:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I repeat my question, what is notable? And I note that there are an awful of lot of less notable things on Wiki. --Michael C. Price talk 18:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no doubt that there are, and if they come to my attention I can assure you I shall recommend their removal as well. I still haven't seen a single media article about this club, anyway, for what it's worth. Byrgenwulf 18:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
That you haven't seen any is not a criterion for removal. BTW notable means worth noting or of interest to other people. Thus the traffic figures and media coverage are relevant. --Michael C. Price talk 18:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
What I mean is, I have not seen proof of media coverage. Not that that on its own constitutes notability, but it is a start. Byrgenwulf 18:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Omni magazine, April 1985. Contained the Mega Test. Frequently covered by the magazine after that because of the high level of interest. --Michael C. Price talk 18:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's a recent article from South Africa for you (mentions the test though not the society) http://www.suntimes.co.za/2001/09/23/insight/in03.asp Brian -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.101.7 (talk • contribs) 19:09, July 17, 2006 (UTC)
My guess is that, among people with an interest in high-IQ societies, nearly everyone has heard of Mega Society. That's what "notable" means. It is not reasonable to expect wide notability outside of the circle I mentioned. GregorB 18:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment References have now been provided to several specific articles. Look up the articles; there's your proof. 69.19.14.28 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
This group does not do what it says it does. Many of the first people who said keep claimed that the Mega Society does scientific research. Now by admission of Kevin Langdon himself, that is untrue; research is done by individuals and then reported to the Mega Society. As far as has been verified, the only thing the Mega Society actually does is publish an online newsletter that receives little traffic according to the Alexa rank, and is thus non-notable.
Comment Many of those commenting here are less knowledgeable than the members of Mega. We can't be held responsible for their speaking loosely of the Mega Society (as opposed to individual members) doing research. --Kevin Langdon 69.19.14.28 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The Alexa rank is accurate enough in that it doesn't matter whether it's #2,000,000 or #3,000,000--either way it's out on the boonies of the curve. -- NORTH talk 18:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the online newsletter is non-notable. It figures: that's why there is no Wikipedia article on it. GregorB 18:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Right, and since all this group verifiably does as a group is publish a non-notable newsletter, the group is non-notable. -- NORTH talk 18:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
That's an odd criterion... It is not necessary to do something to be notable. There are many articles on people who haven't done anything, but are undeniably notable. GregorB 19:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Umm... what? Of course you need to do something in order to be notable. You don't get notable by sitting on your ass. -- NORTH talk 20:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Then what about Terri Schiavo? (I'm sorry, I couldn't resist...) The point here is that notability is not necessarily about "doing something". GregorB 09:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Umm... actually quite a lot of notable stuff gets done whilst sitting on one's arse. Hint: writing desk --Michael C. Price talk 21:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, clever joke. You don't get notable by sitting on your arse doing nothing. If you want to get notable by sitting on your arse writing a book, be my guest. -- NORTH talk 01:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Another example of you claiming to have said something you didn't say. --Michael C. Price talk 01:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I left two words off of my original statement because I thought it was clear enough. I guess I'll have to be explicit in the future. It doesn't matter, though, I'm done with this now. Everyone knows how I feel, I'll just leave it to the closing admin from here. -- NORTH talk 02:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not our feelings being debated here, but our reasoning. --Michael C. Price talk 10:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Its capacity is unlimited and, thanks to search engines, little-used entries do not clutter things up. That's why, as far as I know, notability has NEVER been an accepted criterion for deleting an otherwise valid article. Notability is not always immediately apparent. This is especially true of an organization. One of its members might later become famous, and it would be of great interest to historians to trace the people and ideas who were formative influences on him. An article about an organization to which he belonged could be of immense value. It is far from improbable that Mega might one day have famous or influential member. Also I should note that the criteria for notability of organizations are badly defined, if at all. (It's an ongoing project.) Take a look at all the college fraternities that have their own articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_fraternities_and_sororities Are they notable? What about tiny state roads in the hinterlands of Washington State? Each one has its own article. Brian152.163.101.7 18:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Patently false. Notability is frequently the main criterion for deletion, and is the basis for WP:CSD#A7. -- NORTH talk 18:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
"There is no official policy on notability" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability Brian
  • Keep 4.156.123.210 18:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC) This discussion, itself, is evidence of the notability of the Mega Society in the context of high-IQ groups and high-range psychometrics. May-Tzu

Keep. Criticisms of the officers/founders are not relevant to the issue of the validity (and historical or current "interestingness" ) of an entry. Mega Society is a well-recognized entity with a history and with meaning within the high-intelligence organization world (HiQdom), and deletion of it would not serve informational goals. Similarly, deletion would set a worrisome example, if done for political or personal reasons. Norming/admissions standards are evolving (for the most part) with all HiQ groups, and the fact that some people might be grandfathered into organizations where according to current practice they could not gain admittance is an issue germane to the groups themselves (and not really of external concern). I see no value in deleting the group from Wiki and many strong reasons for retaining it.--M StewartMstewarthm 18:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete -- 25 member society? There are definitely millions of such things in the United States alone. This does not bear inclusion as it is not notable. If we don't keep every school, why should we keep a 25-member society of no interest to anyone except its members? --ScienceApologist 18:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment The Mega Society actually has a higher percentage of actual members, among those who are theoretically qualified, than any other high-IQ society. --Kevin Langdon 69.19.14.28 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - It doesn't even seem like there are 25 members. Also the members don't seem to meet their own requirements. IQ tests don't measure that high. No notable accomplishments. No member activity. Vanity club. AstroLev 19:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment How would AstroLev know how many members we have? I do agree that the Mega Society's 99.9999th-percentile cutoff is pushing the limits of measureability, but only by a few points. We do the best we can, given the state of the art of high-range testing. --Kevin Langdon 69.19.14.28 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP - Why, after the initial reasons fell flat, were others so desperately attempted?

Here (for reference) are those initial reasons: [a] "Appears to be a non-notable society. I am informed there are only 25 members" (Mr. Jefffffire)

[b] "seem like an advert" (Mr. Beowolff)

Then a Mr. DaturaS complained: "Wikipedia is not here to perpetuate a farce"

Mr. DaturaS further complained: "Strong Delete Totally bogus "society" with only one active member"

Then he added: "Langdon is a known fraud"

Also: "This is about no one other than Kevin Langdon"

Then this from a Mr. HowlinWolf: "No qualified members as far as I can tell."

Then Mr. NORTH jumped in: "Delete per nom and Byrgenwulf; it is a non-notable club" [This can't be because of the small membership, which was the initial "reason," so this must be a different "reason."]

Then came Mr. GWO: "Homebrew high IQ society of no notability."

And then there's a Mr. William Pietri: "I can't help suspecting there's some vanity involved here."

Why did these "reasons" have to be plugged-in after-the-fact? SOUTH 19:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC) (NOT a member of the Mega Society)

Because IQ freaks out the PC crowd. --Michael C. Price talk 19:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Or maybe just because not everyone thinks exactly the same, and some people have slightly different reasons for wanting the article deleted? -- NORTH talk 20:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, maybe but given the number of non-sequiturs floating around one can't help suspecting rationalisation and hidden agendas. --Michael C. Price talk 21:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The non-sequiturs and hidden agendas, as far as I can tell, have come only from DaturaS, one of the single purpose accounts, and those should be ignored. -- NORTH talk 01:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Let me refresh your memory:
Right, and since all this group verifiably does as a group is publish a non-notable newsletter, the group is non-notable.
A non-sequitur if ever there was one. --Michael C. Price talk 01:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there some part of that statement you'd like me to clarify so you can see why it's not even remotely a non sequitur? -- NORTH talk 01:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It's a double non-sequitur: 1) Notability is defined by the interest of other people, not by one's actions per se. What the society does is irrelevant. 2) Even if we accepted 1) then one non-notable action does not make the whole society non-notable. --Michael C. Price talk 01:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
As a subjective verifiable measure of notability, what the society does is of utmost importance. As I said before, people/orginations gain notability (and people's interest) by doing something. As for (2), yes, it does make the whole society non-notable, if it doesn't do anything else that is notable. -- NORTH talk 01:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The key new word there is "if" which wasn't in, or implied by, what you said originally. Such trifling matters of historical accuracy don't seem to concern you, so I shan't bother to pursue the matter. --Michael C. Price talk 02:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - There must, however, be some sort of discretion upon which diminutive societies/groups warrant some sort of inclusion into Wikipedia. Furthermore, our use of the word "notable" is erroneous. A 25 member bookclub is not notable. Conversely, a highly exclusive IQ society that discriminates at the 1/1,000,000 level is. What the naysayers have been arguing, is whether the society has been previously noted. That is irrelevant. Particularly in our culture, where psychometrics is an established field, the most elite HIQ Society is noteworthy or "notable". CDiPoce 19:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

At this point I'd like to point out to the closing admin, and anyone else in power who might be keeping an eye on us, that in addition to the numerous anonymous IPs, there are a number of single purpose accounts participating in this debate on both sides.

-- NORTH talk 21:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, being a notable subject it has created new logins and unlurking activity. --Michael C. Price talk 21:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I've used Wikipedia for years and even edited one or two articles on the very few occasions when I thought I had something to contribute (such as now). But since I could read and edit without creating an account, I saw no reason to do so. Don't tell my fellow highIQers, but I wasnt sure I could remember yet another username and password. And, as an AOL user, I'm blocked half the time anyway. Brian 205.188.117.67 00:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that the National Puzzlers' League entry should be deleted? If not, please explain how the two organizations differ significantly. Canon 21:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I'd also like to point out to the "closing admin, and anyone else in power who might be keeping an eye on us", that the naysayers have succumb to ad hominems to refute the validity of the Mega Society entry. Heck, if they could at least SUSTAIN one single argument that even challenges the Mega Society and its qualifications for a page in Wikipedia, I'd give them some credibility. All we've been subjected to is them lamenting the importance that IQs have historically received in society. Their inept arguments seem flat-out petty, to be quite honest. CDiPoce 00:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! :-) Your level-headness will be a valuable addition. --Michael C. Price talk 00:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
These aren't ad hominem attacks from a naysayer. It's a statement of fact that applies equally to the three users who said delete as it does to the five users who said keep. I'm just trying to make life a tiny bit easier for the poor closing admin who has the sorry task of parsing through this discussion.
Comment There are many ad hominem remarks here directed at me and at Mega Society founder Dr. Ronald K. Hoeflin. --Kevin Langdon69.19.14.28 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I would hesitate to call the statement "their inept arguments seem flat-out petty" level-headedness. While I can't speak for the other users who wish to see this article deleted, my argument is now and has always been that I have yet to see a verifiable source that says this society does anything besides distribute a non-notable online newsletter. -- NORTH talk 01:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
And I've yet to see any sign that NORTH understands what notable means, despite it being repeatedly explained. --Michael C. Price talk 10:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

1) Is it "notable"? "Notable" means "worthy of being noticed, important", but the context is undefined and the words used in the definition are themselves ambiguous, subject to diverse interpretations.

Who might be interested in examining (and "examination", by definition, requires "taking notice") information about the Mega Society? "Examining" the group, its members or its claims does not mean doing so unquestioningly; it merely entails finding the information interesting/useful as data or conceptually. Interested parties might include:

Those interested, advocationally or professionally, in "high end" intelligence testing; this includes parents of children whose minds remain unchallenged in typical gifted programs, and educators/psychologists who specialize in assessments of and research on the extremely gifted. Many widely used IQ tests have ceilings at or below around 150 IQ (aside: If Kevin Langden did score "only" a 150 IQ, he may have done so on one of these tests); for the most part, this is all that is pragmatically needed, but such instruments fail for a small sector of the population. With the internet making homeschooling and distance university studies more feasible, determining which students might benefit from an educational plan outside the school's usual offerings demands higher priority. If the student is an adolescent, one may need some testing geared towards adults....an area where the ability and motivation to measure at the far right end of the bell curve has been (for various practical reasons) minimal. Even if the tests used by Hoeflin, Langdon and others are flawed, the theoretical constructs underlying these tests may be of interest to researchers in high-end psychometrics; better high end testing could emerge from a synthesis of methods and philosophies.

Historically, there has been an interest in how the extremely gifted develop, function in the realms of work/intimacy/internal fulfillment, over the lifespan; there has also been an interest in whether other, ostensibly unrelated, mental and behavioral traits are more common in those of particular intelligence at various points in the lifespan. Hollingworth, for example, wrote extensively about the social difficulties and correlated later personality traits in a cohort of profoundly gifted persons followed from childhood through maturity. Lewis Terman conducted similar research, and Grady Towers has summarized the findings in several articles (google his name!). Several researchers have looked for correlations between Jungian personality type and IQ, and found that the percentage of introverts increases as one moves up the IQ scale. A Polish psychiatrist, Dubrowski, interests a number of adult "gifted persons", due to his research linking developmental potential to innate mental traits (called "overexcitabilities"). High IQ groups (even ones with few members) may be *worth examining* for those interested in personality/behavioral/philosophical traits associated with varying degrees of giftedness; those interested in such correlations psychologists - but also, a growing number of adults trying to "come to terms" with how their own giftedness may have affected their childhoods and contributed to deeply entrenched attitudes during adulthood. Reading autobiographical statements in high IQ society journals, and (moreso) "reading between the lines" of less personal articles, may give interested parties greater insight into the personalities of the extremely gifted.

Grady Towers' article "The Outsiders" is a great place to start - and he culled some of his info (which basically supported Leta Hollingworth's claims) from members of the ultra-high-IQ societies.

For such people, I believe that the Mega society is "worth noticing", important - and thus, notable. Sol.delune 00:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)sol.delune

Yes, "The Outsiders" was a wonderful piece of psychometric/social research and an example of the value of the Mega Society and Noesis. Grady Towers' contributions will be sadly missed[3]. --Michael C. Price talk 01:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If you believed that intelligence exists and is measurable, would you find an organization containing the hundred smartest people in the world notable? Canon 01:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That depends, does this hypothetical organization do anything other than publish a non-notable online newsletter? If so, then sure. If not, then no, although a list of the members' names at List of the hundred smartest people or List of the hundred people with the highest IQs would be. -- NORTH talk 01:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you think the Society of Fellows article should be deleted? Canon 01:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Not notable. --InShaneee 03:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

In April of this year, Mega Society’s founder, Dr. Ronald Hoeflin, was interviewed for over five hours by CNN for a one-hour special on genius. This documentary will probably air (on nationwide cable television in the U.S.) in September. It is probable that some discussion of Mega Society will be included in the final edit when it airs. To verify, I suggest contacting CNN’s Susan Mittleman, who is a producer with CNN's medical unit and conducted the interview. Bryan Vare 04:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. NORTH (and possibly others) are equating notability only with what a person or organization does. This is an erroneous equation, though perhaps understandable since most people and organizations are notable because of what they do. However, Robert Wadlow is notable only because he was the tallest (confirmed) man to have ever lived. His notoriety led to his fame. Similary (and contrary to what NORTH said) Marilyn vos Savant was notable because of her intelligence. Her notoriety led to her fame which led to much of what she did (such as her PARADE colum).
The Mega Society is notable because of what it is, not what it does. Indeed, its many listings in the popular media are not direct evidence of its notability, but rather that it has been noted. The fact that something has been noted shows that there are people who believe it is worthy of note, which is the definition of notable. Whether you think the Mega Society is worthy of note is not the point. It is whether enough people think it is worthy of note. Popular media attention is one of the best indicators we have about large numbers of people considering any topic, including the Mega Society, worthy of note. If enough people consider a topic worthy of note, then a Wikipedia article becomes useful. —Tox 09:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Merge with High IQ Society The best solution may be to merge or redirect this article to High IQ Society. No original research and no notable articles (note that Grady Tower was never a member and his article is available at several high IQ websites). Entry is misleading, group is not notable due to few members (less than 10) and no activity, article does not have a NPOV due to unreasonable claims, and is only in Wikipedia for vanity purposes and as an advert.
There are no qualified members and faulty admission criteria so article is misleading. The editor has an IQ well below the criteria they require (150 v. 180). In the archive of the newsletter, founder Hoeflin declares the society "moribund" due to inactivity and lack of valid qualifying tests. Hoeflin has since started another group. Best solution may be to merge/redirect. DaturaS 14:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Sources for Grady Tower's non-membership claim please. And the Mega Society is not moribund, it has an active Yahoo groups list. --Michael C. Price talk 14:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment DaturaS continues to grind his axe. The Mega Society's minimum IQ for admission is either 176 (SD = 16) or 171 (SD=15). Hoeflin's declaration that Mega was "moribund" was years ago and the society, in fact, currently publishes an interesting journal, with the most recent issue released at the end of June.

Although Ron Hoeflin has founded a number of other high-IQ societies, he is still a member of the Mega Society. Grady Towers was never a member of the Mega Society but he was an important writer on the subject of high-range psychometrics and the characteristics of the highly-gifted and is very highly regarded in the high-IQ-societies community. --Kevin Langdon 66.82.9.77 15:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep: Who bears the burden of proof here? Shouldn’t the question be “why remove this entry?” as opposed to “Why retain it? In addition, ‘notability’ is a vague and specious argument. Are any other minority group articles deleted because they lack notability? At a certail point all diversity is reduced to insignificance, a falacious 'reductio ad absurdum' argument. Perhaps an article on all HIQ societies, groups, etc (see miyaguchi at http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/#societies ) Thanks! Don--70.21.17.102 15:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Editors wishing to keep bear the burden of proving notability. Jefffire 15:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Who says? Sources please. Perhaps editors wishing to delete bear the burden of proving un-notability. --Michael C. Price talk 15:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe the above burden-of-proof rule is the credo of the faction of Wikipedia editors known as "deletionists" http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletionism Brian

Well, the burden of proof should be on the proponents of this entry. That is NOT to say that the need for retaining this article has yet to be sufficiently proven. In fact, I see this tangential "debate" trailing off into a loop of "Not enough members!", "It isn't even active.", "What is an IQ, really?", "Kevin Langdon hates democracy", etc., etc. CDiPoce 15:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment The burden of proof is on those making the claims (i.e., of active qualified members; of valid admissions criteria; of notability, etc.). There is already an article on all high IQ societies in Wikipedia. It may be a good idea to merge them all. DaturaS 15:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment The idea that "Kevin Langdon hates democracy" is absurd. I've been in the forefront of the battles with authoritarian society officers that have taken place in a number of high-IQ societies from time to time (see "A Short [and Bloody] History of the High-IQ Societies" <http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/hard_iq.html> and my "Intellectual Freedom Manifesto" <http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/hiqsocs/manifest.html>). --Kevin Langdon 66.82.9.77 15:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Stalker For the benefit of the Wikipedia editors that are reading this, we need to explain that the Mega Society is sufficiently famous to have developed stalkers. One of these is a gentleman named Paul Maxim. The story of his efforts is (partially) documented here: http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/history.html#mega. It is obvious to anyone who has had to deal with Mr. Maxim that DaturaS, HowlinWolf, and possibly others are sockpuppets of this person. Canon 16:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment Mr. Maxim has been a thorn in the side of the Mega Society and several other high-IQ societies but he's computer-phobic and has not participated in online activities. If somebody is behind all the negative, ad hominem remarks on this page, it's much more likely that it's Chris Langan. --Kevin Langdon 66.82.9.77 15:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Ad Hominem Nonsense Please reply to content. DaturaS 16:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
This is a reply to content. Canon 18:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Burden of proof The issue of who bears the burden of proof in an argument is even more opaque than the issue of when something is sufficiently notable to be included in an encyclopedia. This is why in recent posts I've been trying to sidestep the ambiguities of the English language and argue by analogy. If the Society of Fellows and National Puzzlers' League entries should be retained, then I argue so should the Mega Society entry, since in all aspects that have been raised in this article they are similar organizations. Canon 16:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I'm a member of Mensa, and I haven't heard of it. (By the way, Omni is not a reliable source of anything.) If the information (presently) in the article can be verified by WP:RS (burden of proof on the article writers, of course; it's difficult to prove a negative), Merge to High IQ Society. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The Mega Society is in the Mensa FAQ (and has been since the early 1990s): http://www.faqs.org/faqs/mensa/high-iq/ Canon 18:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I have heard of the society (yes, I've seen their ads in my Mensa bulletins) but I believe it is too small and not notable enough for Wikipedia at this time. Avi 04:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
So you've seen their ads but have never "heard" of them? Hmmm. --Michael C. Price talk 07:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
For someone who is claiming an IQ superior to mine, you may wish to read my sentence just one more time :lol: -- Avi 16:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Quite right, I erred! But similarly if you paid more attention to detail you would realise that I have made no claims about anyone's IQ.  :-) --Michael C. Price talk 16:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes, but define "heard". CDiPoce 13:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I've been a member of the Mega Society since its founding and I don't recall any advertising for the society in the *Mensa Bulletin*; I'm sure that we haven't advertised anywhere for years. --Kevin Langdon 66.82.9.77 15:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

CommentI'm a member and have been since 2000, the MegaSociety serves as a viable source of information for the severely gifted, especially for raising children and adolescents who have been designated as such. Until you have dealt w/the boredom of a severely gifted child, you've no idea how hard it is. This is a valuable resource. 'pini 68.196.84.28

Comment - 'pini is confusing the Mega Society with the Mega Foundation or Mensa. The Mega Society contains no resources on parenting gifted children; the others do. 'pini has never been a member of the group (she probably belonged to one or both of the others). The Mega Society currently has no valid admissions criteria and hasn't accepted ne members since the 1990s. DaturaS 14:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Sigh It is not true that the Mega Society has not accepted anyone since the 1990s. Canon 14:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Size Even the people who first proposed deleting the article agree that because of the nature of the Mega Society, size is not an issue. We seem to be going over old ground, so I for one am ready let to the record stand. Unless new issues are raised I won't be making any more comments. Canon 17:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:N. A 25-member group is too small for our article standards. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 17:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep May-Tzu 03:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC) "A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact. <snip> There is no official policy on notability." The Mega Society is at least several orders of magnitude more notable than the Wikipedian concept of notability. - May-Tzu
  • User's first edit. Also, my profound sympathies to the closing admin. William Pietri 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

*Keep May-Tzu 17:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC) There are apparently factions of Wikipedian "Deletionists" based upon "non-notability", but there is no policy on "notability". Hence, matters of inclusion or exclusion are decided entirely *subjectively*, by personal fiat of those who rule. An encyclopedia is more useful than a cult. - May-Tzu


  • Comment for Closing Admin Several people have said that they pitied the closing administrator. Instead, I feel envy. This is a great opportunity for him or her to make a contribution to Wikipedia that far exceeds this individual case. My dad was a professor of administrative law and from the time I was a kid he drummed into me three things that make a fair decision under administrative law different from an arbitrary decision by administrative fiat. They are notice, hearing, and (perhaps most important) reasons.

1. Notice As it now stands, the parties affected by a deletion are not told about it. They must learn about it by chance. Yes, these parties may well have a POV. But they are also uniquely qualified to provide relevant information. And uniquely injured by an incorrect deletion. 2.Hearing The deletion procedure does indeed provide a good hearing, provided people are aware of it. Thank you for that. 3.Reasons If the closing admin writes up a short statement of reasons for his or her decision, this will help guide future administrators in future cases. As I understand it, there is no clear policy on notability. It may be applied differently in different cases, and whether or not something is deleted will depend on who the admin is. If reasons are given in this case, they may be used to guide future cases. Not as binding precedent, but for guidance, and, over time Wikilaw will evolve. Thank you and good luck. Brian205.188.117.67 14:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Brian. Thanks for commenting. I appreciate your concern, but this isn't a trial; it's a discussion where we try to come to agreement. With certain exceptions for biographies of living people, the effect we have on article subjects is not a criterion we consider while editing. Instead, we focus on serving our readers. It's also important to understand that Wikipedia works through consensus, which is very different than the adversarial model of the western legal system. Respect for precedent and law is also not part of the culture, as you can see from the encouragment to ignore all rules and our spirit of eventualism. I hope that helps. To find out more, you might start with the Five Pillars. William Pietri 19:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
This may have been possible in the early days but I dont think it is now. Norbert Weiner once wrote that the limit of a small self-governing community where everyone knows each other and can reach consensus is about 100. You cant know every editor and I'm sure not every editor knows about this decision. You might well be a self-organizing system, but if you make a mathematical model of it, you might find that model predicts articles being deleted and then undeleted in an infinite cycle. Brian64.12.117.7 20:24, 20 July 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Mega_Society_6e5e.html"