Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of geniuses

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. - Mailer Diablo 09:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of geniuses

Not encylopedic, not factual, useless list. Daniel575 | (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - list is inherently not neutral as there is no objective definition of genius --Trödel 20:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, this list is based on vague, arbitrary criteria that is not defined. This is just asking for every person on Wikipedia who ever scored over "average" on an IQ test to add their name to the list... Article does not verifiably source it's claims.--Isotope23 20:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This article is yet another bloody smeggy list and as all the lists I have found seems to be in violation of both Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. The article has a very brief one sentence introduction. Also I really do not see how this article can ever be verified as either complete or accurate. It may be better if it were a category. Displaced Brit 20:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Trödel. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It is not a very reliable list, and it's just a magnet for trolls, even though Genius is the only article that points to it. If anything, this should be a Category with a Tag, rather than just an arbitrary list that will require constant monitoring. --Dennette 20:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopedic, inherently POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Isotope23. hateless 22:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete How do you define genius? The mere controversy in maintaining a list like this is unimaginable with no clearly-stated definition of what counts for genius. will381796 22:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons that should be obvious to even a non-genius. Danny Lilithborne 23:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Trödel. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 23:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per definition of this list on criteria can be given for who should be on it or not, i.e. will always violate NPOV. -- Koffieyahoo 01:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nobody likes a smart ass. --Xrblsnggt 03:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, POV black hole Ashibaka tock 03:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:V - recreate with sources if anyone has the time. WilyD 11:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Utterly subjective. Alice B. Toklas wrote that she'd only met three geniuses in her life (and she had more chance than most of us), and none of those three are on the list (including the one who wrote for Alice). Robertissimo 15:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. More listcruft. Completely subjective. What's the criteria for inclusion? It's also woefully incomplete since Wile E. Coyote seems to be missing. KleenupKrew 03:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Some admin please close this as a "successful" deletion..... The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:59, 19 August 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.