Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Society (second nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Calling a halt. We have, as predicted, puppets and apparent solicitation. We have, as I should have realised, a clear conflict of interest, with the major Keep proponent being the society's own Internet Officer. We have some individuals calling speedy delete as repost of vanispamcruftisement. Enough. Guy (Help!) 08:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mega Society

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone 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 among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
Mega Society (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A society with 26 members, which was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Society and endorsed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 July), re-created three months later on the grounds that "I think enough time has passed", but time was not at issue in the AfD; what was at issue (and remains so) is that this is a tiny and largely self-selected society. Most of the article is about the reliability of IQ tests outside about four standard deviations from the mean, which should be in the article on IQ. Although the article has references they are mostly for the inclusion of members; there appear to be very few (if any) non-trivial mentions of the society itself. It's also hard to see it as anything other than self-aggrandisement by a small group of people, including Christopher Michael Langan, on whom we already have more than enough information. Note that this is not quite a G4 repost, although the content is largely similar. Incidentally, if past experience is anything to go by we may be in for a virtuoso display of puppet theatre, please do not feed the trolls shuld they arrive. Guy (Help!) 10:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  • After all this time, there is apparently still confusion over the relationship between Christopher Michael Langan and the Mega Society. Langan is an early member of the Mega Society but he no longer participates. A few years ago he quarreled with other members of Mega and tried to take the society's name and the name of its journal and operate his own version of the society; he was eventually stopped by a court order and an adverse ICANN ruling on Mega Society domain names. For details see the Mega Society History links on this page: http://www.megasociety.org/about.html Kevin Langdon 01:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above rationale. Reading through the article, I'm concerned that this article is both unverifiable and unmaintainable -- and especially that the majority of its content is only tangentially relevant to this "Mega Society". I'd also like to think that super-geniuses would be able to think of a better name for their society than that. Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 11:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, covered e.g. in The Wall Street Journal, so I think it is notable enough to deserve an article in WP. --Ioannes Pragensis 11:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and salt for now anyways recreation of deleted material. Deleted after AfD and deletion review. It's gonna take some very convincing arguments to overturn those decisions. MartinDK 12:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt. Even though there is a list of what look like references, as Guy points out they do not prove the society to be notable. There seems to be a lot of WP:VAIN conduct to examine here as well. The Crying Orc 13:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the article has been extensively expanded with sources since the original AfD request; enough to indicate its notability, which was what the closing admin had indicated would be acceptable (see talk page). That Christopher Michael Langan passed the mega test is hardly reason for deletion and indicates possible confusion with his "Mega Foundation". A speedy delete request was rejected just a few weeks ago. --Michael C. Price talk 14:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Here are some reasons:
1. The deletion decision was procedurally flawed. As a result the reviewing admin encouraged a rewrite of the article. See Talk:Mega Society.
2. The argument for deletion mentions Langan but not Marilyn vos Savant, Solomon W. Golomb, and John H. Sununu. The implication is that the society supports Langan, whereas the fact is that the society sued Langan. See [1].
3. The society has been listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the most elite ultra high IQ society. This alone makes it notable.
4. If the nature of a society limits its size, then size alone is not a criterion for deletion. See Order of the Garter with 26 members.
5. Obviously this society rubs some people the wrong way, which is affecting their judgement. For example, the statement that "most of the article is about the reliability of IQ tests" is patently false. The statement that "super-geniuses" should be able to "think of a better name" is pejorative. That a subject is offensive is not a good criterion for deletion. Canon 14:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comments/Questions to the above
Wikipedia is not The Guiness Book of World Records. What sets this record apart from the others given the limited media attention given to this group?
The comparison with Order of the Garter is flawed. That group is included because it's age makes it a notable group. The Mega Society does not fulfill that criterion.
Regarding number 5 you are assuming bad faith. Please don't do that. It is infantile and heavily frowned upon. Take your misconceptions of regular people elsewhere.
How does this article differ from the deleted one.? In particular how do you justify effectively ignoring 2 deletion verdicts? MartinDK 15:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
For your last point, see Talk:Mega Society as suggested. --Michael C. Price talk 15:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, not good enough. Do you intend to make the original article available for review so we can judge ourselves rather than rely on other people's memory of what they read months ago? No matter what the closing admin noted reposting after an unsuccesful attempt at rescuing it at deletion review requires a substantial if not complete rewrite. In other words, you need to prove to us that this is an entirely new article. This might have been good enough after an AfD, it isn't good enough after deletion review. MartinDK 15:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
As a non-admin I can't make the original article available - it was deleted! :-) Anyway it is irrelevant; does the article as it is now merit deletion is the only issue. --Michael C. Price talk 15:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Some specific answers:
1. As an example of why the Guinness listing is significant, it was Marilyn vos Savant's association with the society that resulted in her being listed in Guinness, which in turn led to her column in Parade (magazine), which is the most widely read magazine in the United States.
2. The society has been cited in many mainstream books and other publications, not just Guinness, as referenced in the article.
3. There are many societies that are old. The Order of the Garter is included because it's members are selected by the Queen of England. By the way, one of the arguments given above is that the the society is "largely self-selected." This is both false and pejorative.
4. I'm not assuming bad faith. I'm giving evidence of bias. Those are not the same thing.
5. The article differs from the deleted one in that it is an extensive rewrite.
6. The original deletion was procedurally flawed, and revealed a Catch-22 in Wikipedia policy. The original deletion admin admitted that he merely counted up the votes, which is contrary to policy, but the reviewing admin followed policy when he counted up the votes on the review. In other words, if there are a large number of people who want an article deleted for whatever reason, and if the deletion admin doesn't follow policy and merely counts up votes, then there is no real recourse. This may be why the reviewing admin encouraged a rewrite and resubmit. Canon 15:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Canon was a major contributor to the article prior to deletion. I have resotred the history (deletion was end of July) so people can judge the extent to which this is a repost. I don't think it's a G4, I do think it's perilously close to an A7 and I definitely think the sources are inadequate, in that they are evidence only of existence (and we already know it exists, we just don't know why we are supposed to care). Guy (Help!) 16:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
As has already been pointed out the sources -- of which there now 21 as opposed to just 1 when the original AfD was raised -- are not just evidence of existence, but also of notability. --Michael C. Price talk 16:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Two points:
1. That Guy points out that I am a contributor to the article shows that the issue of bias is relevant to this discussion. I am not assuming bad faith by pointing out that the deletion proponents show evidence of bias. At any rate as can be read in the restored discussion I am not trying to hide my identity; I am Chris Cole the Internet Officer of the Mega Society.
Then you have a clear conflict of interest. Please go away now and stop disrupting our processes for your own vanity. Guy (Help!) 08:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
2. The "why we should care" article mainly discusses the need for verifiable citations in mainstream publications. That has been done in the article. However, the underlying theme is that the idea of a small group of people who score highly on an IQ test is not notable. Here is why it is: Either intelligence is something real or it is not. For the purposes of Wikipedia we can assume it is real since there is no consensus that it is not. If it is real, it can be measured. It is difficult to measure anything that is rare, and efforts to do so are interesting. The Mega Society does not exist in a vacuum; it is the last in a series of societies that have been assembled over the years. As such it represents the limits of the art and science of intelligence testing as it currently exists. That makes it notable. Canon 16:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, reasons for deletion or "issues" as stated above by GUY: "what was at issue (and remains so) is that this is a tiny and largely self-selected society" have been addressed. Namely that the selective nature of the club limits it's size as stated by Canon. The "issue" of the club being "largely self-selected" is ridiculous, "self-selection" means selection by oneself of oneself, I don't see how it applies here, even if it did I don't see what preclusion would be involved.Tstrobaugh 19:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It doesn't matter how small a group is, the point is there are multiple reliable independent mainstream sources to attest to its notability. This article is better sourced tham most Wikipedia articles.Edison 20:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The sources are for membership of individuals. There is only one non-trivial source about the society, and its most vociferous proponent turns out to be the society's own Internet Officer.. Guy (Help!) 08:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Edison above. -- Dominus 22:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The PNC requires that the article's subject have been the subject of multiple, independent sources. When you look at the sources, the only one that qualifies is the WSJ story. Thus, the "multiple" requirement isn't met. I also would question whether it is appropriate to count a Journal Column Four story as a source for purposes of satisfying the notability requirements, since topics for those stories are chosen deliberately for their obscurity. JChap2007 22:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Some of the other sources are about the Mega Society itself, as well its members. Enough to qualify as "multiple". --Michael C. Price talk 23:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you identify which ones? JChap2007 23:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The Omni article, for example. As per Edison, Dominus, this article is better sourced tham most Wikipedia articles. --Michael C. Price talk 23:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. AfD isn't about the quality of the article, but whether the subject is suitable for inclusion. Something that may be an acceptable source to cite in an article will not necessarily meet the notability requirements. JChap2007 00:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I remember reading the Omni article when it was first published. So there are at least two entirely independent sources, twenty years apart, attesting to the existence, longevity, and notability of the group. I am frankly surprised that anyone is arguing that this article should be deleted. I thought it was a well-known organization. -- Dominus 04:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The subject must be the society itself and the article must be independent of the society (so the articles by the society's founder wouldn't qualify for present purposes). JChap2007 23:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The Guinness articles are about the Society and it looks like they stretch from 1983 to 1990, not 1986. The Omni articles are written by Scot Morris, not Ronald Hoeflin, so this needs to be fixed in the references. Since Hoeflin founded the Society he will be mentioned in any reference to it, but for example the Simonton and Jacobs books both only mention the Society and Hoeflin. All of the references discuss the Society and some of them are only about the Society. By the way, while checking this I found some other books on Google Books that discuss the Society. Canon 00:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The mentions in Guinness are not really in articles, but as part of directory listings, so they are not considered sources for purposes of notability. Most of the books on Google books use the term "mega-society" in a different way that does not refer to this organization. Of those that mention the organization, that's all they do--mention it. In order for the notability criteria to be satisfied, the Society (not Hoeflin) would have to be the subject, implying some extended discussion. Only the Simonton book even bothers to reference "Mega Society" in its index and that is only one page. The articles in Omni seem better, but looking closely, according to the Village Voice article, the 1985 article was a reproduction of the Hoeflin's test, not an article about the society. The 1990 article, both from the title and how it's used in the WP article also seems to be a reproduction of the test for Omni's readers, not a source that we can use to write an article about the Society. JChap2007 00:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, if one were to sit down which these references and compose an article about the Society, one would end up with an article very similar to the current article. That is the purpose of giving references, to verify the information in the article. As has already been stated by others, this article is well-sourced by Wikipedia's (or I dare say any encyclopedia's) standards. The statement that a listing in Guinness is not evidence of notability seems contrary to reason. I fear that the discussion is veering in the direction of trying to define "notability" which is well-trodden (some might think over-trodden) ground. At the risk of redundancy, the society is notable because Hoeflin and others use it as a testbed for high range testing, and the members are statistically unusual. Canon 01:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed we do and indeed it is. I would simply note that you are conflating the idea of notability (for WP purposes) with that of anomaly. JChap2007
An anomaly is notable if the subject is important. So again the question boils down to intelligence: Is it real, is it measurable, and is it important? Canon 04:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Canon on at least one point here: to assert that listings in the Guinness Book of World Records fail to weigh on the question of notability, as JChap2007 has, seems completely bizarre. -- Dominus 07:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The Mega Society is the highest-cutoff high-IQ society with credible admission standards (though Mega is pushing the limits of what's possible given the state of the art of high-range psychometrics). It is very well known to those with an interest in the high-IQ-societies community; this community itself is beginning to be discovered by the mainstream media and can be expected to receive more media exposure in the near future, given the strong public interest in the subject of intelligence. Kevin Langdon 01:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)— Kevin Langdon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic..
  • Keep. A standard definition of encyclopedia says such a thing contains articles "covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject." Now, 'IQ' and 'high-IQ societies' are linked nodes along a branch of knowledge stemming from the node of 'intelligence'. And as the AfD aptly shows, the Mega Society is a recognized member of the set of high-IQ societies. Therefore, by definition of 'encyclopedia' and by the reality of its recognition (as referenced in the AfD), the Mega Society is a logical member of the set of wikipedia entries. QED Ian Goddard 01:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment That's not mathematics, that's theology! This is getting amusing. We have a single purpose account just above this one and now we have another attempt to laywer his way around Wikipedia policies. Also we have User:Canon who openly admits that his contributions violate WP:COI despite the fact that he still wrote most of the article as it is now. Recreation of spam, we should speedy delete and warn those trying to Wikilaywer themselves into Wikipedia. Won't work no matter what. Also, how is a society of 26 out of a potential target group of thousands of people on earth notable? It is still only 1 in a million people... that amounts to thousands of people worldwide. What makes a group of 26 people notable in that context? MartinDK 07:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
      • MartinDK asks, how can the society be notable? The more relevant question is, is it notable? The numerous sources and google hits testify that it is notable. That's not theology, that's empiricism. --Michael C. Price talk 07:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment I did not ask how can I asked how is. Do not twist my words, this is not a courtroom. Wikilaywering is against policy and will not work. Also, you still fail to provide any references to Wikipedia policy telling us why we should care about your arguments. MartinDK 07:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Response I did not quote you, I used italics to indicate the sense of your question, and to indicate that you asked the wrong question. --Michael C. Price talk 07:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment Do not tell me what to ask you... MartinDK 07:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The high density of citations in this article demonstrates how real the society is. Aaronbrick 07:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
        • That's an easy one! Is it notable? No; It fails the primary notability criterion - it has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. We have evidence of existence, we have evidence for membership of some individuals, and we have pretty much nothing else. Certainly no credible evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 08:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment' We are not debating the factual accuracy of the article. No one calls this a hoax, we know it is real but why should we care about an article recreated with citations and sources but virtually no new text? Also, why should we care about arguments without references to Wikipedia policies? MartinDK 07:46, 22 November 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.