Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mensans

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 no consensus. Nakon 04:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mensans

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

Duplicative and redundant. We already have Category:Mensans, which is more complete anyway. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 16:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lists and categories serve different purposes - the list, for example, contains more information than the category, in the form of a one-line description for each entry which can not be duplicated by the category. There must be thousands of cases of lists and categories existing together here - it seems to be a long-standing standard to keep both. Squinge (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid keep rationale. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 18:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lucky I didn't use it as a rationale then, I was merely referring you to the long-standing consensus to keep both lists and categories to illustrate what you're up against. Try reading my actual explanation of the difference between lists and categories for why they're not duplicates. Oh, and yes, WP:NOTDUP is the guideline - I was looking for that earlier and couldn't find it, thanks Postdlf. Squinge (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - "There must be thousands of cases of lists and categories existing together here" Looks like OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to me. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 16:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Have you actually read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? It says "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". Squinge (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is plainly contra WP:NOTDUP. @The Master: Please either add a valid rationale or withdraw. postdlf (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines are not set in stone. This can be judged on its own merits, based on WP:CONSENSUS, and nothing is hurt by the discussion being allowed to run its course. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 18:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you're trying to overturn the long-standing "Overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates are not considered duplicative" consensus, leading to the deletion of most of Wikipedia's list articles? I wouldn't give much for your chances of success there then. Squinge (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So far there are no "merits". You've failed to offer a reason why the guideline shouldn't be followed in this particular case, instead posting a deletion rationale that didn't even acknowledge that there was such a guideline despite plainly contradicting it. postdlf (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem very anxious to get this immediately closed and I'm not really understanding the urgency. If the list belongs then it will remain when the discussion runs its course just as much as if I let you bully me into immediately withdrawing it. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 16:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete I can see some use for this if it were Sinclair, Pirie and Serebriakoff. Otherwise it's non-defining. Mensa membership is utter trivia: a deliberate choice to spend a membership fee by a group that forms (by their constitution) 2% of the population. It is nonsense to think of Mensa as "the genius society". Membership of it conveys no significance whatsoever. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- (Glad to see an actual, relevant argument.) If that is the case, then obviously Category:Mensans should be deleted as well, as we're even less tolerant of categorization by trivial fact than we are listing. I do see many of the citations in this list are to Mensa primary sources, but not all. It doesn't need to rise to the level of WP:DEFINING (a categorization standard) for us to keep this list, but I would expect the fact to be fairly regularly noted by sources other than Mensa and the...um...Mensee.
  But on the flip side, we do tend to keep lists of notable members of notable organizations (such as List of Scouts, a group membership that is even more common and also typically not significant within the individual's overall life). And another way of looking at it is the relevance this list of notable members has to the parent article, Mensa International, as a subtopic WP:SPLIT for WP:SIZE purposes. postdlf (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm unfamiliar with List of Scouts, but I doubt that it includes me. Like so many other suburban kids, I was once a scout. I tied things, I saluted flags, I marched, I camped. This conveys absolutely nothing, and it would be wrong to categorise anyone with a similarly trivial connection in such a way. Now for Bear Grylls and Peter Duncan, this is a relevant connection and deserves listing. They have had some active and long-term involvement in scouting beyond childhood. Should Tony Benn and Paul McCartney be listed as scouts too? Unless there's a cover version of Do Your Ears Hang Low? on the White Album that I overlooked, then I rather doubt it.

Same with Mensans. Lucy Irvine, Carol Vorderman, they've all made some capital of their Mensa membership. Most members haven't. A list of Mensans (and I would hazard, Scouts too) belongs here to list some people who've made such overt and definite statements of membership (conveniently, these are the ones that are sourceable too). However it should not be a grab-bag of doxxing for people to whom it is a most trivial fact. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds more like you're saying that the list should be pruned down to entries with more substantial connections to Mensa rather than deleted outright, a question of inclusion criteria within the list rather than inclusion of the list in WP. postdlf (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be possible, but I think it would fail WP:SMALLCAT as a category or notability as a list. Membership of members in general isn't significant enough to be worth recording. Being a "notable Mensan" isn't WP:NOTABLE, as only being of interest within the society.

Do lists have to be only based on defining characteristics? If so, then I think there's some merit in this argument. But if not, then surely a notable characteristic is sufficient for existence of a list article? Squinge (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note There is no reason to delete a list because a category exists. If the two are out of sync, then the solution is to sync them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Mensans, as categories and lists are considered to be complementary. Furthermore, the article is well-sourced in compliance with WP:V, as it should be for these types of articles. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as plainly redundant to Category:Mensans. Those who do not have an article should not be on the list, and a self-maintaining category would be superior. Stifle (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTDUP, "Overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates are not considered duplicative". I think it would need more than a single deletion discussion here to overturn that policy. Squinge (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A list does duplicate a category if it has no editorial scope beyond that category. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. But this list has a one-line description of each entry, which the category can't. Squinge (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. I hate quoting guideline language that you should have already read on your own because it's already been cited repeatedly in the discussion, but your comment doesn't give me much of a choice: "These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." (Note that Squinge merely quoted the guideline's header above this text.) And we want categories and lists to have the same scope when they have the same name; the list defines the category's contents. Lists in any event have the potential for annotations and direct sourcing, as well as alternate modes of internal organization, which categories cannot do, so in that sense they are never merely "duplicative" but accomplish different (though overlapping) functions. postdlf (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Categories are inferior to lists and, in any case, WP:CLN says that we don't delete one for the sake of the other. Andrew D. (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a Mensa member is a trivial fact that is not worth listing. I would also support deletion of the category. If we have to have just one, I would keep the article and delete the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep duplicative is not a valid reason for deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.