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)[reply]

Mega Society[edit]

Mega Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
For your last point, see Talk:Mega Society as suggested. --Michael C. Price talk 15:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Could you identify which ones? JChap2007 23:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[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.
More