| Revision as of 20:46, 15 July 2006 edit70.187.170.60 (talk) add to "mainstream" references← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:02, 15 July 2006 edit undo205.188.117.67 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| *'''Keep''' [User: Kevin Langdon, 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. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 19:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small> | :*'''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. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 19:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small> | ||
| *'''Keep''' ] 21:02, 15 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? | |||
| 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. | |||
Revision as of 21:02, 15 July 2006
Mega Society
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
- Comment. "Utility" is not an accepted criterion for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. 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)
- 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'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?
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.