Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Mega Society: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:41, 17 July 2006 editCanon (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,061 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 17:45, 17 July 2006 edit undoByrgenwulf (talk | contribs)1,234 edits →[]: ResponseNext edit →
Line 226: Line 226:
#IQ is not bogus. If IQ is bogus, then how come that people we perceive as "smart" typically achieve high IQ scores, while the people we perceive as "dumb" typically achieve low scores? Pure coincidence? I don't think so. #IQ is not bogus. If IQ is bogus, then how come that people we perceive as "smart" typically achieve high IQ scores, while the people we perceive as "dumb" typically achieve low scores? Pure coincidence? I don't think so.
#The only (relevant) controversial question here is the quality of the test used for admission, i.e. 1) does it really measure intelligence, and 2) is purported one-in-a-million cutoff reliable enough. This should be discussed in the article, just like any other controversy. ] 17:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC) #The only (relevant) controversial question here is the quality of the test used for admission, i.e. 1) does it really measure intelligence, and 2) is purported one-in-a-million cutoff reliable enough. This should be discussed in the article, just like any other controversy. ] 17:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

::No, that isn't a relevant question at all. I don't give a hoot about how the IQs of these people are or what tests they use to establish this, howsoever valid these tests might be. I want to know what this society has done to make it ''notable'', i.e. ''encyclopaedic'', and this article is not ''vanity'' or an ''advert''. How much Internet traffic a website gets doesn't matter either. ] 17:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:45, 17 July 2006

Mega Society

Not a voteIf you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. 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 may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Appears to be a non-notable society. I am informed there are only 25 members My vote is

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)
  • 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 am wondering why the editor of their newsletter has an IQ of 150 and claims to be a member. Obviously not a legitimate organization. DaturaS 15:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I have IQ scores considerably higher than 150. It's strange that the assertion that my IQ is "only" 150 seems to be accepted uncritically by certain posters to this discussion. Kevin Langdon 08:19, 17 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? Brian
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. Brian
Well, provide with some citations about the worthwhile scientific research this society is conducting, and then the article ought to be able to stay. Until then, it hardly meets criteria for notability. Byrgenwulf 21:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The criteria for notability, and indeed the notion that notability is even relevant, have been hotly debated. I notice that some of the debate concerns inclusion of college fraternities. What scientific research do they conduct? (And some fraternities are open to charges similar to those leveled below; they are elitist, sexist, racist, etc etc) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.117.7 (talk • contribs) 22:55, July 15, 2006 (UTC)
After checking the page history, the Mega Society article has never been vandalized, although I fail to see how it would be relevant if it had been. I agree with Byrgenwulf that some sort of reference as to what the Mega Society actually does might be useful. -- NORTH 20:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Misplaced Pages is not here to perpetuate a farce. Notable or not (and it is not), I would like to see some evidence that this society actually does what it says it does. Are there any meetings or activitied of these one-in-a-million members? The short answer is "No". You have a handful of pseudo-intellecuals with phony credentials (or none like the editor) who have created a bogus group and advertised it on Misplaced Pages. Independent verification requested. DaturaS 15:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment The higher up the scale the cutoff percentile for a high-IQ society the smaller it tends to be. Mensa has lots of local meetings but this is impracticable for a group like Mega. The primary activity of the Mega Society is the publication of its journal, *Noesis*, which is available on the Web. Note the abusive language in the above comment. Kevin Langdon 08:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There's no point in deleting it, since it is in no violation of any rule whatsover. On the other hand, if deleted, same could apply to any article on any other HIQ society. By extension, a whole HIQ Society Wiki article can be deleted for no good reason at all.
Comment - HowlinWolf is no sockpuppet - he is my brother - will send a family photo to get this scum off the web. I definitely agree with HW that Langdon is a known fraud. Defrauded Omni readers in the 1980s of more than $30,000 after Omni published a version of a test he made up and bilked readers for scoring fees. Sanctioned by the State of CA medical board - see judgment here. Vanity page for this lowbrow wannabe. DaturaS 22:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment The above accusation of fraud is actionable. I demand that the author thereof provide proof of his assertion; in the absence of such proof, I demand that the editors of Misplaced Pages remove it from the Web. Kevin Langdon 08:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment Mega is not a large society, but the idea that there's only one active member refers to the so-called "Mega Society East," founded by Mega member Chris Langan (not Langdon). Langan insisted that his society was the real one but not even one other member of Mega went along with him and he lost a court decision and is now prohibited from using any form of the name "Mega Society." He also lost an ICANN arbitration regarding Mega Society domain names. Details can be found on this page: http://www.megasociety.org/about.html . The real Mega Society has many active members, as is obvious when one examines recent issues of *Noesis*. As for Langdon being a bigot, his jokes pages contain jokes about many different ethnicities, religions, etc. Categories include: Arab, Horrid Nursery Rhymes, Black, Interbreeding, Misc./Mixed Ethnicities, Buddhist, Irish, Polish, Celebrity, Jewish, Polish/Italian, Chain Letter, "Johnny," Polish Pope, Christian, Knock Knock, Redneck, Commercial Parodies, Lawyer, Scientology, Dead Baby, Lightbulb, Sex, Dyslexia, Mexican, and Space. It would be pretty exhausting to hate all of these groups. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.182.196 (talk • contribs) 22:27, July 15, 2006 (UTC)
Comment - This is about no one other than Kevin Langdon, a fellow who pretends to have a high IQ but sadly does not. Langdon's so-called Mega-society has NO MEMBERS except for unqualified Kevin Langdon and a handful of hangers-on with dubious IQ credentials. Maybe Kevin Langdon can tell us what his IQ score is (150) and what test he took to get into the "Mega" society. Totally bogus. Yes, please click on Langdon's "Dead Baby" joke page before you vote for this sick puppy. DaturaS 23:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment The Mega Society has a number of members other than Kevin Langdon, as can easily be ascertained by looking over recent issues of *Noesis*. I *can't* tell you what test I took to get into the Mega Society because the founder of the predecessor 606 Society (6-in-a-million cutoff), Chris Harding, didn't explain the basis on which he invited members. Members of 606 were grandfathered into the Mega Society when it was founded. However, as the limit of what can be measured with reasonable precision is somewhere around the 606 qualifying level the difference in cutoff levels is academic. Mega does the best it can to select members at its nominal cutoff level. It may be that the actual cutoff is a few points lower; that's the price you pay for pushing the limits of psychometric science. Kevin Langdon 08:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Commment Does it strike you as strange that this person is looking down his or her nose at IQ 150 (the one in a thousand level)? This IQ elitism is characteristic of Mega Society member and sore loser Chris Langan. In fact, when several Mega members took the Mobius Test, by Edward Cyr, an extremely difficult test, I got the highest score and Ron Hoeflin was just one point behind me. The objection to my compilation of jokes is irrelevant and absurd. The study of jokes is as valid as the study of any other sociological phenomenon; I am not endorsing prejudice and the butt of many jokes which stigmatize whole demographic groups is not the group stigmatized but those who stigmatize them (as in certain jokes about Blacks which really target the intolerance of rednecks). --Kevin Langdon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.59 (talk • contribs) 15:38, July 16, 2006 (UTC)
We don't allow people to go get family members to back up thier votes. Please let wikipedians sort this one out. Votes from anons, accounts created after the vote started, and accounts with very few edits are usually simply ignored by the closing admin. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Theresa - I will tell HW that he needs to run crosstown and visit the library (like another on this page) if he wants to cast his vote. Have moved comments. DaturaS 23:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Commentthey have published over 180 issues of their scholarly magazine, most of which can be read at their website. Have a look. Kevin's not a bigot, but in any case this is a red herring. Brian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.117.67 (talk • contribs) 21:32, July 15, 2006 (UTC)
A "scholarly" journal that prints comments like this (from the society's founder): "If I were a black person and were as intelligent as I now am, I'd probably regret that my black brethren tend to be less competent than members of other races, on average. I would see two possible future outcomes for my race: (1) after the less competent blacks are culled from the population through homicide, AIDS, homelessness, etc., there might be a flowering of black civilization as the more competent blacks began to compete more successfully, or (2) the blacks might cease to exist as a race due to interbreeding with other races." . Come on. Byrgenwulf 21:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
This quotation is extracted from a longer section in which Hoeflin is arguing that biological evolution is an ongoing process. This is the same point that Nicholas Wade makes in his new book Before the Dawn (ISBN 1-59420-079-3). While I don't persionally agree with the argument, there are scholars who do. However, how did we get to discussing whether the Society is "scholarly" anyway? The original reason given for deleting the article was that the Society was not "notable." This ambiguous criterion was then defined as requiring that the Society has been discussed in the "mainstream" press. That criterion has been satisfied. Canon 00:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment Those remarks seem pretty reasonable to me. Blacks, like other populations, are subject to evolutionary pressures. This isn't racism or bigotry, but one has to wonder about the motives of those seeking to have the Mega Society listing deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.182.196 (talk • contribs) 22:27, July 15, 2006 (UTC)
Comment Known bigot. Neither Hoeflin nor Langdon have IQs anywhere near the supposed level of this bogus society. No qualified members as far as I can tell. Other contributors to his racist rag are not qualified either. What a joke. HowlinWolf 21:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment How do you suppose this Wolf guy has the inside track on other people's IQs? --Kevin Langdon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.182.196 (talk • contribs) 22:27, July 15, 2006 (UTC)
Comment This commentary confused the action of the California Board of Psychology against what it saw as "the unlicensed practice of psychology" with *Omni's* lawsuit. I don't know where the $30,000 figure came from, but *Omni* sued me for *a million dollars* after I received an overwhelming number of answer sheets in a very short time (the test was taken by over 27,000 people after appearing in the April 1979 issue of *Omni*), most of them within the first few months after publication. I had problems with my computer (they were even more buggy back then) and it took me many months to catch up with my backlog. When I did I supplied *Omni* with a list of testees and they verified that I had, in fact, gotten results to most of them (some had moved during the period of delay); the lawsuit was settled and I didn't have to pay a dime (I'm sure glad they didn't get my million dollars :-) ). The cost of scoring was $2.50. How would you like to have to open all those envelopes, input the data from each answer sheet, score all these tests, and mail out results and interpretive materials for $2.50 a pop? As for the California Board of Psychology's objection to my IQ testing activity, it's unconstitutional. The First Amendment's right of freedom of assembly guarantees very-high-IQ people the right to form societies and select members any damn way we want; we sure can't rely on the standard tests to select at our target level. The abusive language above indicates that HowlinWolf has some kind of axe to grind. It should also be noted that his accusation of fraud is libelous. --Kevin Langdon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.182.196 (talk • contribs) 22:27, July 15, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Byrgenwulf; it is a non-notable club. (The magazine titles cited by Canon are not enough to establish notability.) IMHO, it seems that Byrgenwulf is the only editor who has expressed an opinion on this that is coherent with deletion policy. AfD is not a vote. HowlinWolf's comments should not have been struckthrough, even if he is a suspected sock puppet of DaturaS. Everyone's comments are welcome, provided that they are civil, and everyone's comments will be taken into account by the closing admin. That being said, the closing admin does hold the right to discount comments made by anonymous IPs and accounts created for the sole intent of "voting" in this discussion (which appears to apply to the majority of the comments here). Please keep this in mind on the off-chance anyone here has plans to participate in future AfD discussions. -- NORTH 00:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
If the closing admin (or anyone else) wishes to read HowlinWolf's comments that had been refactored, I resotred them on the talk page. -- NORTH 00:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear, are the citations I've provided insufficient to establish "notability" because (1) the publications cited are not "mainstream", or (2) I did not provide issue dates, or (3) I did not provide enough citations, or (4) "notability" is not established by citations. I can deal with each of these, but I'd like to know where the deficiency lies. Also, as should be pretty obvious by now, the society is certainly "notable" in that a lot of people are very interested in it, which the members will agree is not always a good thing. Canon 01:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The answer to your question is #2, 3, 4, and 5. Saying that you are aware of an article in such-and-such magazine is not enough. Show us the article. However, even if you did tell us which articles in which issues of the magazines you listed mention the Mega Society, I still doubt that would be enough. Just because it's in a magazine, even if it's mainstream, doesn't make it notable. We are an encyclopedia, not a magazine, and our standards are just a tad bit higher. Mentions in magazines are a factor in determining notability, but only one factor. Which brings me to #5, which granted you didn't apply an actual number to. Another factor for determining notability is whether "a lot of people are very interested in it" -- although again, interest alone is not enough. But I'm curious as to why you say it "should be pretty obvious" by now that a lot of people are interested in it, because it's certainly not obvious to me. -- NORTH 01:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment The comment above refers to points 2, 3, 4, and 5, but there are only *four* points in Canon's remarks above it. Has something been censored? --Kevin Langdon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.59 (talk • contribs) 15:38, July 16, 2006 (UTC)
Nothing has been censored. This can be confirmed either by reading the page history (something I am doing constantly when trying to catch unsigned comments), or by reading my comment, in which my reference to #5 is a clever joke, referring to a point Canon made, but did not assign its own number. -- NORTH 20:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The articles I've referenced are either about the Mega Society itself or about ultra high IQ societies in general and the Mega Society is discussed as an example. There are many more articles that merely mention the society. In what format do you want me to "show you" the article? For reasons I've previously stated, I believe that the Mega Society page on Misplaced Pages is looked at by several hundred people per day. That's a pretty clear demonstration of interest. Canon 01:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
You haven't referenced any articles, you've listed magazine titles. If this is a notable society that is still active today, surely there is some recent reference that you can show us online? A Google News search yields none. A mention in the Wall Street Journal 14 years ago does not constitute notability.
You did not state any reasons previously as to why you believe this page is looked at by several hundred people per day. You only said, "Currently the entry is referenced several hundred times per day." Is it? By who? -- NORTH 02:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I mentioned that the Wall Street Journal article was an early reference. I have found a page (not affiliated with the Mega Society) that specifically cites many "mainstream" articles and was maintained up through 1999 (http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/refer.html). That is a broad enough sample of "mainstream" to establish "notability." As for Google News, many "notable" organizations will not have generated news articles in the recent past; a search for "mega society" in Google Groups returns over 350 hits and in Google proper over 9000. Finally, we can determine that several hundred people view the entry each day because several dozen people follow the link to the Mega Society home page. Canon 04:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Here are some citations.

Baumgold, Julie (February 6, 1989). "In the Kingdom of the Brain". New York Magazine Graham, Ellen (April 19, 1992) "Minds of Mega", Wall Street Journal Prager, Joshua (May 14, 1997) "Let's see now" Wall Street Journal "Genius Issue" (November 1999) Esquire Magazine (reprinted in http://www.uga.edu/bahai/News/110x99.html ) see also http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/history.html#Mega Oh, and one more I forgot: Guinness Book of World Records 1989 page 29, "The most elite ultra-high IQ society is the Mega Society" I am unclear why very recent cites are required; even a defunct society -- which Mega is not -- may be of historical interest. Surely a group which has for almost 25 years made a careful and credible attempt to select the one in a million most intelligent people is noteworthy. I've finally figured out the four tilde thing, and I've tried to go back and sign some of my earlier comments. Brian 70.234.150.40 18:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

More recent citations are preferable precisely because the Mega Society is not defunct. -- NORTH 20:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


  • Strong Delete. Homebrew high IQ society of no notability. If people with high IQs are so smart, how come they don't realise what a bogus, discredited concept IQ is? -- GWO
You seem to contradict yourself when you appeal to a common sense notion of "smartness" and yet in the same sentence deny the existence of intelligence. However, this probably is off the subject of whether the Mega Society entry should be deleted; maybe we should move the discussion to sci.psychology.theory or comp.ai or you can email me directly. The only relevant point seems to be your use of the term "homebrew" which implies "slipshod" which is simply not true; Hoeflin (and Towers, and others) have done an enormous amount of first rate work in assembling and norming these tests. The details can be found here (http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/hoeflin.html). Canon 13:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment In fact, the concept of IQ has not been discredited. It's part of mainstream psychology. See *The g Factor* by Arthur R. Jensen. Kevin Langdon 08:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, it is not appropriate to call for evidence of notability on the talk page of an article and then put that article up for deletion in less than an hour. The Mega Society has been written up numerous times in the media. It is probably the best known high IQ society, after Mensa. Anyone looking into IQ societies and high IQ tests will immediately encounter references to it. I personally have known about it for 8 or 9 years. (And for the record, I have no association with it whatsoever.) Because Jeffire and Byrgenwulf have acted so hastily, who could possibly have time to track down offline articles from numerous periodicals over more than two decades before the vote is completed? I'm certainly far too busy in my personal life to do so in a few days.
In my experience, thoughtful Wikipedians do their own searches for evidence of notability and discuss their results on the talk page of an article, and only then bring it up for deletion when there is clearly no evidence of notability. On Misplaced Pages, editors bringing an article up for deletion have a responsibility to give valid reasons why they think the material is not notable, not simply claim it appears to be not notable. They also have a responsibility to allow time for an appropriate discussion; with a less-trafficked article it would be easy to band together and rush into delete it before those in the know even have time to find out about the vote. This is not a race to delete; this process should be handled with care and deliberation.
I strongly encourage Byrgenwulf and Jeffire to read Misplaced Pages:Notability. In particular, you need to understand the important difference between notable and famous. Just because an organization is obscure, does not mean it is non-notable. In this particular case, the Mega Society is highly notable for anyone wanting to know more about high IQ subculture. That is the appropriate context in which to analyze the Mega Society's notability.
And as for some of the other points raised in this discussion, this is not a debate on the merits of IQ or even the Mega Society. —Tox 14:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Actually, it is. There is no evidence that this is a legitimate group. It's only vocal member has an IQ well below the supposed admission standards. Seems to be totally bogus. DaturaS 15:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Uh, this does not jibe with my own knowledge of the group. You can look at numerous issues of their journal online. Furthermore, there are other notable current or past members (especialy Christopher Langan, who had a total falling out with the group and especially Kevin Langdon — gee, wouldn't he have blown the whistle long ago if the current group were a hoax perpetrated by Langdon?). And furthermore, it is only an argument for putting evidence documenting the hoax in the article, not an argument for deleting the article itself. As a hoax it might be even more notable. —Tox 06:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment This "hoax" idea is bizarre. One may quarrel with the notion of IQ and with the selection criteria employed by the Mega Society but it's a real society that's existed for almost a quarter of a century. Kevin Langdon 08:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment. My username is being consistantly mispelled in an identical manner by many of those voting to keep. For future reference, J.E.F.F.F.I.R.E. Jefffire 14:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment What Jefffire is calling a misspelling is a consequence of the long-established rule in English prohibiting triple letters. Note also that he misspelled his own user name above (I wonder if he takes his car to Jeffylube ;-) ). --Kevin Langdon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.59 (talk • contribs) 15:38, July 16, 2006 (UTC)
My username isn't english language, and identical misspelling of it may be indicitive of sock-puppets. Jefffire 15:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment The point is that the readers of this English-language article have certain usage habits; they don't expect triple letters and so they tend to overlook them. Kevin Langdon 08:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
It is entirely appropriate to list an article for deletion if one suspects non-notability, regardless of whether an announcement was made on the talk page, or when that announcement was made. This article was created in December of 2004; the time to cite sources and assert notability was then, not now. -- NORTH 20:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be nice if Misplaced Pages worked like a formal debate. But it doesn't. Anyone who's been around here for any length of time quickly finds out there are thousands of articles with no references on relatively obscure topics.
In a formal debate the judges would quickly cross out arguments not backed up, but here we are not judges but editors, and this is not a debate but an encyclopedia. Our job is to improve the quality of the article or seek out convincing data that it should be deleted, not rush to cross out what wasn't done right in the first place because someone else should have done it right. We all always have the burden of backing up our own actions, especially deletion of an entire article. This is the only way of gaining consensus and preventing our actions from being undone by other editors.
It is entirely appropriate to list an article for deletion if one suspects non-notability and does research or engages in discussion on the talk page to bolster their suspicion. I have seen great care taken in removing mere references to obscure topics in an article, let alone an entire article itself. Mature editors do their own research into a topic before bringing it up for AfD. If you read Misplaced Pages:Notability you will see that it clearly states non-notability is ambiguous and that if you use NN as a reason for deletion you must carefully qualify your reasoning. Jefffire and Byrgenwulf did not qualify their reasoning, and they are the ones who decided to bring it up for deletion (in less than an hour, a page that had been around for 2 years and was ineligible for speedy deletion).
Keep in mind that the AfD process is over in a matter of days. It is easy for many Wikipedians who care about an article to miss the AfD process entirely. If the article is not well-trafficked a group of individuals desiring deletion, by random chance alone, could easily overwhelm the debate during a time in which proponents of the article are absent. That is precisely why those bringing an article up for deletion have an obligation to do their own research into the notability of the topic instead of brazenly bringing it up for deletion. —Tox 06:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
"It is entirely appropriate to list an article for deletion if one suspects non-notability and does research or engages in discussion on the talk page to bolster their suspicion." This is patently false. WP:V states, "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, depending on one's POV), Misplaced Pages is not the U.S. courts system, and one is not innocent until proven guilty. The onus is on editors wishing to include the material to show why the topic is notable, not for those who wish to delete it to show why it is non-notable. Nevertheless, Byrgenwulf (in his follow-up comments) as well as myself and William Pietri have shown why we believe the Mega Society is non-notable; other editors have stated why they believe it is notable, although IMHO it is not enough.
You are correct that there are thousands of articles on Misplaced Pages with no references on relatively obscure topics. And many of those are on AfD, or will be when someone discovers them and takes the time to nominate them.
Misplaced Pages--or at least the AfD process--does work like a formal debate. When the closing admin (the "judge", if you will) views this discussion, s/he will ignore (thus "crossing out") arguments not backed up, because as you read the tag I had to put at the top of this page, "deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads". -- NORTH 07:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

CommentThis deletion debate horrifies me. When I read 1984, where anyone whom the ruling elite didnt like was made an "unperson" and all records of him erased, I thought, thank God that's fiction. When I read about the old Soviet Encyclopedia, and how anyone who fell out of favor had his article (as well as his life) deleted, and all users were sent a letter by the NKVD telling them to cut that article out of the volume, I thought, thank God I dont live there. But this is chillingly real.

There are two aspects to my horror.

1. I have devoted my life to halping the ultra-high IQ societies gain the credibility they deserve. I first heard of the Mega Society almost 20 years ago, thanks to a cover story in New York magazine. Some of its members became famous, just by being accepted. It is as respected among us as MIT or Harvard are in the world at large. To find that there are people out there who have never heard of it is as shocking to me as when I moved to the Midwest and found people who have never heard of Wordsworth or Rodin. It means that perhaps my life so far has been in vain.

2. I was at first skeptical of Misplaced Pages, and the whole notion of a grass-roots internet encyclopedia. I've edited a few entries over the years, but I hesitated to devote much effort to work which could be deleted by the first vandal who came across it. But as time passed I became a believer. The thing worked. But now, in the one area I know about, I have seen just HOW it works. Nameless, faceless, ill-informed accusers can at any time delete an area they object to. They pretend to be a democracy but must out of necessity be an oligarchy. And, since no group of a few hundred people can know everything, they must out of necessity be ill-informed about most of the subject matter they consider for deletions. It's a sad (yet almost humourous) blend of Kafka and Joseph Heller. It doesnt much matter now. Misplaced Pages is young, and one of many souirces of information. But what happens when it becomes the gold standard? What happens when it becomes the Mega Society of the information world?

Brian70.234.150.40 18:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Thanks for allowing comments. There appears to be very little advantage to deleting information and some benefit to keeping it. Why restrict the knowledge or information, unless patently fradulent? Editing, of course, is desirable, as with all submissions, but deletion actually subtracts value from Misplaced Pages, and retaining it can only add to it. I know nothing of Langdon, but if he is a fraud, or a racist, or the second coming of the Messiah, publish that information and the controversy in the Mega article. In fact, if he is all those things, it actually adds weight to it's inclusion, in order to keep Misplaced Pages readers well informed. Should we eliminate comments on Enron, or the NSDAP? It is all information, and it's relative value is it's accuracy, not it's politics, legal compliance, recent impact, or obnoxious opinions. Thanks again for soliciting comments! Don Zacherl (dzacherl@t3-tigertech.com) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.17.65.193 (talk • contribs) 16:19, July 16, 2006 (UTC)

DaturaS claims that the Mega Society is a "bogus group" composed of members with "phony credentials," has "no activities" and "one active member." As a long-time member of the Mega Society, I can assure you that these claims are not only false, but preposterous. Please ignore this crackpot until he provides evidence to support these allegations.Zorro24 20:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Zorro24.

—The above user's only edit is to this discussion. -- NORTH 20:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment in response to Tox, who states, "In this particular case, the Mega Society is highly notable for anyone wanting to know more about high IQ subculture. That is the appropriate context in which to analyze the Mega Society's notability." This is wholly untrue. In order for any topic to be notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, which Misplaced Pages is, it needs to be notable period, not notable just for people wanting to know about high-IQ subculture. A group of 25 people with extremely high IQs does not make a notable club. A group of 25 people with extremely high IQs that does something might, depending on what that something is. Some of the people wishing for this article to be kept stated that the group does some scientific research, but never explained what that research was. Magazine articles used to establish notability must do exactly that--establish notability--not just prove existence. -- NORTH 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment The Mega Society doesn't do scientific research--and neither does a scientific journal; both report on research done by individuals or small groups of them. Kevin Langdon 08:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no such thing as being notable period. Values are subjective, so "notable" is in the eyes of the beholder. These "eyes" change as one descends into the bowels of an encyclopedia written above the eighth grade level. For example, here is a sentence extracted from today's featured article: "The only important British honours over which the Prime Minister does not have control are the Order of the Garter, Thistle, and Merit, and the Royal Victorian Order, which are all within the 'personal gift' of the Sovereign." This is a fact that is "notable" only to (some) citizens of the UK. But this sentence is entirely appropriate in the context of an article on the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. What is "notable" depends upon the context in which the article is likely to be looked at. In the Mega Society article's case, this context is likely to be the context of high IQ societies. I take it as established that the existence of the Mega Society in that context is "notable".
The new requirement that the activities of the society be "notable", as opposed to the existence of the society, strikes me as pushing an already ambiguous standard further into dangerous territory. The assembly of the society required bootstrapping over a period of years starting with Mensa International. Science has been defined as the process of "torturing nature for her secrets" and the study of many phenomena is best done where these phenomena are extreme. This is why we build high energy particle colliders, for example. Hoeflin and Langdon are pioneers in the area of testing for high intelligence, an area that traditional psychometrics largely ignores because there is very little economic incentive to explore it. Sometimes we need to look over the horizon a bit and go beyond immediate economic value. Assuming that intelligence is an important thing to understand, they are trailblazers in a potentially fertile area. The society is notable because it is possible in the same way that climbing Mount Everest is notable because it is there. Canon 00:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Allow me to refer you to Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations): "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source." This requirement is not new, it was first posited about 6 hours into this discussion when Byrgenwulf said, "Well, provide with some citations about the worthwhile scientific research this society is conducting, and then the article ought to be able to stay. Until then, it hardly meets criteria for notability."
I agree that the whole notion of notability on Misplaced Pages is ambiguous, and Misplaced Pages:Notability takes the form of an essay, not guideline or policy. However, it is written as an extension of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information, both of which are official policy. Your assertion that the Mega Society is notable because it is possible (not even that it exists) is what is scary, not our request for citations of its scientific research.
Marilyn vos Savant is notable not just because she may or may not be the smartest person in the world, but also because she was the author of a popular column, and because she was one of the primary players in the media craze caused by the Monty Hall problem. The Mega Society is not notable because, as far as has been verified, it is nothing more than a group of 25 really smart people. -- NORTH 00:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment Marilyn vos Savant is a member of the Mega Society, but she hasn't participated actively recently. Kevin Langdon 08:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The criterion about scope in the context of the proposed criteria for organizations in the essay on notability is clearly intended to exclude purely local organizations like my Boy Scouts troop. The scope of the activities of the Mega Society is international in that it (1) has members in more than one country, and (2) publishes a newsletter that is distributed to more than one country. One of the Misplaced Pages articles that I've contributed to is Crystal Cove State Park which is as far from international as it is possible to get. Nonetheless, no one is suggesting it be deleted. However, this is descending into mere wordplay. I've read the essay on notability and I think it is quite clear that the Mega Society is notable as defined in that essay. I am willing to let the Misplaced Pages editors judge that for themselves based on the record assembled in this article. Canon 01:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The scope of what activities? -- NORTH 01:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The members interact and this results in essays that are published in the newsletter (latest issue: http://www.megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm) that is read by tens of thousands of people each month. Several members are working on a Web site (http://www.mental-testing.com) that pushes the state of the art in testing for high intelligence. So far over 50,000 people have tried this test. Canon 01:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The way I'm reading Issue 177 of Noesis, the mental-testing website appears to be done by one person independently of Mega Society. (Incidentally, the Mega Society's own newsletter is not valid for establishing notability; I did find one third-party reference here that links the Adaptive IQ Test to Mega Society.) Is there a third party source you can cite for the newsletter's readership figures?
Comment The mental-testing site is the work of Mega members but is not officially a project of the Mega Society. *Noesis* is now a Web-only publication; we get lots of hits. Kevin Langdon 08:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, you should be adding this material to the article itself, otherwise even if it's kept, we'll be going through this whole procedure again in a couple of months. -- NORTH 02:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
There are several sites that link to http://www.mental-testing.com, but I'm not sure what needs to be "third-party verified" since it obviously exists. It seems to me more relevant that a third party finds it credible, and in fact the independent review site http://www.iqte.st/iqtestreviewarchives/index.html ranks it second on the Web. This is quite gratifying since the test is a high-range test and thus does not look like a traditional IQ test. As for the usage statistics, if you email me directly I can arrange for you to verify these. Your point about preserving (some of) this material to streamline future reviews is taken; I will do so and preserve it on the article talk page. Canon 02:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
No, you fail spectacularly to see my point. Again, it is not enough that the Adaptive IQ Test exists; what needs to be "third-party verified" is that the Adaptive IQ Test is a project of the Mega Society, and not a single individual independent of the Mega Society.
The Mega Society article itself must make a claim as to why it is notable (not its talk page). All these wonderful things that you feel make the Mega Society notable should be in the article, so that people who might nominate it for AfD can see that it's notable and make their decision based on the article, not material provided after the fact. -- NORTH 03:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. NORTH's concept of notability clearly concerns importance. However, importance and notability are not synonymous. Both notability and importance are subjective, but their respective sepectrums do not line up. Misplaced Pages:Notability discusses this to some extent. There are plenty of things that are notable but unimportant. For instance, if I overheard a conversation about so-and-so who died and clearly perceived this was some famous person, but did not hear enough information to acertain what they did, I might come home and look that person up on Misplaced Pages. Not being a fan of most team sports, if I were to find out it was a basketball player, I would find that person unimportant, however, I would clearly understand why they were notable and listed in Misplaced Pages. And, one of the major reasons they would be notable is that you are likely to hear their name and (if you don't know who they are, you need somewhere to look them up). That is why the importance of the topic itself is different from the importance of having the topic in Misplaced Pages. Notability is much more closely related to the importance of having the topic in Misplaced Pages than the importance of that topic in the grand scheme of things.
The same applies to the Mega Society. If they do absolutely nothing and have no important impact on society that doesn't matter so long as you are likely to encounter their name and need a place to look them up. Since they have been in major periodicals multiple times over the last couple decades, that is a definite possibility. Furthermore — and this is where context especially plays a role — if you were to research high IQ subculture (and/or measurement of high IQs) you would immediately encounter the Mega Society, the Mega Test, Christopher Langan, Marilyn Vos Savant, Mensa, Kevin Langdon, and Ronald Hoeflin. I know because years ago I got interested in the subject and upon looking around the Web I quickly encountered all of those topics. Since high IQ subculture, including high IQ societies, is a notable topic, and the Mega Society is a highly notable element of that subculture, it becomes important to understanding the subculture itself.
NORTH, you keep harping on the argument that Misplaced Pages being an encyclopedia negates the desire to have an obscure topic in it. There are reasons not to have an obscure topic in a 20th century encyclopedia, but not a 21st century one. Misplaced Pages:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia. The reasons to leave the Mega Society out of a 20th century encyclopedia are fairly obvious: the physical constraints of searching through, carrying around, and storing a paper encyclopedia. Since with Misplaced Pages we no longer have those constraints, we can and definitely should include topics that are less obviously notable on a grand scale, but are highly notable in notable contexts.
The obscurity of a topic makes an article on it more useful, rather than less useful. The less likely you are to know about a topic, the more likely you are going to need an article on it. The relationship between obscurity, notoriety, and importance of a topic, and expected information return from an article gets quite complicated (and would probably be highly interesting research on the information content of Misplaced Pages and its resultant utility). The ideal topic for a Misplaced Pages article (as far as information return is concerned) would be a maximally obscure, maximally notable, and maximally important topic. That would entail a topic that you have a high probability of not knowing about, that you have a high probability of encountering, and that has a high level of intrinsic information (ie its effect on the world is great). Of course, in the real world these parameters are going to affect each other and this post is already too long for an AfD to look at the interrelationship.
Suffice it to say, Misplaced Pages becomes useless if you can't catch the tail end of an NPR piece, see a reference to some organization in someone's CV, or thoroughly research the various aspects of a specific topic (ie high IQ subculture or Canon's example of the British Prime Minister). I want a Misplaced Pages in which I can do so. What use is Misplaced Pages if I can only look up what I would find in a 20th century encyclopedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tox (talk • contribs) 05:45, 17 July 2006 GMT.
Oops, that was an accident; I'm writing too many posts in a rush tonight, as I have to get up for work in only a few hours. Sorry. —Tox 06:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, William, and I apologize dearly for leaving you out of my original comment when I said that Byrgenwulf was the only one who expressed an opinion coherent with deletion policy, as your original comment clearly was. -- NORTH 06:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Response to User:Kevin Langdon: You say that the Mega Society doesn't do scientific research, it merely reports on it (contrary to what other Keep "voters" originally said). Then what is it the Mega Society does? Does it do anything other than publish Noesis? The Alexa rank for megasociety.org is 3,944,660 (approximately 200,000 lower than the 50-person discussion board I run), so clearly it's not getting nearly as many hits as you think. -- NORTH 09:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The Alexa rank for http://www.mental-testing.com is 2,217,499 which is considerably higher than the Alexa rank for www.megasociety.org, which is 3,944,660 (as of this morning). However, the actual site visits to mental-testing.com are about half those for megasociety.org. Thus Alexa is inaccurate this far out on the curve, which is not surprising since it is based on sampling. Nonetheless the usage numbers given in this article can be verified if you email me directly. Canon 17:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


  • KEEP The Mega Society has existed for 20+ years with media exposure (e.g. Omni) from the start. ("Mega Society" = 9,100 google web hits.) The Wiki article receives a steady stream of hits. That passes the notability test in my eyes. As for many of the other claims here, such as whether it performs scientific activity, its membership level, the validity of its entrance requirements or of the concept of IQ in general: these are simply irrelevant issues. A lot of other society articles would suffer deletion if judged by the same criteria. I think there is some deletion agenda here, possibly spill-over from the fighting at CTMU, Mega Foundation, Chris Langan et al. --Michael C. Price 10:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Though I don't know much about the subject and disn't read through all of the comments on this page, I think the fact that google gives 9,090 results, that they have an own magazine, the fact that such a small organization creates so many public reactions (for instance the ammount of comments on this articles-for-deletion-page), its connection with the validity of IQ as a measure of intelligence, etc. prove its notability. Sijo Ripa 10:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
They do not have their own magazine, they have their own web publication, which according to the Alexa rank isn't read all that much. -- NORTH 10:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect, they do have their own magazine. It used to be paper based (I have some), now it's electronic.--Michael C. Price 11:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A couple of comments:
  1. The society verifiably exists, and does what it says it does.
  2. Number of members is irrelevant, given the one-in-a-million qualification level.
  3. IQ is not bogus. If IQ is bogus, then how come that people we perceive as "smart" typically achieve high IQ scores, while the people we perceive as "dumb" typically achieve low scores? Pure coincidence? I don't think so.
  4. The only (relevant) controversial question here is the quality of the test used for admission, i.e. 1) does it really measure intelligence, and 2) is purported one-in-a-million cutoff reliable enough. This should be discussed in the article, just like any other controversy. GregorB 17:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
No, that isn't a relevant question at all. I don't give a hoot about how the IQs of these people are or what tests they use to establish this, howsoever valid these tests might be. I want to know what this society has done to make it notable, i.e. encyclopaedic, and this article is not vanity or an advert. How much Internet traffic a website gets doesn't matter either. Byrgenwulf 17:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)