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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italian geniuses[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Too subjective, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of geniuses. Laun chba ller 11:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the last AfD was closed as 'no consensus'. Granted, this was a much higher quality than List of geniuses but I take the view that you can't polish a turd. Also WP:NOTDIR.--Laun chba ller 11:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I worked hard on this wikipedia page. A precise and meticulous work. --CultureEurope (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a policy-based argument?--Laun chba ller 12:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No argument or defense by CultureEurope is necessary, he has already spelled-out his policy arguments in the 3 week, 2500-word AfD that was closed 96 hours ago; to demand he retype them all is borderline harassment. The very existence of this AfD is now the subject of discussion, not the article. BlueSalix (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The names listed in the wikipedia page were taken from two sources:

Cox IQ [1] is one of the 301 IQs assigned by American psychologist Catherine Cox of the three-hundred greatest geniuses that lived between 1450 and 1850, as published in her famous 1926 book Early Mental Traits of Three Hundred Geniuses.

Buzan IQ [2] is an IQ assigned by Englishmen accelerated learning expert Tony Buzan and grand chess master and literature scholar Raymond Keene, as found in their 2005 Book of Mental World Records, in which they attempt to rank the hundred greatest geniuses of all-time using an eight category, 835-point, scoring methodology, assigning IQs to each genius along the way. Goodbye... --CultureEurope (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and request WP:SNOWBALL close of this AfD - the original nomination was closed less than 96 hours ago following a 3 week discussion involving 14 editors in which not only a consensus supporting delete failed but even a simply majority couldn't be achieved. This immediate relisting is absolutely not in the spirit of WP:RELIST and has the effect, whether intended or not, of stifling contributions by the creating editor by harassing him with red tape and bureaucracy. (For the record, I was notified by the article creator of this AfD as a courtesy due to the fact I participated in the AfD that closed just 4 days ago, and not as a canvassing action.) It is clearly not acceptable to continuously relist an article day after day in the hope of eventually getting the right mix of editors that a delete consensus can be achieved. This is doubly disturbing as the article's original author, though extremely eloquent, is most likely not a native English speaker and these continuous relistings may have the effect of chasing him away from the English WP by process of sheer exhaustion. As a non English speaker myself, I am concerned with the use of English as a cudgel. BlueSalix (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I didn't see the previous nomination until I'd filed this one. I use WP:TWINKLE to AfD articles. Hence why I didn't mention it in my initial rationale. --Laun chba ller 21:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Can you withdraw your nomination then and I'll make a non-admin close? BlueSalix (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm happy to. How would one go about doing that?--Laun chba ller 23:49, 19 February 2014 (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.