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The result was Withdrawn, as article has improved beyond NN/linkspam stub. – Avi 16:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable, as per Mega, Giga, etc. Avi 20:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

+ Keep The Prometheus Society is very active and quite notable. We and the Mega Society are the oldest societies selecting for intelligence at anywhere near this level, and are arguably the only established ones. Prometheus produced a hundred-page research paper evaluating all available IQ tests and setting norms at the four-sigma level. This scholarly paper is the only work of its kind in existence. http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/MCReport/mcreport.html Prometheus publishes a monthly magazine that is 72 pages long and contains various research and scholarly articles, along with works of fiction and poetry. Some of our most noteworthy articles, including perhaps the first appearance of a theory of how man evolved that has received some acceptance, can be read at http://www.prometheussociety.org/articles/index.html Promking 21:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no gnews hits, at most one plausible scholar hits (Journal of Irreproducible Results) and no gbooks hits dealing with the society (well, not unless Ken Hudnall's Manhattan Conspiracy III: Angel of Death is factual, and I'm pretty sure that's not the case). The raw ghits include a fair number (20% or so) for the "Prometheus Society of Slovakia" which is something different. Doesn't come close to meeting WP:ORG that I can see and verifiability again limited to being a paraphrase of (actually a quote from) the group's website. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheus Society is mentioned in "The Know-it-all", a book published by Simon & Schuster in 2004, which was widely reviewed, as I recall. http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0743250605&id=lveguMcFrokC&pg=PA243&lpg=PA243&dq=%22prometheus+society%22&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=IhkW8XKtUsVh5K-bxdcpWCykR2s It also has over 250 hits on Google Groups, which is important for any assessment of verifiability since it's harder to skew than the main Google. Finally, it's mentioned in a recent article in the Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?article=2813798Promking 16:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Angus makes quite the case for killing this article, and I'm with him. The fact that pretty much all of the content is from the society's web site doesn't help its cause. If more notability (i.e. mentions from outside sources) can't be found, the article shouldn't be found on WP. -- Kicking222 22:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Utterly irrelevant. Notability is actually NOT a criteria for deletion, as per Wiki deletion policy. Bringing it up as reason for deletion demonstrates only bad will on the part of whoever suggests such a deletion. Everyone can easily see: Wikipedia deletion policy that notability plays no part whatsover in determining the status of the article. No talk beyond that is necessary.StevanMD 23:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:NN is worth reading, as is WP:ORG. WP:V is good as well. WP:NPOV is fun. WP:ADS I like. WP:VSCA trips off the tongue. Walled garden is informative. There's so much to read on deletion policy and how it works in practice. I know what deletion polocy says, but have you read WP:CSD (A7 in particular) or had a look at WP:PROD ? Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia, it's not a reliable source. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment So then. It says many different things, and people end up quoting those they most like or are best suited to them, yet deletions do go on based on some mystical, elusive interpretations of conflicting stated rules. How very nice and serious for an encyclopeadia (as I've already observed before). People who spend time on such projects certainly have no value either for their input or for their time or both. Have fun.StevanMD 23:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment StevanMD, first off, obviously has a biased view, as his userpage states that he is a member of this society. Second of all, I would like to remind said user, in addition to the many pages Angus listed, of WP:NPA. Me voting delete on a page in which you have a vested interest is not a personal attack against you, nor should you take it as such. You telling me that I voted in bad will and that my opinions do not matter is a personal attack against me. -- Kicking222 00:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment For Heaven's sake, if you could keep to the arguments instead of personal derogations. If a person claims certain reasons for his actions as part of the set of rules and then we see even by his own admission that the rules are not exactly precisely set, but he still adheres to his view, albeit not consistently, as he picks the articles to which to apply *his* set of rules among myriads of articles otherwise equally notable and verifiable, then that is argument and it's an argument that clearly suggests bias. Additional problem is that no firm set of rules guides a supposedly serious encyclopaedic project, so it's subject to most anyone's whims, which makes it very unserious instead. StevanMD 00:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - without commenting on this article and its status here--at least not at this time, as I haven't looked into it enough yet--I would like to comment that many Wikipedia editors, including myself, see notability standards as an extension of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I think notability issues have a valid place in AfD discussions, and though there are plenty of editors who disagree with this, it's not an uncommon guideline. Please refrain from alleging all such references to notability as "bad will"; assume our good faith and we'll try to do the same for you. -- H·G (^words/_works) 06:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For newcomers to this series of deletion debates I'd like to put this deletion debate in perspective and provide some history. Over the past week, there has been a deletionist attack on several major high IQ societies, and one article has already been deleted. That article concerned a reputable society, established for over 20 years, which has received extensive mainstream media coverage and gets 12 thousand Google hits, the Mega Society. Up for deletion is an article about Ronald Hoeflin, who also has received much media attention and is perhaps the leading psychometrician in the field of high-end psychometrics, and also articles about the Triple Nine Society, among others,and of course the Prometheus Society, which has produced major scholarly articles on high IQ testing.

Here's what I wrote during the Mega Society deletion debate. It's worth printing here because it has implications far beyond the rarefied world of high IQ societies.

This 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 Wikipedia, 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. Wikipedia 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?

Several people have said that they pitied the closing administrator who must decide this case. Instead, I feel envy. This is a great opportunity for him or her to make a contribution to Wikipedia that far exceeds this individual case.My dad was a professor of administrative law and from the time I was a kid he drummed into me three things that make a fair decision under administrative law different from an arbitrary decision by administrative fiat. They are notice, hearing, and (perhaps most important) reasons. NOTICE. As it now stands, the parties affected by a deletion are not told about it. They must learn about it by chance. Yes, these parties may well have a POV. But they are also uniquely qualified to provide relevant information. And uniquely injured by an incorrect deletion. HEARING The deletion procedure does indeed provide a good hearing, provided people are aware of it. Thank you for that. REASONS If the closing admin writes up a short statement of reasons for his or her decision, this will help guide future administrators in future cases. As I understand it, there is no clear policy on notability. It may be applied differently in different cases, and whether or not something is deleted will depend on who the admin is. If reasons are given in this case, they may be used to guide future cases. Not as binding precedent, but for guidance, and, over time Wikilaw will evolve

Some people have told me that Wikipedia works through consensus and not rigid procedure and rules. This may have been possible in the early days but I dont think it is now. Norbert Weiner once wrote that the limit of a small self-governing community where everyone knows each other and can reach consensus is about 100. You cant know every editor and I'm sure not every editor knows about this decision. You might well be a self-organizing system, but if you make a mathematical model of it, you might find that model predicts articles being deleted and then undeleted in an infinite cycle.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Promking (talk • contribs) 22:09, July 23, 2006

I forgot to sign the post above, which I wrote yesterday. And there are two important points I forgot to include. First, much has been made of the fact that we have far fewer members than Mensa. But we are SIX HUNDRED TIMES MORE SELECTIVE than Mensa. Therefore, if we were as notable as Mensa, with its 60 thousand or so members, we would be expected to have a hundred members, and we do.

Second, most Wikipedians are totally unaware of this debate, and of the twenty or so others mounted against similar societies by the same people. Most of the debate participants have expressed a prejudice against IQ groups which, were it voiced against an ethnic group, would be considered racism. Avi, the proposer, said " I also note from my associations with various High-IQ societies that there is often a correlation between their members and an inflated sense of self. Not all of us whom G-d has blessed with IQ's significantly above 150 need to broadcast it to the world and preen. Anyway, innate intelligence is more often a gift (although honed and sharpened by use) and not something we should use to foster a sense of superiority" And Byrgenwulf, who was active in several related deletion debates, posted this on another forum in June: "Personally I've never seen the point of these societies...what do they actually do?I was once coerced by a friend to go with him to try to get into Mensa; we both took the test and qualified for acceptance, but I refused to join, because I don't see the value of wearing my IQ like a badge and getting together with a crowd of geeks (well at least this branch of Mensa seemed to be, I obviously cannot say that all Mensa members are) to solve brain teasers." Does the biases of the proponents matter? Well, would you like a deletion debate on a top hip-hop artist to be decided wholly by classical musicians... or by white racists?Brian Promking 14:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep obvious deletion agenda at work & no harm in keeping regardless SOUTH 15:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. DaturaS 15:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. You'll never get a consensus on this; the guidelines say the default in such circumstances is Keep. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's certainly true that sockpuppetry can produce more keep "votes", but the likes of DavidMCorneille (talk • contribs) below (to pick an egregious example) may be useful at WP:DRV. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepThis is an encyclopedic project. This organization does exist. To delete is an attempt to rewrite history and the current human environment. If the society no longer existed it might make sense to review its inclusion. It does, however, exist, and as much as some persons thinking they have knowlege about the group, contending it is filled with geeks or merit badge holders, have not a clue as to what the membership or guests do there. Lack of understanding others activities is not cause to delete reality. --David M. Corneille

• Promking wrote that I had posted a comment about Mensa in another forum...that is right. However, I should say that I do not appreciate people stalking my activities across the Internet; not that I care overly much, as I often use my real name (like many here -whom I commend), because I am not ashamed of what I do or say online, but stalking someone is nonetheless just plain rude. Promking also asked another question: "Well, would you like a deletion debate on a top hip-hop artist to be decided wholly by classical musicians?"...personally, yes I would! I wouldn't mind a bit if every trace of hip-hop was removed from this planet. But that's my own bigoted opinion. I also couldn't really care too much about IQ societies on the whole (I'm not sure they merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia more than wargames clubs, for example), but have no vendetta against them per se so let me say here that I am neutral. Byrgenwulf 17:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I did something wrong. I wasnt citing your quote to tell people who you are -- though since I have a legal background the idea of anonymous accusers rankles me -- but to tell people what biases you might have. This is, in my opinion, relevant. Even if you are trying to decide the issue rationally and in good faith, as I think you are, it is very hard to escape one's unconscious biases. The amusing thing is that you are *very much like* (in a good way) people in the ultra-high IQ societies.Promking 19:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

“jihad” is a very loaded word in today's day and age. You do us all a disservice by making divisive analogies. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, per se, and definitely not a place to me making ad hominem attacks. I would politely suggest that you familiarize yourself with wikipedia policy before denouncing many of its editors as blind, hate-mongering fanatics. As one who has had family members wounded and disfigured, although thank G-d none dead as of yet, at the hands of those truly practicing jihad, I find your similies personally distasteful, if not downright repugnant. You do all of us blessed with significantly above average G-d given mental acuity a disservice this way; and yes, I count myself as one of those, thank G-d, having documented scores that would put me in that group. In general, I prefer not to discuss that, but I feel it is important that it is known that it is not a matter of jealousy or spite that is my motive here. Unfortunately, the vitriol and vituperance that you bring, with other defenders, leads me to believe that your responses are less measured and logical. Alas, the world is not a fair place, and the free and open exchange of ideas is more utopian than practical. At one point, I would have thought that there would be a direct correlation between innate mental talent and the ability to discuss and debate in a cordial manner. C'est la vie. -- Avi 17:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the instigator of the term Jihad, let me apologise for using it. And I'm sorry for the offence caused. But I also have to point out that raising an AfD against an active society without investigating beforehand is bound to raise hackles and cause friction. Perhaps we've both been equally stupid. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

+ Keep. Excellent points about not using problematic group characterizations (i.e., jihad); thanks. Prometheus, like TNS and ISPE, has a history that likely reaches back some time. Our own Wiki entries on human intelligence show that it's a real, quanitifable, largely heritable entity that's consistently measurable with overwhelming reliability. The admissions standards for Prometheus have been continually upgraded and improved, and particularly in the last seven years they have represented the highest level of what serious psychometric research has endorsed (no take-home test, no Internet based tests, etc.), and these standards are currently being revisited to an eye to both rigor and maximum possible inclusiveness. Prometheus has a journal (available to anyone through subscription, my route of having come to appreciate it, through http://www.prometheussociety.org) that puts the journals of other groups, including Mensa with its glossy but disappointing content, to shame: Gift of Fire contains genuinely interesting and engaging excursions into high-level physics, chess, history, and poetry and fiction published in an attractive 64-page format on a regular basis (usually more than 6 issues per year. M StewartMstewarthm 19:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand that, unless you don't take Wikipedia or its mission very seriously, which is clearly not the case, you are trying to erase our life's work from history? That's bound to ruffle a few feathers. What puzzles me is the inconsistency of Wiki delete actions. For example, any article about any public school in the U.S. is automatically kept, even if it is not at all notable. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spencerport_High_School Promking 19:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - do not equate what is happening here with the obvious organized deletionist attacks on schools as you can see by that link and others what we have to go through. Look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Montreal_West_High_School just today! Capit 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside, I think Mensans as a rule are just as stuck up, arrogant, and at times downright foolish as any other group, and I know what you mean with your comparison to Gift of Fire. Personally, I do not understand how they are not embarrased by some of the claptrap that passes for intellectual discourse in that glossy to which you are referring. Of course, that is solely my opinion. -- Avi 19:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

–±→--May-Tzu 19:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)--May-Tzu 19:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)The President of the Prometheus Society, Fred Britton, was recently interviewed by a reporter from the *Village Voice* for an upcoming article on high intelligence and organizations that provide services for the intellectually gifted. When Richard May was President of the Prometheus Society he was interviewed by Ellen Graham of the *Wall Street Journal* and the Prometheus Society was included in the *Journal* article on high-IQ organizations of 19 April 1992. Recently the founder of the Prometheus Society, Dr. Ronald K. Hoeflin, was extensively interviewed by CNN's Dr. Mittleman for an upcoming cable TV special on high intelligence and its role in the world today. May-Tzu[reply]

Similarly as an aside, I concur in part with Avi's comment above, from personal experience. Among the certifiably very bright people I've known, I find that the brighter they are, the more modest they are (in other words, there's a certain level of smarts that corresponds to a peak of intellectual arrogance: below and above that, it drops off, either from modesty associated with self-knowledge of one's own limitations or from modesty associated with comparing one's perhaps notable intelligence against the obvious possibilities and the accomplishments of true historical geniuses). It may be that occasionally some Mensans are smart enough to get excited about being sometimes the smartest person in a room but not smart enough to realize that there's a vast range of potential human intellectual accomplishment that they're never going to be dipping their big toes into. Mstewarthm128.165.134.32 19:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to clear all of this bickering up, if possible. I know I've made this suggestion before, as well, so sorry if I'm being repetitive. Many people have raised some very good and interesting points on this page, about the nature of IQ societies and people with high IQs and their behaviour. To a large extent, I concur with Avi that not every little society merits an encyclopaedia article. Like him, as well, I know from previous testing that I would get into many of these ultra-high groups if I were so inclined, but for various reasons I see no need to do so. However, seeing the responses these AfDs have generated, I realise that the topic of ultra-high IQ groups is of immense personal import to many people, who feel that these AfDs are an attack on things they hold dear (which I am certain was not the inspiration behind nominating them, but anyway). The current "high IQ society" article is worthless: it's pretty much a list of "this society admits that percentile or x number of standard deviations". Which may be very interesting to some, but is hardly edifying and informative. Why not create an article on high IQ subculture in general? Many points made here, by all of us, shed much light on the phenomenon, and the various angles from which it may be approached. The marked difference in quality between Gift of Fire and Mensa's rag; the politicking; the self-opinion and egoism (or lack of it) of members...there is lots to go on, and would be both interesting to "High IQers" as well as curious people with more "normal" IQs - whom it might help to understand the phenomenon of ultra high IQ better. Material could be taken from, for example, the Hoeflin interview mentioned above, various publications of the IQ societies, and so forth. Just some thoughts. Byrgenwulf 20:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, wonderful suggestion, but first we have to get rid of these ridiculous multiple AfDs flying around. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is an excellent idea. Further, such an article would be able to have, as sub-headings, a brief entry on those societies that are currently not up to Wikipedia standards. Of course, if eventually those sub-entires are properly sourced, fleshed out, and held up against wiki standards, they could then be spun off in their own articles. Articles such as Mensa, Mensa International, Triple Nine (IMO) etc. are already notable enough, but should be mentioned in such a parent article. -- Avi 20:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Byrgenwulf and Avi, even though I do not agree that it makes sense to collapse all the societies into the High IQ Society article, I agree that that article is filled with vanity clubs with entrance tests that could never pass peer review. So why haven't I edited it? Since I'm an officer of the Mega Society, I felt I should abstain from doing so because it would have "bad optics." When the Mega Society AfD was first launched by Jefffire (who I think incorrectly throught he was striking a blow against Chris Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe), I asked him why he had started with the Mega Society. He responded that he would get around to the others, so I dropped the issue. But nothing has been done. Canon 00:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry but unless the current article is radically improved I see no real reason to keep this article. I see no reason why the verifiable parts of the article can't simply go into the High IQ Societies with a redirect. Otherwise Delete. NB can all the pile in voters respect my opinion and not try to argue with me? Spartaz 08:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There seems to be a lot of "pile in" votes in this and other IQ society AFDs. Please can the closing Admin take this into account.

• Keep Let's look at the arguments for deletion: (1) The Society is too small. Order of the Garter has 26 members but correctly has an article. (2) The Society is not important outside of its membership. This could be claimed of many organizations that correctly have articles (e.g., Society of Fellows and National Puzzlers' League), because these organizations clearly have importance through the interaction of their members. (3) The Society is not notable. It has become clear in the course of this discussion that the existence of these high IQ societies is surprising to many people. This alone makes them notable. (4) The article should be merged into the High IQ Society article. The individual societies are quite different, each has its own character, its own journal, and its own history. Merging them together into one article would produce an unintelligible mess, not a clear article. Canon 18:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep some sort of war game Cadwgan Gedrych 20:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I’m Don Stoner, the author of a very controversial book on creationism and a grandson of Peter Stoner. Although I do not meet the rather strict requirements to qualify for membership in the Prometheus society I am not sufficiently vindictive to believe that those who do should not be allowed even as much as a single entry here. I am convinced that the society, is, indeed, every bit as real as it purports to be. Further, its extreme entrance requirements alone are enough to make membership a very notable prize - in fact, enough of a prize to induce a “sour grapes” response from those who can’t meet the requirements. -Don Stoner http://geocities.com/stonerdon/index.html

• Mr Stoner, this is not a "sour grapes" response at all. If you had read the discussion, you would have noticed that two users here, both of whom have nominated a couple of IQ society articles for deletion and voted "delete" on others, could probably join some of these societies if they wanted; these societies tend to have a tiny fraction of the membership they statistically could have, because not all qualifying people belong to them. Please do not leap to hasty judgments on other peoples' character and motivations. No-one is disputing the "reality" of these societies, and the motivation here is not vindictiveness, as has been repeatedly explained. Byrgenwulf 08:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's quite true that No-one is disputing the "reality" of these societies since the Mega Society had a "Hoax" tag raised against it by someone who knew perfectly well that it is was real: an action that is pretty hard to interpret as anything but small-minded "vindictiveness". I'm not disputing your or Avi's honesty and integrity (although I confess I did at the beginning before I spoke more to you both) but we both know there are other people involved (three in particular!) in this who are both far from fair and honest.

I have a suggestion for the Prometheus Society members or other people familiar with its history: add to the article (which doesn't even have a talk page!), flesh it out and make it more "real". Someone mentioned the length of time Gift of Fire has been going -- add it to the article. How many members does it have? What is its relationship to the earlier 4-sigma society? etc etc. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I replaced the "Hoax" tag with a link to one, because having it here actually categorised this as a hoax; while I find that rather ironic, it could lead to no end of confusion! Byrgenwulf 13:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hah!  :-) --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor point, but you appear to have missed "and how could we verify these things" from your list. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly seemed worth pointing out, but Gift of Fire documents many of these facts, along with conventional media exposure. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about spam then ? Regurgitating what the Prometheus Society writes about the Prometheus Society seems rather like free advertising. Angus McLellan (Talk)

So should we ban people of Scots descent from updating articles on Scottish history? --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About verifiability. Our primary -- and most spectacular -- claim is that we select people at the one in thirty thousand level of intelligence, six hundred times more selective than Mensa. We have produced a long, scholarly article examining all reputable intelligence tests, determining which tests are capable of selecting at this high 4-sigma level, and determining what these scores are. http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/MCReport/mcreport.html Surely this is the best verification that we do what we claim to do. After all, when a PhD candidate claims to be worthy of that degree, he is not asked to provide newspaper articles that state he iw worthy. He is instead required to produce a thesis he has written. About expanding the Prometheus article... look at the history. Things are added, and then a few months later someone deletes them. I added the "six hundred times more selective than Mensa" and someone changed it to "six hundred times more gay than Mensa" What's the point of writine for posterity if it's gone in sixty days?Promking 14:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism is not subject to the Three-revert rule; if anonymous vandals become a problem request semiprotection from an admin; non-anons can be blocked for vandalism. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are still a couple of days for this AfD to run. Being the nominator, if I see a good faith effort to turn the article from the current stub/spam/almost copyvio advertising link to something that describes the society including non-"advertisment" descriptions of criteria for membership, interactions with other societies, an example of any peer-reviewed work, mention by mainstream publications, notable members (inclusive-)or notable work products, I will withdraw the nom. With members comprised of four standard deviations from the mean, I am sure that you have someone there capable of putting together something better than what is there now (before y'all undergo collective apoplexy, the last sentence was an example of humor :) ). -- Avi 15:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding vandalism, if the article is kept, there will be many editors with it on their watchlist. You do not need to be an admin to revert vandalism, just call up the previous edit and re-save it (it pays to put “rvv” in the summary for revert vandalism). -- Avi 15:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infact vandalism can be a good thing if it spurs you on to add more useful stuff whilst reverting. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:47, 26 July 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.