Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people by reported SAT score

List of people by reported SAT score

List of people by reported SAT score was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete.

This survived VfD on 5 September, 2004. It has not been substantially improved since then, particularly in the area of verifiability. The article contains its own deletion justification, namely "many of these scores are unverified." A correct statement would be that none of them are verified, since there no citations at all. On examining the discussion it seems to me that many of the votes against deletion are highly qualified, some feeling it should be kept only if verified and many feeling that the verifiable information should be merged into SAT. There are indications in this edit history that this page attracts prank and borderline-vandalism edits. I think it's appropriate to reconsider this. The previous VfD discussion appears below. My own vote is delete. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:22, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

BEGIN NEW DISCUSSION HERE

Delete. Unverifiable and un-expandable beyond a couple dozen entries. --Gene s 14:43, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not a suitable subject. Scores are confidential, this list is based on the Time magazine article referenced, which lists ten people and says Here's how some famous folks told us they did on their SATs. Arguably both original research and a copyvio as is, and if expanded by asking more people it would then certainly be original research. Andrewa 16:40, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. —tregoweth 16:43, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Houshuang 18:24, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Conditional delete. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 18:58, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete: DCEdwards1966 19:19, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
Delete'. Unverifiable and unmaintainable. Jayjg 19:35, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete - it's either unverifiable, or it's incredibly invasive. Cdc 00:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete on general principle that all these idiot lists make Wikipedia look like a nest of wankers. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 01:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete - points already made above (and below, for that matter) -- Cyrius|✎ 06:49, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete, for the same reason other lists of this type have been deleted: it's totally unverifiable. Shane King 06:57, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
Delete - even if someone's score can be verified, it should part of the article about that person, with a link to SAT - Skysmith 08:54, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep, and let every self-important 17-year-old put himself on the list, too, right after he writes an article on his high school. Just kidding. Delete. EventHorizon 04:03, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Edeans 06:54, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Previous discussion

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was

Delete. Not at all encyclopedic; the information is not even verifiable. Do we really need this? Quandaryus 04:27, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect to SAT. The information is verifiable from the Time Magazine article the information came from, but it doesn't need to be in a separate article. Kevyn 05:20, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This information is encyclopedic, but unless this list gets considerably longer it would be better to merge it into SAT - SimonP 05:35, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
- I don't buy that it's actually encyclopedic. We might as well have a page called List of celebrities by reported number of affairs -- the information would serve just as much purpose as an encyclopedia article. Quandaryus 20:35, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: I don't think we need it. Seems to me that it is wide open for everyone to come along and add his or her own scores, and there is nothing encyclopedic about this. Let this much information be added to SAT, if desperately needed. Geogre 13:08, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect, qv --Merovingian✍Talk 22:29, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
Isn't a compilation of facts like this copyrightable? RickK 23:15, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Possibly, but I don't think that would apply in this case - the Time magazine article had more names & scores than the author of this article referenced, so it's probably substantial enough of a change to the compilation that copyright would no longer apply. Assuming this survives the VfD debate, someone could also add names & scores not in the Time magazine article (if they could be obtained), changing the compilation even further. Of course, I sincerely doubt Time would ever come after Wikipedia for the list, so this is really all just hypothetical. Kevyn 00:53, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete - I don't buy that this is verifiable (in any reasonable sense of the word). -- Cyrius|✎ 04:27, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete - According to the page that the article links to, the scores are "how some famous folks told us they did on their SATs." So any of them could have just lied...so it doesn't look verifiable at all. And anyways I agree that it doesn't have a place as an encyclopedia article. — Braaropolis | Talk 02:40, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Most of it is verifiable. anthony (see warning) 14:21, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If this list is verifiable and can and will be expanded, then keep. If the article remains as is, then merge and redirect. Aecis 22:42, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
100% agree with Aecis. --Lst 27 22:46, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is kinda tricky. There are many other list of people... articles which only feature atleast somewhat notable people, as does this one. So its not like there isn't a precedent for not letting random people be added to this list. This seems to be inline with the rest of its type, so keep it if there is a way of expanding this article with verfiable data. --Aqua 04:10, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.