Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian polymaths

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 delete. postdlf (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italian polymaths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have been called a polymath Dweller (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The previous AFD determined the inherent difficulties in a list of polymaths, whether or not those are subdivided by nationality (itself somewhat contentious, especially for historical figures). The frequent peacock descriptions in the current content ("true polymath", " true Renaissance woman", "outstanding", "ardent disciple", etc.) do nothing to assuage my concerns. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (intone) @ 20:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (consult) @ 20:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This one's easier to swallow than the list of geniuses as the criterion is much better defined: being outstanding in several different fields. Possibly it may need to be pruned, but that's not a reason for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per prior Afd decision. I spit out my old lvote: ptui. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Concur with the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have been called a polymath. I don't see "outstanding" and "fields" as clear terms such that we can articulate a clear inclusion criteria. Who determines what an "outstanding" contribution is? Editors? Or do we fall back on "list of people who have been called a polymath" or "...whose work has been called outstanding in multiple fields"? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Lists are a major component of Wikipedia's navigation system. The List of Italian polymaths is primarily a navigation aid. It helps readers who are looking for examples of polymaths on Wikipedia. No list, no aid. We should provide something rather than nothing, otherwise we just have a blatant gap in the navigation system. Let the editors work through the subjectivity problem. Wikipedians are a smart bunch. The Transhumanist 09:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  TT, the main article on Polymaths was deemed irredeemable, because of inherent problems of verification over the label "polymath". You've not addressed that argument. The term is just used too loosely, to mean too many things. --Dweller (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2015 (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.