Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History


 * 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 redirect to Michael H. Hart.  MBisanz  talk 01:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A list of influential people written by someone whose views are not provably significant, sources are primary, unreliable or not independent. There is no credible evidence presented that this book is in any way significant. The fact that it is largely nonsense with white supremacist overtones is incidental to the fact that it appears to be insignificant. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete by WP policy on books since there is no real secondary coverage provided. But don't delete by "I don't like it" or keep by "other stuff exists", which both apply.  Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A redirect Merge to Michael H. Hart makes sense. The articles pretty much duplicate each other.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect and transfer to Michael H. Hart article. A couple of years ago I renamed this article from "The 100" which was even more misleading. But there are 8 more items in that disambiguation list which are more or less as insignificant. His article claims there are 500,000 copies sold (uncited) though a Barnes & Noble site says 60,000 which I find more plausible. The main reason for controversy seems to be ranking Mohammed as No. 1, which does not in itself suggest white supremacy. That did I believe generate plenty of comment at the time. Chris55 (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The 60,000 number was printed on the back cover of the 1992 edition. Presumably the sales total increased with the new edition and the last 23 years.  Dragons flight (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 7 times for a reprint? Seems highly unlikely to me. All I can see is that Hart is a good publicist. (60,000 is a significant number and there have been translations.) Chris55 (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability doesn't hinge on the number of copies sold, the number of times it was reprinted (which is only a reflection of print run size), or number of translations. Mnnlaxer (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. "The 100 is probably the best known ranking of historic figures by influence.  It has sold more than half a million copies since the first edition in 1978."  .  If either of those sentences is true, it should be an obvious keep.  I would also note that Google Scholar turns up 200+ academic citations to this book, though mostly for the anecdotal value.  Given that we are talking about a book whose "recent" version is 20 years old and whose original version is nearly 40 years old, I'm not surprised that it is hard to find quality reviews of it.  However searching for "Michael H. Hart" + "The 100" does show 170,000 hits on Google .  I suspect digging in their would find usable references, though most of the first hits are either trying to sell the book or blogs that wouldn't necessarily qualify as RS.  Ultimately though, I do think this book has had a significant impact as a work of non-fiction, and is deserving of an article.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a big "if" which requires verifying, and no one seems to be able to do that. The quote comes from Who's Bigger? and the authors of that book provide no citation and aren't necessarily a RS themselves. In fact, they have an incentive to puff their competition in the genre to look better/more important/bigger than "The 100." And what about "known ranking of historic figures by influence"? Is that a crowded field? Doesn't look like it, although it looks like Hart spawned a cottage industry of Christmas present books. Did you look at any of the Google Scholar citations? It is not supposed to be used as a hit counter, but a resource to find RS dealing with the article's subject in depth. How could "Autism and creativity: is there a link between autism in men and exceptional ability?" have anything to do with Hart's book? Has anyone created WP:GOOGLESCHOLAR yet? It would be better to have usable references and a verified significant impact right now, rather than your suspicions and thoughts. Sorry if this seems harsh, but there is no there here. Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did look at some of the Google Scholar hits. The ones I checked tended to be using Hart's work as a source for some small factoid.  For example in "Population Size and Civil Conflict Risk: Is there a causal link?" (Economic Journal, 2010), Hart's book is cited to establish that Thomas Malthus, one of the 100, "ignited a fierce debate in the circles of policy makers concerning the necessity for population control and the benefits derived from government-led poverty relief programmes".  In The strategic teacher: Selecting the right research-based strategy for every lesson, an example lesson plan is discussed wherein student's are provided with Hart's ranking criteria, asked to think critically about it, and then propose their our ranking criteria.  In Spinal Cord Injury—Past, Present, and Future (J. Spinal Cord Medicine, 2007), Hart is cited for "In the field of microbiology, Louis Pasteur (1832–1895) advanced our knowledge of sterilization as well as the 'germ theory' in general".  In "Daoistic Humanism In Ancient China: Broadening Personality And Counseling Theories In The 21st Century" (J. Humanistic Psychology, 2003), Hart is credited with stating that Laozi's "book, Dao De Jing ... has been regarded as one of the best philosophical books in human history".


 * I've looked at less than 5% of the hits but most of what I did look at seem to be of a similar anecdotal flavor in that Hart's book is cited to establish some brief anecdote or detail. If there are references in there discussing his work in detail, I haven't stumbled across them.  That said, hundreds of citations (even if they are often anecdotal) is still evidence of an impact.  Dragons flight (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that work. I've run into this Google Scholar argument before, I wasn't kidding about creating an essay for that shortcut. The best I could find was the academic journal notability essay, but it gets at the point. Notability (academic journals) #4 "the presence or absence of references in Google Scholar should not be used to determine notability. At best, it is a starting point." But going back to the main point, the book notability guideline explicitly (although in a note) says "The 'subject' of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book." The 100 is perfect for mere mention and almost useless for anything more substantial. What would be the point of covering the book in depth? Beyond books sold, what impact could it even theoretically have ? Mnnlaxer (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to Michael H. Hart. I believe that this book is notable, but not terribly so. The article on the book is currently about 6k; the article on the author is about the same. Combine them and eliminate any redundancy caused by that, and we'll have a nice little article on an author and his signature accomplishment. bd2412  T 20:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per . The book's sales and long-time popularity more than justify an article.  WP:NBOOK criteria 1 is easily satisfied by the published references and reviews.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What published references and reviews? Can you link to two sources another (I'll grant Who's Bigger, even though Hart's book is little more than a foil in it) which satisfies #1: "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." and note 1: "The 'subject' of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment." Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. One reason I like merge is that now this article is marred by the opening sentence which warns the readers that the author is a white supremacist. It's kind of like saying: "Here's a book, but don't read it." Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Technically white separatist rather than white supremacist, though that may be a distinction that makes little practical difference. The line about the author being a white separatist was very recently added, and one could argue whether or not it really belongs there.  Personally, I actually think the context is interesting, but maybe there is a better way to mention it?  Dragons flight (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's one reason I suggested merging the articles. The other article starts out:  "Michael H. Hart (born April 28, 1932) is an American astrophysicist and author, most notably of The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History.  He has described himself as a white separatist and is active in white separatist causes."  If this article is kept then there should be an "About the author" paragraph where the info is given.  But then we would have two mostly identical articles, not that that is against policy. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to Michael H. Hart. I don't think any of the material currently in the article is notable and some isn't even about the book itself. I can't find any significant coverage of the book beyond Who's Bigger?, and that only devotes four pages to the book. Mnnlaxer (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 12:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This book is notable in the middle east, middle eastern media heavily reported on the fact that Muhammad was number one, they were also bewildered a Jewish person put him there, although these details are largely unnoteworthy it appears not so to the media. GuzzyG (talk) 03:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you point to some of the more prominent sources for this being noticed in the media? Most of the potential sources I found that were from the middle east were certain Islamic "evangelists" who did not look like they were particularly representative of Islamic thought, in no small part because they adopted a particular form of apologia that is a bit heterodox (i.e. using sources other than the Qu'ran or the Hadith to prove their religious points). jps (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * yeah you're right, i think i jumped the gun, although i do think it's incredibly funny we used this book to judge what bios were considered core and to go into our vital article lists but it's not notable enough for a article. GuzzyG (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So are you changing your keep !vote? - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 12:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to Michael H. Hart. The notability of the book, if any, seems to be difficult to distinguish from that of the author.  Sandstein   07:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Possibly merge Hart into here--the book is the more notable. A work widely used by academics is notable, and that's what the GS data shows. That they use it for minor factors rather than extended discussion is irrelevant0-if anything, the fact that theyconsider it worth mentioning for minor facts shows in to be widely known.  DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you see my comments on using Google Scholar for notability above? They start "Thanks for that work." - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 12:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.