Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top 100 historical figures of Wikipedia


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Top 100 historical figures of Wikipedia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:EVENT that does not pass our notability guidelines. Appears to me to be only two papers which had somewhat peculiar results picked up in a few newspapers, but lacks the notability we would require for important papers or scientific studies. The papers themselves are simply one-off rankings according to a particular algorithm and would be different if run today, obviously. No objection to including some commentary on the papers in Wikipedia space. jps (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

*Delete. First made aware of this article over at WP:FTN recently, so uninvolved in this. My argument for delete revolves around only one secondary source even giving a hardly passing mention of the book here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually,, while this AfD is a spin-off of the The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History which I also believe to likely be of questionable notability, this article is about a different subject. I'm not sure what's with the proliferation of such articles, to be honest. jps (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sneaky article titles indeed. I'll strike my comment for now and maybe check back on this specific article in a bit. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Oy vey. Somebody comes up with a cockamamie synthesis of rankings (George W. Bush listed first and second in two component rankings???) and has it published. That comes nowhere close to notability, just to ridicule. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Is there anywhere we can put stuff about Wikipedia that is not in article space? It would be handy to keep track of what people are writing about Wikipedia somewhere in the Wikipedia pages, but this article does not belong in the encyclopaedic part.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Andreas, if the study is notable it could be mentioned at Academic studies about Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete All-but-worthless study, heavily tainted by WP:Recentism and likely to change from year to year. Not deserving of an article here. --MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. Although the study is promoted as identifying "the most influential people in 35 centuries of human history", here's how random its results are: "Depending on the ranking algorithm these guys use, the most influential figure in human history is either Carl Linnaeus, the 18th century Swedish botanist who developed the modern naming scheme for plants and animals, followed by Jesus; or Adolf Hitler followed by Michael Jackson." --MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete This ranking is not a reliable one to rank importance of people. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite) 10:53, 30 June 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.