Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ten Most Influential People of the Second Millennium

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

World Almanac's Ten Most Influential People of the Second Millennium[edit]

This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. (And, if I may say so, eaagh, what a mess.) —Korath (Talk) 15:59, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Suggestion: Why not hold a open for wikipedia users, list to nominate and vote for Top Ten Most influential people of the second millennium and we can then print a final page to show the results. This can be similar to how BFI does it, http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/index.html
  • Comment: Please do not refactor the list into "delete" and "keep" sections. The context of the comments and rebuttals is as important as the actual votes. Sorting the votes makes the deciding admin's job much harder at the end of the discussion period. Rossami (talk) 02:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not a list of the Ten Most Influential People. . . but rather of people who one man has considered thus--XmarkX 11:29, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is original research. Adraeus 12:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. ...into the article about the chap who came up with the list. Philip 12:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can't be what it claims to be. This kind of list is by nature arbitrary. PRiis 14:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. In terms of what the title claims to be, it inherently cannot achieve NPOV. In terms of what it is, i.e., one journalist's opinion on the ten most notable personages of the last thousand years, it is New Year 2001 ephemera. Shimmin 17:04, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. As interesting as it is, i Keep. Sure, it's just one man's opinion, but now the title has been changed it's encyclopedic Zerbey 14:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV and Anglo-Americo-centric at that. Lincoln and Shakespeare??. An article including a discussion of several such lists made by various people, why they chose the persons they chose, etc. might be interesting. —Gabbe 21:13, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Leave it alone This is a very interesting entry and quite educational! Perhaps the better name would be "Schlesinger's Most Influential ..." so that to leave space for "UK Public's Most Influential ..." and "Time's Most Influential ...". Why delete stuff that inspires so much!!!! To cripple Wikipedia? I would rather delete half of those brainless rock-bands that only pollute this planet with music nobody listens to (entries written by band members themselves). Never enough of Newton, Darwin or Einstein!!! unsigned comment by anon user:194.24.244.5
  • Merge. ...into either the Schlesinger article or the World Almanac article. It is interesting, but on its own it's also POV. BTW, I must note with great satisfaction that both Lincoln and Darwin are on the list. Vincent 07:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. I think it's interesting information, but not enough for a full article. LockeShocke 02:45, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC) (PS: Lincoln above Gutenberg?!)
    • Why not? We would eventually have had printing without Gutenberg, but without Lincoln the USA might not have survived the South's secession. People like Newton and Darwin belong in the list not so much for their discoveries (we would have figured out gravity and natural selection without them) but because their entire body of work has a beauty of its own, much like Michelangelo's or Leonardo's. Frankly, I'm surprised Gutenberg is even mentioned. Vincent 06:17, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • (...and frankly, I'm not surprised why nobody—except the loons—takes you seriously, Vincent...) You cannot state with any degree of reasonable certainty that moveable type would have been invented without Gutenberg. Why? That's purely hypothetical and untestable, and lacks complete rational support much like your ideas that a) the U.S. required Lincoln and b) Lincoln and Darwin's birthday coincidence require mentioning. Apparently, you're just another Sam Spade cronie. Adraeus 07:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • I say, your fondness for me would appear beyond measure, dear Adraeus. I'm not sure I've ever had a more vigorous enthusiast of my fine self. Please keep it up, if your hard work continues I should have more than enough "cronies" to shout down incivility and intellectual dishonesty whenever it rears its ugly head on the wiki. Keep, btw, titles don't have to be NPOV (altho I think the list is utter crap myself ;) Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 14:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)(see my vote below)
      • Actually, I did hear somewhere that other people were working on a printing press before Gutenberg's - there was just something special about his when it came out, or he was the first, or something. (He was the Discovery Channel's Man of the Milennium, if I remember correctly.) But I don't understand how Lincoln changed the world on such a scale as Gutenberg. He prevented an insurrection and gave a nice speech, but it was all just pertinent to this one country. Not to be a cynic. He's a great guy, but I don't think greater than Gutenberg. LockeShocke 16:47, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
        • Gutenberg invented movable type. Henry Ford invented assembly line manufacturing. Henry Ford had far greater influence on humanity than Abraham Lincoln who was merely another political figurehead for the activities executed by those behind the curtains. Most so-called national leaders accomplish little in their lifetime yet they're credited with so much. Lincoln is credited with starting the Civil War. A leader who orders attacks on his own people is considered a great leader? Pfft. Ignorance is the enemy of truth and propaganda is the purveyor of deceit. Adraeus 23:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • Can you say "the Emancipation Proclamation"? Henry Ford having more impact than Lincoln is ridiculous. Gkhan 00:09, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
            • Well, Ford did write "The Eternal Jew" --Tydaj 05:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Arbitrary to say the least. Impossible to name all the flaws such a list would present in any case. For example, it only includes western personalities (being very incomplete and arbitrary even at that!). Also, perhaps national/regonal lists would be more appropriate, though I believe this sort of article could attract unwanted political discussion! livino 14:54, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The title is appropriate and the information is accurate as it is a reprint of someone's opinion. unsigned comment by anon user:206.170.33.162. A user from that same IP later deleted the vote. I am showing it as a strike-thru to preserve tracability. Rossami (talk)
  • Keep. I concur, now that it has been accurately titled (as World Almanac's Ten Most Influential People of the Second Millennium), it's a useful article. I find these lists are kind of fun and thought-provoking, because you can look at them and say "boy, they sure blew it when they listed X about Y, Y clearly was more important". Plus to which if you see someone you don't recognize, it's fun to look them up and see what they did that the lister rates so high. A pefect example is Tsai Lun, often considered one of the half-dozen most important people of all time (and certainly more important than, say, Gutenberg) - I'd have never have known who he was unless I'd seen him in one of these lists. Noel (talk) 22:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree that this list is arbitrary. In my interpretation, the guidelines for pages suggest it should be removed. unsigned comment by anon user:128.172.212.43
  • Keep. Same reasons as above. Gaurav 15:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have the list of The 100 greatest britons, Time most infuential people of 2004, even the greatest dutchmen of all time. Why not have this one? And as for the arguments that the list is arbitrary, 1) thats not the point (what if you wanted to know which people the World Almanac named as the greatest?) and 2) all these lists are arbitrary (Copernicus, really, the ones that made a difference was Newton, Galileo and Kepler). As such, strong keep. Gkhan 00:25, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: At this point in the discussion thread, Korath posted the discussion to VfD.
  • Delete. This list is not notable. Martg76 19:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Arbitrary list, not encyclopedic. Jayjg (talk) 19:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep informative list. Klonimus 23:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Stupid list, highly encyclopedic. Were here to document verifiable POV's, not express absolute truth. If only more people read NPOV... Sam Spade 00:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: This is a second vote by Sam Spade. However, given the confused history of this discussion thread, I believe it was probably an innocent error. Rossami (talk)
      • Hmm, ok. I thought this was a new list of the best. Where are Hitler, Marx and Thomas Jefferson? Or Adam Smith? Where are all the minority and female faces leftist wikis are always screaming about the lack of? Anyhow I struck out my earlier vote, so what say we count this one? And why has the voting gone on for so long, or is this a second vote or what? Sam Spade 06:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful list, even if women and minorities are under represented. I would sooner have a list based on what a person has done rather than the colour of their skin or whats between their legs. Megan1967 07:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree, just making fun of the sexism and reverse racism on the left. Gotta love those double standards, eh? Sam Spade 07:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research Trödel|talk 13:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, inherently POV. Radiant_* 14:16, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, NPOV, and the original research was done by the World Almanac. Also useful for comparison with other similar lists. Kappa 03:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - it has historical importance given the publication source and the millenial event it coincided with. World Almanac has been publishing since 1886 and has high market penetration. Accuracy/fairness are not at issue...it's a reflection of the time by a prominent publisher with a sizeable audience.Tobycat 06:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly not original research but an attributed list. No different from all the other 100 Greatest Xs lists maintained here in terms of unscientificness/POV. Given that Schlesinger knows what he's talking about far more than some dimwit with a mobile phone texting a TV programme I can't fathom why anyone's voting for deletion. adamsan 17:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as long as it's titled properly I don't see what the problem is. Philthecow 19:49, May 1, 2005 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Ten_Most_Influential_People_of_the_Second_Millennium&oldid=1051397443"