Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael H. Hart

Old discussion from VfD

Discussion concluded and article kept on June 1, 2004

Michael H. Hart

Possible auto-promo article only edited once linking to a strange book entitled The 100 (Book), that (my second claim) is ranking persons by influence and gives Muhammad the first... Would remove both pages... gbog 03:31, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Hart's written at least two books that I've read. And his book "The 100" inspired an entire series of similar books. MK 06:44, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, seems OK, mildly interesting ping 08:06, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, I am the guy who put up both pages, and while we have the same first name, I am not Michael H. Hart. I think that his list makes an excellent starting point for someone interested in history. While I am not a muslim, I am not sure why you would say the book should be removed just because it puts Muhammad first. --Michael L. Kaufman 21:31, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, maybe it's my personnal taste but I don't like much articles containing only lists of links and would (if I were the Big Boss) progressively remove all of them, replacing them by thematic boxes. I especially don't like lists of persons, because it's very hard to reach NPOV (in a list of great philosophers, or a list of great singers, for example). So this list of the Most Influencial Persons, even if the statement itself is NPOV (Hart says that...), hurts a little bit my feelings on what is neutral and what is not, what is encyclopedic and what is not (this is awfully debatable, I know). Imho and afaik, Hart's work should be mentionned in an article about ranking influencial figures, but I doubt it deserves a full article. (I have to say that, as my knowledge on this topic is shallow, my opinion is subject to change and you may convince me). I would also like to ask you if you'd let my remove the link on Hart's work in Confucius, until a larger development of Hart's article says something about Confucius ? gbog 04:46, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
  • I am just the opposite. I really enjoy lists of links. To me they are a way of jumping off in semi-random directions to learn new and interesting things. Hart has written a book that has a had a (fairly) large impact on the publishing industry, and is IMHO deserving of a page. And since wiki_is_not_paper why not include the list as well. I guess you can remove the reference if you like, but the book had some interesting things to say about Confucius which you will be hiding from people if you remove it. Michael L. Kaufman 05:12, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd like to know more about this large impact on publishing industry. I fully respect your enjoyment of lists but I feel the need to underline that, even if Wikipedia is not paper, it's still supposed to be an encyclopedia, I guess. The List of countries is very usefull but things like List of people by belief, List of people, List of agnostics and many others (where I could include many many people, even myself) seems to be useless and pure nonsense (to me, at least).
  • I (more or less) agree with you on the generic ones, but I find many of the ones that have some thought put into them are quite interesting. Many people enjoy readings lists of things. Thats why books series like "The People's Almanac" are so popular. The WIkipedia is even better IMHO, because you can have the lists, and the context for them. Why do you care so strongly? Can't you just ignore the pages of lists?

As far as Hart's impact, if you go to Amazon, you can find dozens of books written since Harts called "The 100 most influential [XXX]". If you read these (I have read perhaps a half dozen) most of them credit Hart for the idea.

• Leaving aside the question of importance, there may be a copyright issue. Isn't the editorial content of selecting and arranging certain items for a list like this protected by copyright? Hopefully, someone who knows copyright law better than me can clarify this. MK 22:59, 29 May 2004 (UTC)