Deletion of Top 1000 Scientists: From the Beginning of Time to 2000 AD (second nomination)

Comment: The book is not notable per  because it has received very little public notice. I have only found one review, and that one was only nine sentences long. Furthermore, even though the author apparently gave permission for his list to be included in Wikipedia, I would recommend against keeping the list even if the article is kept. Including the list would seem to give undue weight to the author's opinions, some of which are apparently idiosyncratic as can be seen by the prominent scientists who were omitted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK)

Comment: Would someone please put this article/AfD out of its misery. No new points have been made for days. This is like a washing machine: a pile of |socks going round in circles. I hope the closing admin pays more attention than some folk here and notices that this is a book AfD, not a list AfD. Most of the Keep comments have been Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vr|made by the same person
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (WP:SOCK)

Comment: This article about a non-notable book by a non-notable author gives vastly undue weight to the opinions of that author. The title of the article gives the impression that this is Wikipedia's list of the 1000 greatest, rather than an article about one random guy's favorite 1000. The book author did not include the fathers of scientific psychology, Wilhelm Wundt, Gustav Fechner and William James, along with the proponent of operant conditioning B.F. Skinner. He left out physicist Gustav Kirchhoff who pioneered the concept of black body radiation as well as his current and voltage laws which allow analysis of electric circuits. He left out Joseph Henry who was the co-discoverer of electrical induction. He left out Heinrich Hertz who proved the existence of electromagnetic waves. He included many lesser lights. He included industrialist/inventors George Westinghouse , Thomas Edison , and Joseph Swan , whose actual scientific contributions were minor. Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: If you want the list to stay, prove the book is |notable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Sigh. I see it's been dealt with, but just to reiterate; it matters not one whit whether or not Einstein and Paul Dirac|Dirac were added to the Indian edition; if they were (as seems likely), all this would do is further establish that this is a subjective list which can be changed on the whim of the author, not the result of an authoritative, one-off survey. Even in the Indian edition, the author (whoever he was) has omitted Christiaan Huygens, Edward Jenner, August Kekulé, Robert Hooke and Ronald Fisher in favour of John Sibthorp, James Walker (chemist), Thomas Melvill and some other rather odd names. Regardless, the primary reason for deleting this article is that the book has no |notability. A secondary reason is that with or without Einstein and Dirac, calling this list The Top 1000 Scientists of All Time is inherently ridiculous, and giving it prominence makes Wikipedia look silly
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: the subject of the article is the book.  and that book does not meet our notability requirement.  That it serves as a |useful source for expanding our coverage of scientists is not relevant to its notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:USEFUL)

Comment: Perhaps with hindsight I shouldn't have put quite so much emphasis on the book's many deficiencies in my nomination statement, but last time round a number of excellent contributors argued that the list was useful or important in itself; and out of respect to them I wanted to address these arguments directly, rather than give them links to  or , which I could have just as easily done. But since we're on the subject, I'll happily concede that Einstein was probably added to the Indian edition - after all, he's on the cover, and even a poor publisher would check that people on the cover photo were actually in the book. So the list as originally written was sourced to the Indian edition. But I could find only find two discrepancies between my edition and the original list; and Einstein is only the most glaring of many glaring omissions: according to the original list and thus the Indian edition, James Walker (chemist) and Thomas Melvill are still more important figures in the history of science than August Kekulé, Werner Heisenberg or Carl Friedrich Gauss. I didn't call the book a "turd" - Delhite's confusing me with Colin there - and I have no particular opinion on the merits of Orient Longman because it really doesn't matter - even good publishers publish non-notable books, and the bottom line is that this is a non-notable book. The article fails , , POV and , so even if it were a brilliant book, there would be no reason for it to be kept
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:USEFUL||WP:INTERESTING||WP:N||WP:V||WP:NPOV||WP:BK)