Talk:List of scientific constants named after people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


A Should be have somewere a list of units named after people? After all, a unit is also a constant. And so the partisans of Tesla (and Volt, Ampere, Coulomb) will be happy

A unit is not a constant. A constant is a number/value; a unit is a representation of measure of a number/value. Scientific units named after people exists by the way. Jay 05:32, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Regarding the proposed deletion of this page for lack of notability, I turned up a study of eponymous constants (and other eponyms) and their influence on scientific citations:

"Non-indexed eponymal citedness (NIEC): first fact-finding examination of a phenomenon of scientific literature." Endre Száva-Kováts. Journal of Information Science, 1994 20:55 doi:10.1177/016555159402000107

This is only one article, and it's not exclusively about eponymous constants, but I think it provides enough basis that the list could meet WP:LISTN that deleting it should be debated at WP:AfD if anyone cares to nominate it. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 12:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you actually have access to that? As far as I can tell by the abstract, it hardly (if at all) relates to eponymous constants, but rather is more about the Ortega hypothesis and citations. 786b6364 (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I have access to the article, and yes, it is mainly about citations. It does not establish that the present list is notable, but I thought it provided enough evidence that it shouldn't be {{prod}}ded. If you're curious, the article addresses the major premise in the argument against the Ortega hypothesis: that citation counts fairly reflect the importance of scientific contributions. It presents the results of a study of eponyms in scientific literature. The result is that usually when a journal paper refers to a unit, constant, technique, device, etc. that is named after a scientist (an "eponym"), that paper will not cite the person who is the namesake of the unit, constant, technique, etc. Early papers cite it more; later papers cite it less. If you'd like to trigger a more thorough search for citations to establish notability of the present list, and possibly see this list deleted, you can nominate it for deletion. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response. While I don't want to delete it out of hand, I am at least going to retag it with {{Notability|Lists}}, as has been done with many similar lists (see here). If nothing gets done about it, then it might well be sensible to nominate this (and/or the others) at AfD. 786b6364 (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the list, and while it certainly isn't anything special, I'd hate to see it disappear. My guess is that outside of Wikipedia, there are few - if any - places on the Web one could find such a list. And unfortunately, I doubt that anyone has put any effort into researching and/or publishing a list of eponymous constants either. While more developed, no one seems to have a problem with List of scientific units named after people. Also, the page in question is linked to in Eponym#List of eponyms. While the topic itself may not be notable, the article's content is. I think the list should be kept. Ckalnmals (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)