Talk:List of scientific constants named after people

Comments
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)

Notability
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

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 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, 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. 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)