![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 15 July 2013. The result of the discussion was snow keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A plea to the various contributors who have not learnt the idea of an encyclopedia - just state the basic facts, without going on about how wonderful and famous the relevant people might be. It looks like an advertising plug, and in fact tends to make one think that the person referred to is a cheap self-plugger with a sycophantic student, no matter what the truth might be, especially if the English is terrible. HE IS THE BEST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.105.122 ( talk) 06:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The article needs to follow the convention of List of Russian scientists with each entry mentioning with secondary reliable sources why the subject is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solomon7968 ( talk • contribs)
I am very glad to see this page. Thanks. -- Abhijeet Safai ( talk) 04:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest to run a Wikidata query and add the missing information in this article. I will try to do it myself as I will get time, but sharing this idea with interested editors so they can contribute in their time if they like this idea. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai ( talk) 06:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Or so it seems to me. I'm surprised by the comment of Abhijeet Safai above. By contrast, I find the page, as it is now, utterly pointless. It doesn't help me in any way that Category:Indian scientists does not. It's not sorted by specialty, by period, or in any other way. Sorting aside, it's uninformative. Abhijeet Safai (or anyone): How do you find this list more interesting/educational/useful/etc than Category:Indian scientists? Or, if you concede that it's currently pointless but could be improved so that it would have a point, how do you propose to improve it?
(I should confess that I find many Wikipedia lists of people, and perhaps most of them, pointless at best. [At worst, they're just an opportunity to increase the prominence of people who are barely noteworthy.] I did recently put a lot of time and energy into improving one: List of street photographers. However, I'm not entirely sure that even this was worthwhile.) -- Hoary ( talk) 07:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I am happy 171.76.84.253 ( talk) 07:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 15 July 2013. The result of the discussion was snow keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A plea to the various contributors who have not learnt the idea of an encyclopedia - just state the basic facts, without going on about how wonderful and famous the relevant people might be. It looks like an advertising plug, and in fact tends to make one think that the person referred to is a cheap self-plugger with a sycophantic student, no matter what the truth might be, especially if the English is terrible. HE IS THE BEST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.105.122 ( talk) 06:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The article needs to follow the convention of List of Russian scientists with each entry mentioning with secondary reliable sources why the subject is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solomon7968 ( talk • contribs)
I am very glad to see this page. Thanks. -- Abhijeet Safai ( talk) 04:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest to run a Wikidata query and add the missing information in this article. I will try to do it myself as I will get time, but sharing this idea with interested editors so they can contribute in their time if they like this idea. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai ( talk) 06:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Or so it seems to me. I'm surprised by the comment of Abhijeet Safai above. By contrast, I find the page, as it is now, utterly pointless. It doesn't help me in any way that Category:Indian scientists does not. It's not sorted by specialty, by period, or in any other way. Sorting aside, it's uninformative. Abhijeet Safai (or anyone): How do you find this list more interesting/educational/useful/etc than Category:Indian scientists? Or, if you concede that it's currently pointless but could be improved so that it would have a point, how do you propose to improve it?
(I should confess that I find many Wikipedia lists of people, and perhaps most of them, pointless at best. [At worst, they're just an opportunity to increase the prominence of people who are barely noteworthy.] I did recently put a lot of time and energy into improving one: List of street photographers. However, I'm not entirely sure that even this was worthwhile.) -- Hoary ( talk) 07:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I am happy 171.76.84.253 ( talk) 07:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)