Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top 1000 Scientists: From the Beginning of Time to 2000 AD (second nomination)
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
— User:Iain99, 07:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:USEFUL||WP:INTERESTING||WP:N||WP:V||WP:NPOV||WP:BK (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)