Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrated building and security management

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated building and security management

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like pure WP:OR, lacks any WP:RS, and doesn't appear to be a mainstream searchable term. Is this some sort of essay? — Timneu22 · talk 12:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Delete per nomination. Seems to be an original proposal to create software that will monitor buildings. The article doesn't really create the impression that such software exists yet, and of course the relatively small target market for any such software does not suggest that any such package would ever become a truly notable product: This could be considered as the combination of Physical Security Information Management or PSIM and building automation, which can then all be centralised by a building management software package. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect This topic is already covered by Building automation. I suggest making Integrated building system, Integrated building management and Integrated building and security management as redirects to it, merging any content not already there. — HowardBGolden (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Textbook case of WP:SYN. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the first time I've seen a wikipedia article (or anything really) with only 19 sources in the google result!! Definitely non-notable nor worth the effort of a redirect. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, concur with Sailsbystars, there's nothing here to merge. A personal comment, it's ironic that we're talking about this after stuxnet, speaking as someone who manages a small scale security system for a couple of buildings, the last thing I'd want is those system integrated with the SCADA systems controlling and monitoring the rest of the building's infrastructure. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.