Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smart Inventory Solutions

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Inventory Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I will transclude the discussion from the talk page so that others may comment as well. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC) Talk:Smart Inventory Solutions[reply]

• Delete This is laughable self-promotion laughably low-quality paid promotion (see below). Being listed at LC and Amazon, and almost winning an obscure award, and being published by so-and-so, does not make a book notable, unless for chutzpah. EEng (talk) 02:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This book is not yet influential enough nor has it achieved any technical or historical significance as of the moment. Wikipedia is not a library. PolicarpioM (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, self-promotion, fails WP:GNG. It is not notable for a book to be in a bookshop. Reliable 3rd-party citations are needed; there is barely anything there at the moment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NBOOK - almost passes #4, but one higher education institute is not "multiple". Yunshui 雲水 07:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you misunderstood that criterion. It has a footnote which reads: "This criterion does not include textbooks or reference books written specifically for study in educational programs, but only independent works deemed sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves, such as major works in philosophy, literature, or science." Have mörser, will travel (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I did. Well, that just serves to strengthen my Delete !vote. Thanks for the exposition. Yunshui 雲水 08:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. EEng said it first, and I agree. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all – Thank you for you input. I have been rummaging through other book entries and I am again scratching my head for cohesiveness as I believe this entry should be included in Wikipedia. In other book discussions, editors have noted that all published books should be included (except for vanity press creations). For example: “Wikipedia has a guideline saying that “IMDb, which is more thorough than WP will ever be, is no reason to reject movies, actors, etc. So too with books and Amazon, I think.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Greta_Garbage%27s_Outrageous_Bathroom_Book

Also, this book is technical in nature and very specialized; therefore the standard rules for notability do not apply.

The book has been referenced in an another book on best practice (from a major publishing house)– this is a clear third party citation

Not only is this technical manuscript sold on Amazon, it was also independently reviewed thus providing more of the third-party citations you are looking for. The Amazon reference makes it easy for people to see how others have rate the book.

Monash University, which uses this book, is one of only a handful in the world that runs a Masters program on Maintenance Management – the main subject area where this book is used. The only other that I know for sure is the University of Tennessee, and they use the materials from Monash.

Finally, here is an expanded list of the technical publications that have republished material from this book: • Reliability Magazine • Uptime Magazine • RAMS Asia Magazine • CEO Online • The Maintenance Journal • The Asset Management and Maintenance Journal • The Bangkok Post • Supply Chain Magazine • RCM Newsletter – University of Tennessee • M&E Plant and Maintenance • The National Provisioner • The author also has presented papers at conferences in Europe, Asia, North America and Australia.

This is a specialized publication that has had significant impact in the highly specialized field of spare parts management. I hope you will take these facts into account and approve inclusion. Laura P Wright (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being paid to promote this book? Googling your name suggests that you work in technical PR. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey, you're right! You'd think someone whose "writing in biotechnology, nanotechnology, software, industrial, telecommuncations and other sectors has produced exceptional results for — and accolades from — more than 100 clients" would check out Wikipeida's policies before embarassing her client with this sure-to-be-deleted effort. Maybe all that "communicating advanced concepts to audiences with a nominal knowledge" made her think we'd be hyponotizedby arguments such as, "The book has been reviewed by several independent reviews published at Amazon.com. Note that at one of them is in their top 50 reviewers." I wonder if her humiliated client will pay her bill? EEng (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friends: Yes, that’s me. No, I’m not being paid – that rule is quite clear on Wiki. Otherwise, I would have hidden my name behind a moniker. I simply thought it would be useful to get some experience on the site so I can speak intelligently about it. I have been trying very hard to be polite and understand the rules and am really taken aback by the hostility of at least one person here. (Not you, CS. You were right to ask the question.) Soon, I will try again to go through each point of the WP:GNG And NBook3 and make myself clear on each point. I appreciate those of you who are trying to actually help. lpw 20:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laura P Wright (talk • contribs)

Good try -- "the standard rules for notability do not apply" -- but I'm afraid still no cigar. The rules apply even to your article! Sorry. And quoting someone who claims to be quoting a policy or guideline isn't very convincing -- how about you showing us that guideline/policy yourself, if it exists (which ot my knowledge it doesn't)? So, could you please point to a notability guideline, and pair it with sources which satisfy the points of that guideline? Otherwise, stop wasting our time. EEng (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laura, there are two notability guidelines which apply to books: WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. All you have to do to ensure a keep !vote from any competent editor is provide evidence that the article's subject passes either one of these. There is no need to go trawling through Wikipedia's archives to find statements to the contrary, becuase they will be ignored - simply find a reliable source that shows Smart Inventory Solutions passes one of the two guidelines above, and it's in. Yunshui 雲水 07:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clear-cut Fail of WP:NBOOK. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Apologies for quoting Wikipedia back to you but when I looked at the pages, it seemed that this entry passed both WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Bear with me please and consider the following. 1. The book is published by Industrial Press (a reputable, independent & reliable publisher). 2. There are three independent, non-trivial online citations. 3. The content is referenced and quoted in a book on best practice from another reliable source (McGraw-Hill). 4. The book is used in a university course. 5. There is no original research included (as I understand the Wikipedia definition). Lastly, and I have been waiting for a response in your help section on this, which is why I’m late with this response: 6. The book that is quoted in excerpts in many industry magazines in the form of columns by the author. The content is consistently excerpted from the book. Could those pubs be considered a third-party source? If so, I can provide plenty of them. lpw 23:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laura P Wright (talk • contribs)

You clearly haven't read either of the notability guidelines I linked to above very thouroughly, as you've completely failed to address them.

1. The publisher of the book is irrelevant to either guideline.
2. The number of cititions is also irrelevant to either of the guidelines (although several hundred citations might potentially be evidence for NBOOK3.
3. Per the WP:GNG, we require sources that talk about the subject, rather than just quoting them.
4. Original research, whilst a definte no-no, does't have much bearing on notability.
5. These are not third-party sources as they are written by the book's author. That makes them the very definition of Not Independent - and thus, useless for WP:GNG.

Please read those guidelines again, carefully, and then tell us how the book passes them. All the evidence that I an other editors have encountered so far suggests that it does not. Yunshui 雲水 08:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• comment the only thing that will make for significance are substantial third party reviews. "Appreciative notes on book jackets are not reliable sources. Reviews published by commentators in Google re not reliable sources I(one they reprint from genuine publications are--they will typically be found all the way at the bottom,as they don't pay much attention to them.) Being a widely used textbook is relevant for notability , but is not easy to demonstrate in the absence of specific statements in the technical literature. Being listed in library catalogs or referred to in a few other books is useless for notability. If you have proper reviews, list them--and only them: DGG ( talk ) 13:53, 31 October 2011 (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.