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. No evidence of notability, via significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, has been presented during this discussion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Internal Flow Systems[edit]

Internal Flow Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No indication that this books meets the notability guidelines at WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. VQuakr (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This book meets the academic text notability guidelines, it is has been cited over 700 times in academic technical papers and journals concerning computational fluid dynamics. See: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=3936623940154882623&as_sdt=4005&sciodt=0,6&hl=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by MentorMAD (talk • contribs) 09:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MentorMAD: the number of citations is not one of the criteria at WP:NBOOK. What has been published about this book? VQuakr (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuark: Usually by nature a technical paper citation is a discussion "about" the book. In effect it is referencing the book in the text as a source for the discussion that they are developing. Internal Flow Systems is widely used in fluid flow testing laboratories. The textbook has also been integrated into undergraduate fluid flow lecture courses, including "Introduction to Fluid Mechanics" by Professor Juniper at Cambridge University, UK. (http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~mpj1001/learnfluidmechanics.org/LFM_L0.html) - (http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~mpj1001/learnfluidmechanics.org/LFM_blank_notes/handout_6_v5.pdf). He cites it as..."an excellent source of practical information on internal flow" for one dimensional pipe flow. Could you also please clarify, in quantitative terms, what is meant by, "how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media", in the context of niche technical books? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MentorMAD (talk • contribs) 09:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Summary of article: Bibliographic details, contents, author-published memoir, and section "Uses" which tells us that students read the book to learn what it says. There really is nothing here except a book advert. Imaginatorium (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Imaginatorium, Could the same be said for Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry%27s_Chemical_Engineers%27_Handbook? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristinalaw (talk • contribs) 11:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC) previously edited this discussion under the user name MentorMAD[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. But that article cites a review (which is by definition written about the book), so it definitely is in better shape than the article currently under discussion. VQuakr (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the guidelines for Academic texts on Wikipedia, ^[1], this text meets the criteria for notability in the guidelines. The guidelines stipulate citations not reviews as being required, as previously mentioned it is taught at Cambridge University as well as used as required reading for the course, the aforementioned course leader comments: "an excellent source of practical information on internal flow" for one dimensional pipe flow." Finally it has been widely cited (over 700 times) in published engineering journals and academic whitepapers, and is in it's third edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristinalaw (talk • contribs) 16:04, 2 March 2017 (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.