Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micro Process Engineering: A Handbook Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Micro_Process_Engineering:_A_Handbook

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 Tim Vickers (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Micro Process Engineering: A Handbook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unclear how this book is notable. The style suggests copyvio, WP:COI and/or advertising issues. Contested PROD.  Sandstein  11:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looks like an advertising brochure, and has no assertion of notability. Not every handbook or textbook is notable; there needs to be some independent proof of the impact of the book. --Itub (talk) 12:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Book is edited by at least one tenured professor and published by a reliable publisher in academics. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Asserts no significance of the book in the area it deals with (which in turn is extremely specialized and known to few) and thus fails to meet criteria for notability of books. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 12:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Being written by a tenured professor is not an assertion of notability. Many of my professors have written books that have little scope outside the institution I attend, these would not qualify as notable under WP:BK. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Suggest condensing and merging contents to the existing page Micro process engineering. This is almost an extension of the page the 'Links' section points to, however it has pertinence. As it stands the page strongly resembles an ad to sell books and pdf downloads. --VictorC (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable, copy violation. Elucidate ^{(parlez à moi)} Ici pour humor 07:09, 30 October 2008 (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.