Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Practical Laboratory Automation Made Easy with AutoIt

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. Sandstein 20:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Practical Laboratory Automation Made Easy with AutoIt

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable book (tagged for several years). Possibly part of promotional campaign (SPA/refspamish editor). DMacks (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notablity and no references per Wikipedia:Notability (books). Auldhouse (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per consensus: There was already a relevant mention/cite on Laboratory automation#Low-cost laboratory automation albeit that just could be judged promotional on that article. It did seem relevant there ought to be a link from AutoIt to Laboratory automation#Low-cost laboratory automation ao I've kludged one onto AutoIt article citing some simple contents from the book. Given the current situation with that tweak I'm no longer bothered and I'm now happy to go with per consensus.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you hinting at a WP:Walled garden involving one or two COI editors promoting something or someone's work? Because I strongly suspect that is the case. DMacks (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably nothing too sophisticated. The reference to AutoIt in Laboratory automation#Low-cost laboratory automation sort of stuck out a little like a sore thumb as no alternatives seemed to be suggested .... e.g. serial in the old days (GP-IB probably too costly) and I've of thought USB, GPIO and maybe wireless linked by Raspberry Pi and Arduino in current times (mind you these might be running AutoIt!). So I'm not sure that the link back to AutoIt is neutral ~~(Neutrality tag on section?)~~. The content I put in AutoIt seemed reasonable ... almost good. The per consensus is I'm not really bothered whether the article that is the subject of this AfD is deleted or not as the core idea of use of AutoIt possible for lab automation is added to the AutoIt article which seems a reasonable and non-promotional addition to that article. I nearly said delete but realised I had not explored that aspect ... I'd concentrated on developing the link from AutoIt back to Lab Automation. Quite frankly its a while since I've tackled this area so I am very not current and it may be I haven't got the right angle.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC) On another look there is one sentence only in Laboratory automation I am possibly concerned about and on reflection it possibly gives itself undue weight and may have not described itself properly ... I've changed a 'The' to 'A' on that. I don't think I'm seeing a 'WP:Walled garden'.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to WorldCat, this book is held by 227 libraries: [1]. There seem to be multiple editions. GScholar has citation counts for the author of this book: [2]. This book was published in 2016, and our article was created less than two years ago, so this cannot have been tagged for "several" years. James500 (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged November 2016, so okay 22 months not 24, and zero improvement since the dump'n'run creation. DMacks (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the automation program might be notable, and the book would be evidence for it if it is actually independent, but that does not make the boo knotable in its own right. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 16 September 2018 (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.