Talk:Fundamentals of Stack Gas Dispersion

Fair use rationale for Image:Beychok's Cover.jpg

Image:Beychok's Cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The image is free content and the above tag is invalid

After I questioned the use of the above tag at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, User:TEB728 removed the two tags from the image page and all is well now. It was all a big mistake and the GFDL license that I selected when I uploaded the book cover image (which I created myself) is correct. - mbeychok (talk) 06:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability of this book

This book was first published 29 years ago in 1979 and it is now in its fourth edition.

• It has been purchased in 60 countries worldwide (see here).
• It has been cited in the technical literature and on the Internet over 130 times (see here), including being used in environmental protection regulatory documents issued by various governmental agencies in the U.S. as well other nations. It has been used as a textbook or as recommended reading at 18 universities in the U.S. as well as other countries.
• It has been purchased by over 60 libraries in the U.S. and over 80 libraries in other countries (see [http://www.air-dispersion.com/interest.html#Libraries here). I say "over ..." because many libraries purchase through bookstores and I have no way of determining the ultimate disposition of books sold to bookstores.

A great many professionals working in the field of air pollution dispersion modeling are well acquainted with the book.

Admittedly, I am the author of the book. However, in my opinion, the above facts speak for the notability of the book.

You may easily verify the above facts by reading the links provided above. You may also read my user page to verify that I have been contributor of a many, many technical articles to Wikipedia.

For the reasons given in this posting, I am removing the notability tag. - mbeychok (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the guidelines at WP:NB#Academic books have been met. This article should be improved to cite reliable sources establishing this notability, but this does not need to be done willy-nilly, as it is clear that such sources do exist. The ones specifically added to the article should be chosen well, and in the mean-time sloppy versions such as google scholar searches should suffice.

The conflict of interest is also a serious issue that should be borne in mind, but I believe the article is not promotional, is balanced, and with only a little work would be reliably sourced and verifiable. I have removed some comments on this talk page where the conflict of interest may have been a problem, but I don't think any of the content removed affects the future of this reasonably well-written article. The deleted content is available, but probably inflammatory.

I will make a few edits to try and restore the good content, and remove any possible COI that were not properly handled. JackSchmidt (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability

Cited several times by papers listed at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Fundamentals+Of+Stack+Gas+Dispersion%22 --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

To be specific, it is cited over 60 times at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Fundamentals+Of+Stack+Gas+Dispersion%22. mbeychok (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

Since this book appears to be somewhat of a special case, I thought it would be good to include the details of my assessment. I have tried to be careful, but this is not my area of expertise. I have avoided relying on any sources that might have a COI, and have still found enough reliable sources to indicate that this article meets the notability guidelines, is balanced, and does not suffer from conflict of interest problems.

As near as I can tell there is a fairly common idea of "gas coming from a single source and spreading out", such as the odor from a large collection of cows, the pollution from a chemical plant's smoke stack, or the smoke from a large fire. It seems fairly common that whenever this idea is used to model some real world situation, the book Fundamentals of Stack Gas Dispersion is cited. This is probably because it contains lots of useful tables, is written to be easy to read by engineers, and has been around a long time. The book is referenced in both scholarly articles in meteorological science and in somewhat official communications of the U.S. EPA. I think the book therefore meets the WP:NB#Academic books guidelines (or at least is close enough not to be worth the trouble of fighting about).

As far as being more notable than a billion other books, I think the cited book reviews (only one of which I have read, and now linked into the article), explain what makes the book unique. It appears that it is a very friendly book, with very simple explanations. Its topic is somewhat narrow (though no more narrow than hundred of books in my own library), but for that topic it appears to explain things in a simple, common sense fashion, and to provide all of the details that a practical engineer could want.

As far as the article meeting the guidelines, I think it should not be too hard for a subject expert (whose assistance is already requested) to select some of the publications that cite this book to be specific reliable sources. The book reviews themselves are likely to be reliable sources (they are signed, published independently, etc.), but of course in the academic wikipedia articles we also like peer-reviewed sources. I could introduce these citations myself, but the only way I could do this is in a rather flippant way that might come off as mocking ("from cow poo to noxious plumes, this book has it all!"), since I don't really understand the impact of the articles that cite it.

The conflict of interest problems have been dealt with I think. As near as I can tell the article itself is very modest, and the only sentence that really seemed to be COI was easily sourced. I rewrote the sentence using direct quotations from a WP:RS with an electronic copy available for easy verification. Note that this book is self-published, but that it is apparently widely respected by experts in the field. The reviews are not self-published, nor are the scholarly articles I checked.

If there is consensus, I'll remove the notability tag, but probably leave the expert and refimprove tags as this article (like more or less all other wikipedia articles) could still use some work. JackSchmidt (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I like your edits, Jack: thanks for dropping by. I tend to use a hacksaw too often...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Author’s Vanity and Book Notability

This wikipedia entry was created by the Author himself and the book is Self-Published. If the book was that notable, then why did the author have to create the wikipedia page? If the book was that important, then I would have also expected a publisher to pick the book up, especially considering there are publishers who specialize in small market technical books. These publishers could give the material validity and exposure to the correct markets.

The number of libraries the book is in or the number of countries the book has been sold into does not add anything to the notability of the book. I also question the number of citations to the book, as some are simply links to his webpage, especially links to the formula and conversion page. These should not count as legitimate references to the book itself.

The college course list seems long, but many of them are for college courses and reference the class syllabus. I went to one syllabus and the course does not even use the book anymore. Another has his book in the additional resource section with 9 other books. One of the college courses listed simply links to a class resource page that puts a link to his webpage under a resource heading putting his book on par with another link on how to build a web page in 10-steps. Another college course links to a presentation given in the class with one slide mentioning his book, which should not count as the book being used in the course as if it were the main textbook. In fact, most of these should not count as being required reading by a reputable educational institution.

There is also at least one interoffice memorandum listed that simply uses his book to reference an API Standard Equation they pulled from it. Some of the other “References” are online references simply to information on his webpage, such as the page of formulas and conversions.

For chemical, and industry in general, we can say stack design is a major topic, especially when you consider flares. Almost every industrial area has many stacks and flares meaning this topic should be of concern, especially for the protection of surrounding areas. If this book is the standard, then it should have a lot more valid references.

So, from the Wikipedia standards for Academic book notability: Published by an Academic Press – No, Self-Published; Cited by academic publications - Minimal; Media – None that I have seen; Influential in Specialty Area – Minimal, if any at all; Taught or required reading by a number of reputable educational institutions – Just a few can be confirmed.

The Author even wrote his own 5-Star Review for his book on Amazon! The sales rank of the book on Amazon is close to number 1,500,000. To compare, the well know Perry’s Chemical Engineers Handbook is ranked around 46,000. PVC Polymerization and PVC Compounding are only done by a handful of companies, yet the “PVC Handbook” by Wilkes is sales rank 757,000. It is definitely a smaller topic than air dispersion.

On AbeBooks NO copies of “Fundamentals of Stack Gas Dispersion” appear, yet copies of the “PVC Handbook” by Wilkes come up. An even smaller market and much lower Amazon Sales rank book, “PVC Formulary” by Wypych has nine copies on Abebooks.

Compared to books like “Air Pollution: Its Origin and Control” by Wark and “Air Pollution Engineering Manual” by Davis, this book is not notable and the creation of the page just appear to be out of vanity.12.183.205.106 (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was created as a vanity article, but see the section above where notability was assessed. You should respond to points made there if you disagree. I only now noticed, because Mbeychok, the author, took a break from his wiki retirement to move this talk section to the end, to put it in order. Dicklyon (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

12.183.205.106, I gather from the length of your comments that you spent quite a bit of time on your review. I am the author of the book and I will try to answer your comments.

• As for why I chose to self-publish and self-market: I wrote another engineering book some years prior to this one and it was published by John Wiley, a well-known publisher of engineering texts. John Wiley sold many copies of the book over a period of about 10 years. I was paid a royalty of less than $3 per book sold. Because of that, I chose to self-publish and self-distribute this book because the net earnings per book sold was quite a bit more than $3 a book. In other words, the decision was made based on the fact that there would be more financial remuneration ... it had nothing to do with "vanity" on my part.
• The first edition of this book was published in 1979 ... 33 years ago. The book is now in its 4th Edition and it is still selling although at a very much slower rate than it did 33 years ago. The book is currently sold as a printed, bound copy only through Amazon and through my own website (which explains why it is not available from Abe Books). The book is also sold (only from my website) as a downloadable e-book in pdf format at a much lower price than the printed, bound version. About 95% or more of the current sales are for the downloadable e-book version. The very fact that the book is still selling after 33 years is "notable" in and of itself.
• As for the book's sales ranking on Amazon: That varies with the sales rate. About 10 years ago, when the sales rate via Amazon were much higher, the Amazon ranking was very much better. However, now that most of the sales are for the downloadable pdf version from my website, the sales via Amazon are very much lower ... perhaps 1-2 copies a month or even less. Therefore, the Amazon sales ranking is now quite poor.
• As for my self-written book review on Amazon: That was over 8 years ago, and you neglected to include the first sentence of my review which read: "As the author of this book, I am admittedly biased ... but in all candor I do believe that it is the most comprehensive book available on the subject of air pollution dispersion modeling.". That self-written review is known as "marketing" and I assume that you are aware of that concept.
• You also neglected to mention that the other 7 reviews by purchasers of the book were all "5-star" reviews and all of them praised the book. You also neglected to mention the 4 very favorable book reviews available on my website ... one of which was by James Lodge who was then the editor of the Atmospheric Environment journal ... and another of which was by Karen Kowalewsky who was then a book reviewer for the American Meteorological Society.
• My website includes technical articles covering subjects that are not covered in the book but which are relevant and useful in and of themselves ... more marketing to persuade visitors to the website. The 260+ references listed on my website may possibly include 1 or 2 (at most) which refer to those articles rather than to the book ... but, if so, then they were included unintentionally.

I hope this clears up your concerns. mbeychok (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Vanity or worthwhile, the guideline for self-published works doesn't allow them: "largely not acceptable as sources". Adding the book, complete with a link to your websales page, over a large number of articles looks a bit like spamming. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The Latest Facts (as of August 30, 2014) Regarding Notability and COI

As of August 30, 2014, the book described in this article has been purchased in 84 countries and is currently available in 232 libraries worldwide. It has been referenced or cited as an educational resource more than 820 times in the technical literature and on the Internet, including 33 regulatory publications of state or national governmental agencies worldwide. It has also been used as recommended reading or a textbook in 61 university courses.

This article was nominated for deletion on June 17, 2014 on the basis that there may have been a Conflict of Interest (COI) in that I am the article's primary contributor as well as the author of the book described in this article. As noted in the top section of this page, after the ensuing discussion and debate, the decision was to keep the article. I truly hope that the issue of COI has finally been laid to rest. mbeychok (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list for future reference if it goes up for AfD again. -- GreenC 04:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fundamentals of Stack Gas Dispersion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061005020946/http://www.air-dispersion.com:80/interest.html to http://www.air-dispersion.com/interest.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)