Talk:Iterative Receiver Design
(Redirected from Talk:Iterative Receiver Design (book))
Latest comment: 15 years ago by DGG in topic removed PROD template
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
removed PROD template
editI disagree with the proposed deletion and I removed the PROD template in the article.
The reason for proposed deletion was: non-notable book; only 100 library holdings, no identified reviews on Google Scholar, only 3 cites at all.
- I believe an objective element to support book notability is the fact that the book is published by a major academic press (Cambridge University Press). This meet the first criteria enunciated here
- Also, the extent of diffusion for the book is not a significant benchmark for this book. Again from WP:NB, an academic book is allowed to have a significantly smaller diffusion compared to non-academic book. Moreover the book focuses on an highly specialized topic and a small audience is not an argument for non-notability
--Marra (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that the reasons given above are sufficient to establish notability for this book. The fact that it was published by a major academic press is significant, but the fact that the book has not been reviewed and has up till now reveived only 3 citations does not suggest that it has made a big impact in its field, however small this may be. Also, 100 library holdings is rather few, even for an academic book. As it was published only in 2007 this may all still change, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Crusio (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- even for the most distinguished of presses, not all their books are significant. This is the inherent nature of publishing. And electronic engineering is not a particularly small academic field, as compared to, say, linguistics or theology--you re right there are some fields where 100 holdings in AngloAmerican libraries is a big deal indeed. But there is perhaps something else to be checked: whether perhaps there is evidence that the book is widely used as a textbook. Textbooks are not that often reviewed,and relatively elementary textbooks are not all that often held in libraries. Can you show perhaps its the major book at its level in the subject? DGG (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)