Talk:Fundamentals of Stack Gas Dispersion

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  The image is free content and the above tag is invalid 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: 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)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list for future reference if it goes up for AfD again. -- GreenC 04:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Latest Facts (as of August 30, 2014) Regarding Notability and COI 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Fundamentals of Stack Gas Dispersion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified