Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OMICS Publishing Group (2nd nomination)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 00:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OMICS Publishing Group

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

Requested by subject article through OTRS Amortias (T)(C) 20:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OTRS Article appears at this point to be essentially entirely "this is a predatory company" material which is of marginal encyclopedic value. This has nothing to do with any issues as to whether any of its publications are RS for anything at all, but whether the article as it stands pretty much fails WP:NPOV and appears unlikely to reach that required state. Collect (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article simply reads like an attack page, violates all types of policies. Marlinsfan1988 (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- editor now blocked. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note for clarity, Marlinsfan1988 was blocked on an issue not related to OMICS. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? How do you know why he was blocked? ChemNerd (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the blocking administrator and was told there was no connection between Marlinsfan1988's block and the OMICS socking. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Such as? SmartSE (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Such as lots of "it has been suggested" and "some observers" type wording; a lede that gleefully mixes facts with opinions; past edits that have presented opinions as if they were facts [1]; past edits that have characterized the National Institutes of Health as being "the United States Government" [2], and generally piling up as much negative criticism of OMICS as google searches can find, regardless of the quality of that criticism. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you aware that we don't delete articles based on the quality of past edits, but on the notability and encyclopedic suitability of the topic per se? LjL (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you aware that you should actually read what is written here before you post opinions? Reading would have informed you that I have already voted "keep", and I have said that content issues are not a reason to delete. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I thought you were the same editor as the above, sue me. LjL (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Just note the indents, easier than litigation. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Lots of excellent sources, easily meets ORG and GNG. That none of these sources say anything positive about this company is not our fault. If there are problems with wording, that can be addressed by ordinary editing. --Randykitty (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep: WP:NPOV isn't about having "no" point of view. If the company mostly gets negative publicity through reliable enough sources, then so be it. If there is equally reliable positive information, it can be included. LjL (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep easily meets WP:CORP per in-depth coverage in Nature, Science, Chronicle of Higher Education and Australian Broadcasting Corporation. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, this is not a WP:BLP and the content is entirely WP:NPOV summarising all of the reliable sources that are available. SmartSE (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is very badly written (was even worse in the recent past) and does, without any doubt, currently still read as an attack article that violates numerous guidelines on how to write content. However that is a content issue, not a reason to delete. OMICS Publishing Group seems to me to be notable enough to have an article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We do seem to have enough to meet WP:CORP. Any problems with the article should be addressed through the normal editing process. I don't think WP:TNT applies. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And BTW, if editors don't think it's addressing the subject matter in a neutral way, tag it accordingly. At least it'll have the maintenance tag and call attention to the issue. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - per Randykitty. Banedon (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep Having reviewed this article's sourcing, it seems to me it easily passes our notability guidelines, nor has any other policy-consistent deletion rationale been supplied--point in fact, for that reason, this is an extremely flawed nomination, OTRS or no. Addressing the comments of those two editors who have thus far !voted for delete, I can't see how this article constitutes an attack page simply by virtue of the fact that the sources we utilize are overwhelmingly critical of the company; there's no shortage of articles on topics for which the bulk of our sources are largely critical. WP:NPOV doesn't mean that we present every topic as if the wider world were ambivalent about it. Rather it means that we keep our personal perspectives out of the matter and only report what reliable sources say, as accurately as we can. As such, our neutrality policies will often require us to relay information that is decidedly critical of a topic, from multiple sources, specifically because we do not filter the information through out own perspectives.

If anyone feels there are WP:WEIGHT issues with the article, they are free to provide any sources which which counterbalance the prevailing views being reported upon, and which are independent of the subject and meet our WP:RS standards. Likewise, if they feel that the prose lacks nuance that could contextualize our treatment of the sources in a more neutral fashion, they can suggest that. If they have no such sources or suggestions, it is manifestly inappropriate to denigrate the good faith efforts of others who have worked on this article, incorporating the reliable sources currently depended upon, by calling the article an "attack page". In any event, what we can clearly not do is delete the article without any policy-based deletion criteria. As no such argument has been supplied, I think a speedy keep is warranted here. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it troubling that many of the editors voting for keep in this AfD are also stating how perfect it currently is regarding its npov issues. Content issues are generally not a reason to delete, but these editors have all worked on the article and a head-in-the-sand attitude is going to make it difficult to address the article's obvious failings if the article is kept. The article is getting worse rather than better. Note the SIX references now added to support the "predatory" opinion in the lede, and the SIX more references added to support the laughable "United States government" allegation. Lede opinions that require large numbers of references is a sure sign that something is wrong.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You probably realize from my comments on the talk page that I think there's some room for improvement in the tone of the article, but calling it an "attack page" is a considerable exaggeration by any reasonable measure, in my editorial opinion. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously -- it's fine for someone to nominate for deletion in an OTRS role, but notability is not at all in question here. The sources indicated by SmartSE demonstrate this, as do the others used on the article as sources. I really doubt things will change if we let this run for a whole week. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of some of the comments made I am actually moving from Keep in the direction towards Delete. The opinion of collect is correct: the article as it stands pretty much fails WP:NPOV. If it really is going to be unable to ever reach the required npov state, delete would be the correct decision to make (or reducing it to a stub). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have never found this type of attack article and surely fails WP:NPOV. Mirror360 (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC) ( Confirmed sock --Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Keep, clearly notable, despite being predatory. SmartSE already made the case for this, so I won't repeat it here. The article, is also, unlike some claim, not an attack page. It's an accurate reflection of what reliable sources say about OMICS. That it's all negative does not mean that it's not a neutral and dispassionate article. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject of this article is clearly notable. The two delete recommendations (excluding the blocked socks) don't make any sense to me. Since when are "Requested by subject article through OTRS" and "Delete per OTRS" acceptable reasons to delete an article? If there are problems with balance in the article, just fix the balance. For the argument "fails WP:NPOV and appears unlikely to reach that required state", I find it completely unreasonable and un-Wikipedia-like to think that, if it is unbalanced, no balance could ever be achieved. ChemNerd (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is ONE blocked OMICS/Scholarscentral sock. The other block is a result of an unrelated issue. If an article fails nPOV, and appears to be never likely to meet nPOV requirements, then that is a legitimate reason to delete, regardless of notability. Assertions asserted here without ANY supporting evidence that the article meets WP:GNG, WP:ORG, WP:BOOMERANG, WP:CENSOR, WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:COI, (and any other policy link that can be posted) are pointless without some supporting evidence. I have voted keep, but the article is NOT in good shape and all these blind assertions of its perfection are not going to help improve it if the result is keep. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that others are making "blind assertions of its perfection" is just plain nonsense. ChemNerd (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoethrutheminefield: Perhaps you can tell us who exactly said that the article was perfect. Perhaps you can also explain why, given the slate of undeniable unassailable reliable sources, it is not enough to argue that this meets GNG. Finally, perhaps you can also explain how this article does not meet POV: the only reason why this company has any notability is because they publish predatory journals and organize crappy conferences. There are, literary, no reliable sources reporting positively about them, except for websites related to them. So pray tell us, how this article should be more balanced. I agree that the text can be made more encyclopedic (and the "US government" thing is indeed a bit silly - it's a government agency, not the whole government), but that is all really minor. I might add that the OMICS socks on the article talk page keep claiming that their journals are "PMC indexed". For what that actually means, see this blog post by an established authority in the field (and, hence, an RS even though it is a blog). --Randykitty (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict about that "minor thing" (wording that represented a US government agency as being THE United States Government) is what initiated this [3]. If it was so minor, and wrongly worded, why was it not just taken out to end the conflict? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. The conflict was not about whether this should be saying "the US government" or "US gorvernment agency", but the claim by the OMICS editors that all that the letter was about was aa copyright infringement and that actually their journals were now endorsed by said government agency. If you look at the links they provided that were supposed to support that claim and compare it with the link in my post just above explaining what "PMC", "PubMed", and "MEDLINE" actually are, you will see that the arguments of these OMICS editors were completely disingenuous. THAT is what the ANI post was about, NOT about the minor issue of how this was worded. And, in the end, a US government agency does represent the US government... --Randykitty (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just had another look at the article and the source. It actually is the source that talks about the US government (the title of the source is "U.S. Government Accuses Open Access Publisher of Trademark Infringement"). --Randykitty (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG standards. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 02:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy SNOW Keep Has been said above, outside of WP:BOOMERANG, WP:CENSOR, WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:COI. As notability is not temporary, suggest the precedent of two Keeps helps prevent this time-waste repeating. Widefox; talk 07:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs rewrite Should be cleaned up asap then we can let it be shown. Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 18:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note I blocked Peak2015 (talk · contribs · count) for canvassing related to this. —SpacemanSpiff 09:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It contains a lot of important information about the publisher.--Shisha-Tom (talk) 10:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. The coverage of this group in journals such as Science and Nature provided by SmartSE makes it pretty clearly notable. Article still needs work, though. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's NPOV issues in the headings, but plenty of coverage to meet notability. As noted above, negative coverage is still coverage. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came to this article after listening to a podcast on this topic, and was glad to find it was well covered. Elzbenz (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious sock repeating arguments from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OMICS Group Inc SmartSE (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Note. The problem is OMICS International is the parent company and there are so many good references available for their parent company. OMICS Publishing Group is one arm of them has Wikipedia article with complete negative content. The entire company with 1000+ employees might be effecting because of this negative article on them. Following sources were obtained from OMICS Group Inc [4] old version of their parent Wikipedia article. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

All the experts involved in this discussion, please get good conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.75.33.158 (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (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.