Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-Century Publishing Corporation (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 delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

E-Century Publishing Corporation

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

No reliable references (only one reference, a self-published primary source). Article is primarily a list WP:NOT. No evidence of notability shown. Nouniquenames (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are hundreds of new open-access publishers appearing every year; many like this one are of low quality. Note that this one claims to be special and important, but that's what they all say. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This company lacks signifigant coverage by reliable sources even though it may publish some academic journals that are acceptable for inclusion on Wikipedia (see WP:GNG for a starting point). In other words, their noteriety does not transfer to the publisher. Perhaps over time this publisher will become known for having an impact in various areas of medicine and biology. However, presently this is not the case. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a publisher who is publishing nine PubMed-indexed and PubMed Central-archived professional journals, it is certainly having its impact on today and tomorrow's research community, and has its notability, not mention that five of their journals are covered by Scopus and one of them are in SCI Web of Knowledge. This kind of business is earning their media coverage by top database like PubMed, Scopus, Web of Knowledge, but not the traditional media like CNN or Time magazine. This kind of business needs the quietness to focus on what they doing, therefore lack of the regular mass media coverage is a good thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bylt2119 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was not what I considered notable when I originally tagged it with a SD - and still isn't - considering, the fact it relies on primary sources, demonstrating no-notability, whatsover. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 07:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bylt2119 argues that being indexed in PubMed contributes to the notability of the journals published by this company. This is incorrect. Being covered by MEDLINE would be something else entirely, but open access journals get into PubMed Central pretty easily and then indexing in PubMed is automatic. Bylt has also insisted on including "references" in the article, which I will leave in place for the duration of the AfD. If the article is kept, I will remove them again, because they are not directly relevant to the company itself (even though they may be important for individual journals) and are inappropriate references to search machine results. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree. Being in Medline, a journal has to go through another evaluation although it really does not add much significance for the journal because almost nobody uses Medline anymore. We all know that. Plus, it may not be that easy to get into PubMed/PMC even for an OA journal. Some OA publisher with hundred journals which are in the business within similar timeframe, but not even one of their journal is in PubMed/PMC yet. I have not found any similar publishes like eCPC with 14 listed titles and 9 of them in PubMed, two pending and another three are simply way too new to apply for it. I also do not understand why one that has created multiple "notable" journals and is continuing establishing more cannot be considered as "notable"? As a publisher, it is not "inherit" or "transfer" notability from journals, it is the publisher making those journals notable. If a coach who has trained several Olympic champions, is not he/she deserve the same level, if not higher "notability" than those champions? Bylt2119 (talk)peace :)Bylt2119 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable" means "has been noted", which needs to be verifiable through non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. This goes for some of the journals, but as far as I can see, not the company. Please see WP:GNG and WP:CORP. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agree. "Notable" means "has been noted". When the articles that they published have been downloaded/read millions of times from PMC with sentence of "Articles from American Journal of Cancer Research are provided here courtesy of e-Century Publishing Corporation" at the bottom of every article like this, can we really say that this publisher has not been noted? :) ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bylt2119 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I doubt the "millions of times". But whatever may be the case, there need to be reliable sources to verify that the company has, indeed, been noted. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given the above exchange: does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, it is indeed "millions of times" because I have obtained that data and would be glad to show it here if there is a way to do it. Regardless of the outcome, hopefully this debating will not be felt as anything personal, because we are all here for the same cause--to make the knowledge available like the air to the the world without any barrier...CheersBylt2119 (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps I can clarify a point. Simply a passing mention in an affiliated publication does not make one notable. What is needed is deliberate mention (something specifically about the company would be best) in a reliable publication that is not in any way related to the company, such as a news organization (blogs, personal web sites, other Wikipedia pages, etc are not considered reliable for establishing notability). Notability is not established by owning a notable subsidiary (or publishing notable journals). --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still not a notable publisher at its second nomination. As an open-access, online-only publisher I rather doubt whether it will ever become notable, but it's possible. BTW note the companion nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Journal of Cancer Research, for one of this publisher's journals; article was written by the same WP:SPA creator.--MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2012 (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.