Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Begell House

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Begell House[edit]

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

publisher of questionable notability, article created by blatantly COI account. WuhWuzDat 18:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Publisher of several notable journals. Article is not spammy and I have edited it to remove any POV. --Crusio (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This argument stands or falls on the proposition that the articles relating to the journals created are indeed notable; they themselves are being considered at AfD simultaneously. As I have !voted there I will not do so here.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At least 2 of those journals have sizeable impact factors and at least one of them is indexed in MEDLINE, so their notability is not in doubt. --Crusio (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant, secondary source coverage of company. It therefore fails WP:ORG. It may or may not publish notable journals but the fact remains that it itself as an entity is not notable. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 07:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Eleven Begell journals were listed in the ISI Journal Citation Reports for 2009. That confirms for me that this is a legitimate publisher of scientific journals, albeit a very minor one. I've also found some Begell technical reference books cited in other better-known technical reference books. --Orlady (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Wuhwuzdat (I nominated it for deletion earlier). --Breawycker (talk to me!) Review Me! 20:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Orlady. Fotaun (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Crusio. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Orlady. We have a similar article for Hindawi Publishing Corporation. Nothing wrong with have these. The Begell House one should include a list of their more notable journals. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2011 (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.