Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OMICS Group Inc

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to OMICS Publishing Group. And protect, allowing users to merge what is relevant from the history. I'm discounting the bevy of apparent sockpuppets, single-purpose accounts and/or COI accounts.  Sandstein  07:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OMICS Group Inc[edit]

OMICS Group Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is already an article on their publishing activities. The question, then, is whether the conference side is notable. The references given involve mere incidental mentions of this company (or are simply press releases); there is no basis for notability here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC):Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I wish we could keep it, so that we could warn our readers for the crappy conferences that this group produces, but I have to agree with Nomoskedasticity that there are not sufficient sources for that. Perhaps a few sentences to this effect could be added to OMICS Publishing Group. --Randykitty (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article existed before (under the name OMICS Group) and was replaced with a redirect, in part due to lack of notability despite a collection of superficially decent sources. As the nomination notes, the new version of the article does not seem to be improved in this regard. So I vote to replace with a redirect to the publishing arm. I also agree with RandyKitty that I think there probably is just enough sourceable content here to support a section in the publishing arm's page, perhaps with a title "activities of parent company" or something. --JBL (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to the publication group. Having two articles on the same subject is unnecessary, and serves only to obscure their misbehavior. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article was created as per talk page, and conferences sources [1], [2], [3] and their parent company sources [4] are reliable, recent and well established articles from reputed news magazine. Later 10 more prominent sources were added. Dentking07 (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this editor has now been blocked as a sockpuppet: [5]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting myself: "Of the four sources you mentioned in this post: the first is simply an announcement and involves no coverage whatsoever. The second mentions the existence of a conference but says nothing about it beyond its existence and that it was "intended for university professors." The third is totally promotional, and also provides almost no coverage of the larger company; substantively, it says almost nothing aside from quotes by the founder of OMICS. The fourth is just a business listing with no substantive coverage or content." --JBL(talk) 17:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please check 10 more sources were added
[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
This deletion proposal initiated before adding these references.Dentking07 (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the first 4. At least one is duplicated from your previous list (and has 0 information), another goes to an article with no mention of OMICS whatsoever (presumably a copy-paste error on your part), and the other two are an announcement with 0 information and an announcement with some information about a particular conference, but no information about OMICS Group. At that point I decided you were wasting my time. --JBL (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
* Can you please check propoely by doing CtrlF OMICS you will get relevant info from all references sources. For conferences there is an announcement before the conference with in association with societies, Government agencies, organization and conclusion points publication from prominent people in reputed news magazines. What else is required. Dentking07 (talk) 03:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have proposed Kenes Group, another spammy conference promoter whose article was created by Dentking07, for deletion. If Dentking07 behaves the same on that one as here, it may also need to go to AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Spammy company do not produce 3,000 conferences in more than 100 cities around the globe, with over 115,000 participants per year. Let me add critiques in next edits. This is one of the largest scientific and academic conferences organization, so i propose Strongly Keep Dentking07 (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per David Eppstein. I see no reason to have two articles on the same company. Banedon (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I see no convincingly better signs of better improvement and at best this should be restarted later when said improvement happens better. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think we should keep it, as it will be an important source of information for the academic and scientific community. Especially the conferences, because there are very few of them in this area. Chandrashekar399 (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC) — Chandrashekar399 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep I find this article quite legit as I hail from Hyderabad and I've seen that they've been doing some good work. Have read some of their journals as well. Their office is below the Hyderabad Facebook office at Raheja Mindspace. Karthiksrinivas (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC) — Karthiksrinivas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • David, I don't see any of these editors at that AfD or in the article history? --Randykitty (talk) 07:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad, got confused... But I don't see what that has to do with this AfD? --Randykitty (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, two new editors coming into an AfD like this makes it look like the AfD is being targeted by sockpuppets who wish to create the appearance of many people wanting to keep it. But my initial comment here was to note that in this case, because of the connection to the other AfD, a different explanation is more likely. The good-faith explanation is that they are really two different new editors who found the Wikipedia deletion discussions through the other AfD and wanted to start contributing more broadly. The bad-faith explanation is that they really are sockpuppets and are trying to disguise their connection to the other article by finding other discussions to contribute to. In either case the connection to this specific AfD seems likely to be merely incidental. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Their publishing article is with old sources and neutrality was missed, so this article was created as per talk at that page [16][17] Along with this I created Kenes Group, CHI Conferences, IEEE Conferences etc. These conferences and this article is useful to Academic/scientific community. This essential information is required especially to KPMG, PWC to analyze the perspectives of scientific/academic conferences. All the sources are informative and acceptable, so i propose this article Strongly KeepDentking07 (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dentking07: you should only leave one "keep" or "delete" comment per AfD. You already have a keep, so I have struck out this new one. Also, please place comments in chronological order (new comments at the bottom) unless you are replying to someone else. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep OMICS Educational Society added, keep the article as a group is into multiple business. Chennapanaidu darapaneni (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Companies like Microsoft are really many many businesses in one (the Windows business, the Windows Azure business, the Office business, and so on). If Microsoft doesn't have multiple articles for each individual business, why should OMICS? Banedon (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note Chennapanaidu darapaneni has a severe conflict of interest here. According to this and this, they own companies in which OMICS has invested a significant amount of money. --Randykitty (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Red-links were pages created by Chennapanaidu darapaneni and speedy-deleted for "unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person." --JBL (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, redirect, and protect the redirect. As Randykitty says, we should have the information, but invluding the key information and making a direct to it in the main article would be fully sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do agree with Banedon, DGG and Randykitty, I am merging the sister concern article OMICS Publishing Group with the parent article OMICS Group Inc. I am not sure to imply disputes/controversies to parent article from sister concern. [neutrality is disputed]can be checked later, I am copying all disputes/controversies to parent. Dentking07 (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As long as we have one article rather than two, it doesn't matter much to me whether the title of the article is for the whole group or its publishing branch. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. --JBL (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. --Randykitty (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem we had last time however is that editors (likely afflicted with COI) loaded it up with useless crap that was nonetheless "reliably sourced". I think we're much better off with a focused article built on a solid core of notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course; but this is true regardless of what the article title actually is. (Articles under both titles have been subject to attack by COI socks.) --JBL (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the article title is OMICS Publishing, content would have to be focused on publishing; there wouldn't be scope for coverage of conferences. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It makes more sense to me to have an article on the parent, with a subsection for the publishing arm. After all, if the publishing arm is notable enough to have its own article, then logically the parent company would be even more notable and therefore deserve its own article too. In that case, why not just have an article on the parent company with relevant subsections? Banedon (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. A notable product doesn't make the producer notable, nor does a notable producer makes its product notable. Need actual notability directly for whatever the article's subject is. DMacks (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
collapse comments from blocked sockpuppet
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Note Any article should be merged from sister concern to parent, publishing arm OMICS Publishing Group is a sister concern of OMICS Group Inc, parent company is conducting conferences, education society etc, As agreed by all we can proceed with OMICS Group Inc / OMICS Group and merge the publishing arm to the parent. Dentking07 (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently it's not agreed by all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note In my previous comment mentioned as agreed by all, as Nomoskedasticity wrote merging from sister concern to parent was agreed by some of the members and some opposed members again noted to merge. Dentking07 (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect- per nom and Randykitty's assessment (as well as other editor's above). Onel5969 TT me 14:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the creator of this article is a likely sock of Scholarscentral, who has a long history of copyright violations and is the subject of a CCI. If any content is retained from this article it should be checked for copyright violations. January (talk) 17:19, 7 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/OMICS_Group_Inc&oldid=1077957902"