Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:ATINER Athens Institute for Education and Research

Page protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Heavy modification of the article during the MfD seems to have removed most of the concerns regarding it being an attack page. The author of the article should be reminded that Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs, it is only a place to document verified information in a neutral way. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:ATINER Athens Institute for Education and Research

Draft:ATINER Athens Institute for Education and Research (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

despite claims that this doesn't meet WP:ATTACK, it does. It may very well be a predatory publisher but there isn't coverage of it being such. WP:ATTACK outlines this, as does {{db-attack}} vs {{db-negpubblp}}

In any case, this shouldn't be held on Wikipedia in hopes that we might one day be able to substantiate the claims here which are overtly negative and largely not supported. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at least, disagree with the rationable above.
WP:CSD#G10 is for attack pages on people (dead or living), this isn't it.
While negative, it's a legitimate draft. It's not one that has any chance of being accepted as is, or from the current writer unless it undergoes a significant rewrite, but the issue is that sourcing is bunk, and does not show notability, not that it's an "attack page". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It literally is in WP:CSD, @Headbomb and that's why {{Db-attackorg}} exists - it says entity, not living person. The idea that we don't have a speedy deletion criteria to cover attacks on businesses or organizations because they aren't living people is ridiculous and sets a precedent for anyone to disparage a company that pissed them off.PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CSD also says 'unsourced'. This is sourced. Badly, but it is sourced. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's for db-negpubblp - specifically unsourced accusations/negative content about BLPs. Not to mention, other than a brief mention in one single source in that draft, the negative claims are unsourced. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is one sentence out of the five that is badly sourced synthesis. The rest of the claims are sourced. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed all badly sourced sentences. All sentences now are what is the review of OTHERS e.g. University of Colorado Beall's List of Predatory Journals and Publishers and California Institute of Technology. Reputation wise these sources are of the highest esteem and prestige,
26 references of University of Colorado, California Institute of Technology, All European Research Institutes, JSTOR merit this short article with scholarly prestige and merit your credit please. UniversityRecords (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As mentionned at the help desk, this is not a matter of adding anything in particular, it's a matter of writing the article based on what sources say about ATINER. For example, none of your sources show that
  • ATINER is a fake peer review paper mill
  • 17 Predatory Journals per quarter
  • +70 Predatory Conferences per year
  • +210 Books +603 abstract Books
  • +2,738 Paper Series
  • Fake Journals: Fake peer review with ISSN
Your citations are at best random tidbits of information, which you've synthesized yourself into these claims.
What you need is to have a source which discusses ATINER in depth. See OMICS Publishing Group and SCIRP for example of predatory publishers which have attracted significant coverage in reliable sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you indeed Headbomb. Removed "fake peer review". Just added the source www.atiner.gr of 17 Predatory Journals per quarter, +70 Predatory Conferences per year, +200 Books, +600 abstract Books, +2,738 Paper Series(Fake Journals with ISSN).
I'll keep working on adding high reputation references. UniversityRecords (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+2,738 Paper Series(Claimed Journal Papers with claimed peer review and ISSN).
Please note that a Journal paper is peer review and ISSN. On average there are +2 co-authors per Journal paper a very conservative number.
More than 5,478 Authors have been deceived to believe they have published a claimed peer reviewed Journal paper with ISSN after paying Conferences registration fees.
Paper mill definition is fake-paper factories that churn out sham science (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00733-5)
Should I include the above in the draft or is it self evident ? UniversityRecords (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources support the claims you are making here. You need a source that specifically address ATINER having deceived 'more than 5,478 Authors'. A source that simply says 5478 authors have published a paper in ATINER journals is insufficient. Likewise, you need a source that specifically mentions ATINER being a paper mill, not just a general definition of a paper mill and claim that ATINER fits that model. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood removed from body of text all these unsupported claims.
Added a scholarly source https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ lists ATINER a predatory publisher.
Added a scholarly source that clearly states Author paid Conference registration fees to publish Paper with ISSN. https://researchprofiles.herts.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/inchoate-offences-in-cyberspace--a-moveable-feast-or-the-end-of-harm(4306efea-4c86-4934-9b0f-8edde5a57dfc).html UniversityRecords (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scholarlyoa is a mirror of Beall's list.
Conference registrations fees are normal. Again, what we need is a source that specifically says that says ATINER behaves in a predatory manner. Not your own synthesis and interpretation of sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:G10. At the time of writing this reply, the draft article contains six "paragraphs". Paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 are directly attacking the organisation. Paragraph 3 is indirectly attacking it. G10 is pretty clear that These pages should be speedily deleted when there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to. and having reviewed the page history, there appears to be no neutral version to revert to. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th: we can have negative articles. Of the six sentence, one is problematic (#4), the others are sourced (badly so, but they are sourced). We shouldn't expect predatory publishers to have much in the way of a positive coverage, take OMICS Publishing Group for example. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A poorly sourced attack sentence is still an attack sentence. WP:ATTACK clearly says An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced. Emphasis mine. While there is a slight disconnect between the text at ATTACK and G10 with respect to poorly sourced, I believe the intent of G10 is to cover both unsourced attack pages and poorly sourced given that ATTACK is policy.
OMICS is an interesting counter example, while it is a negative article, it is not an attack article. It is well sourced, including both media and academic sources, and is reasonably well balanced given the nature of sources about it. Conversely ATINER is none of those things. While there may be a future version of ATINER that is not an attack page, at present it is an attack page and so subject to G10. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
unsourced or poorly sourced applies to biographical materials. This isn't a biography. It's not even an article, it's a draft. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replying in parts
unsourced or poorly sourced applies to biographical materials. I do not believe the text at ATTACK or G10 supports this interpretation. I read that entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced applies to all such articles, not only biographical ones.
This isn't a biography. It's not even an article, it's a draft Per ATTACK An attack page is a page, in any namespace. Any namespace includes the Draft namespace.
Even if the poorly sourced part only applied to biographical articles, which I do not agree, the policy itself still applies to the draft namespace. Even if poorly sourced material is considered sourced, it is still an attack page by nature of the content within it. As such, ATTACK and CSD:G10 applies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am adding more neutral paragraphs. Please give me more time. Don't' you want to be objective ???
You are deleting what is the review of California Institute of Technology for ATINER, the review of University of Colorado, All European Research Institutes, 27 Sources from JSTOR, Universities and Scholarly sources. UniversityRecords (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe policy requires this page to be deleted. There is nothing preventing you from working on it offline, and resubmitting a new draft in the future. But as there is no neutral version to revert to, and it is very poorly sourced, I believe it should be deleted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've culled the draft to what sources actually say about ATINER. I've left a claim which seems likely but is unsourced.
This still doesn't pass WP:NORG btw, but this address the most of the sourcing and synthesis issues. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Headbomb much appreciated indeed. Thank you a million indeed.
Added two sources with Greece legislation under your citation needed.
Thank you indeed again for all your great help. I really appreciate it,
Going to say goodnight to you gentlemen it's past midnight in Greece.
Talk to you tomorrow. All the best wishes, P. UniversityRecords (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citations needed:
3. https://www.uom.gr/en/uri
4. https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/legislation-27_en UniversityRecords (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Do Not Salt - As of about 0315 GMT, 23 June, there are only two sentences, and nothing descriptive, only negative. This draft may not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria exactly, but a page that is close to the speedy criteria should be deleted at XFD. That is one of the reasons why we have discussions for edge cases. This draft will not be a basis for a draft article. It should be deleted to blow it up, and possibly start over. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Mr. McClenon, thank you indeed for your constructive feedback "blow it up, and start over". I really appreciate it.
    To start over there are enough descriptive Neutral paragraphs to add.
    Where do I start to avoid same errors, do you recommend editor(s) I can work with before submission?
    Headbomb I really appreciate all your feedback and your valuable guidance, thank you indeed.
    Respectfully yours UniversityRecords (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Beall's List is defunct though there are forks of varying legitimacy, rendering the first line a complete misuse of source. I do not find the name in CABELLS' Predatory Reports either. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that the draft will become an article. Overall, I am of the opinion that the nomination is justified. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Defunct or not, it was still listed by Beall. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Colleagues, Fraud is when a "Research Institute" is operating under a printing press business license for profit. They would be facing criminal prosecution and prison in North America. So they crossed the borders to Greece to operate their fraud freely from criminal prosecution. Please re-consider. I am very happy even with the two lines left by Headbomb. Thank you indeed Mr. Headbomb. Wikipedia needs and must have more educated editors like you Mr. Headbomb. This humble request is from a Harvard Professor who has been deceived and exploited by these Fraudsters working for free for almost two decades. They are stealing blind thousands of Academics for two decades. Help me warn thousands of other Academics who fall into their trap, pay $ millions in Conferences fees and work for free under the fraud of "Research Institute" for the Fraudsters' Journals. Respectfully Professor Panagiotis Petratos PhD AMDP (Harvard University). UniversityRecords (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not meet WP:ATTACK. It is well enough sourced and balanced. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:18, 28 June 2022 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.