Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied Academies


 * 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. Clear consensus for the article to be retained. Discussion about its content can be further discussed on its talk page, if desired. North America1000 15:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Allied Academies

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is written like an attack article on 25 years old accounts and business related journals publisher based out of North Carolina, it should be deleted. Applus2021 (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: merge with what?--ReyHahn (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, this article provides informative knowledge about possibly fraudulent corporation.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, It is a WP:SYNTH story comes under attack, there is no proof of police investigation or fraud and no complaint by anyone. Applus2021 (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, as it cites enough sources for WP:GNG notability. Not sure what "25 years old" refers to, as article indicates the organisation was still active in 2018. Probably reads like an "attack article" because that reflects its sources, and that's how articles tend to read when they're about fraudulent or criminal organisations. Meticulo (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, sources are taken to write a WP:SYNTH story, please see the original old article Applus2021 (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm very uncomfortable with this article. While Beall's list did a lot of consciousness raising about the risks of predatory open access journals, I'm inclined to think he was overly aggressive in his categorisation, and I do not think we should be so classifying publishers based solely on Beall's say-so. If we can't find better sources for the claims in the article, I'm inclined to !vote delete per WP:TNT. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Allied is one of the worse predatory publishers out there, being one of the OMICS affiliate. Beall may have been overly enthusiastic in some cases, but this is clearly not one of them. If you want other sources, there are plenty e.g. about the fake conferences hosted by Allied. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was aware of what we say about the OMICS connection and the significance of that before I wrote my comment. I'm a little bit reassured by your confidence in there being more RSes for the stronger claims in the article, but I'd like to see the sourcing improve before this AfD concludes. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:NCORP per the sources in the article. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep clear pass of WP:GNG, even if it's a garbage publisher. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. The best of worlds would be if we could delete Allied Academies (the company). Unfortunately that's not possible and this company has garnered enough attention in reliable sources to pass GNG. That none of the coverage is positive is not our problem. --Randykitty (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. based on news coverage. I wonder if the nominator has a COI! Peter303x (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Informative and useful for those who have encountered Allied Academies or one of their journals or conferences. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 05:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.