Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambridge Scholars Publishing


 * 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.  bibliomaniac 1  5  04:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't look to be a notable publisher. A search for sources (always difficult with a publisher) isn't turning up much. Most of the sources I see about the subject are e.g. forum posts asking "has anyone heard of this publisher" or "do they really have a connection to Cambridge" (no seems the answer). Article itself is largely primary sourced and somewhat promotional. Tried to PROD, but apparently a past RfD may disqualify it (or at least throws a wrench into the Twinkle script). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is a publisher that has established itself as well known in the predatory publishing world, at least as a book publisher, and that is counting on people confusing them with Cambridge University Press, so I thought it would be helpful to have an article on them as part of our coverage of predatory publishing. However the current (promotional) article bears no resemblance to the original article, as an IP address has replaced it with the current puff piece a few days ago. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I have restored the article to the state it was in before the IP edit of 23 March. If a similar attempt at whitewashing is made in future, I suggest the article should be protected. I am about to add info about the "library" where it is based. Pam  D  16:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as per . Pam  D  16:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt Even in its restored version it still lacks in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. In light of that I think the best option is to delete it, with added salting so it isn't just re-created by the white washers. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Here are sources I found that provide more information about Cambridge Scholars Publishing (these sources currently are not cited in the article):  The article notes: "Cambridge Scholars Publishing was founded about fifteen years ago by some former lecturers and researchers from the University of Cambridge. The publisher is based in Newcastle upon Tyne. Over the last decade it has published a number of collections of academic essays pertaining to J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Mervyn Peake, and to fantasy literature across the board. Most of these collections have been smallish in size, elegantly produced but published at prices rather high for any casual reader. Distribution in North America has been very spotty, but the usually strong representation of European scholarship gives an added reason to seek out these volumes."  The review notes: "As a co-editor of a collected volume, I know all too well the challenges of quality control and project management (Silva, Wang, Zhang, & Paiz, 2016). That being said, with a good press and diligent editors, both book editors and copy editors at the publishing house, amazing things can happen with this kind of book. ‘Contextualizing English as a Lingua Franca: From Data to Insights’, however, suffers from many of the problems that typically plague edited collections, and these problems are exacerbated by the publishing model of Cambridge Scholars Publishing, which researchers on sites like researchgate.net have described as being overly reliant on contributors to perform even basic copy editing of the texts. ... Again, I fully understand the challenges inherent in edited collections, but this speaks to a fundamental issue with Cambridge Scholars Publishings production model. Many of the more established presses that I am aware of—Oxford University Press, New York University Press, Equinox Publishing—will have a manuscript go through a round of in-house copy editing to avoid exactly this kind of error. Additionally, the book is missing an index, which makes it difficult to see how ideas might cross over from chapter to chapter, or to guide your reading, or raiding, of the text. Issues with production quality persist throughout the book. ... This book represents an ambitious effort, but it gets stuck in a quagmire of editorial and copy-editing issues that simply shouldn’t have been allowed to occur if proper quality control was exercised by Cambridge Scholars Publishing."  The book notes: There are also a number of print-on-demand or reprint publishers, such as Kessinger, BiblioBazaar, and Cambridge Scholars Publishing which, in 2009, flooded the market with cheap editions of just about everything available by Humboldt, most often reprints of old translations. Even the seven volumes of Hanno Beck's incomplete and not very thorough edition of Humboldt's Werke from the 1990s was reissued as a set in 2008. Cunard (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)</li></ul> <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep It can be surprisingly difficult to find information about a publisher amid all the things printed by them. In this case, I think there are just enough sources available to make an article justifiable, and it is in the public interest for us to document when publishers are predatory (or gray-area or dodgy) when we can. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is so very important for readers of WP+ to be able to find information about hte status of journals and their publishers, that the notability requireents should be interpreted as liberally as possible -- I would even say particularly liberally for less-than-reputable publisher.  There's enough material here to support the article.  DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment A brand new editor (first and only edit) using the edit summary "Correction of incorrect and misleading information, and addition of information" has recently reverted to the whitewashed version of the article. I have undone their edit.  Pam  D  15:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - While I'm yet to see anything resembling WP:GNG, it seems like people want readers to be able to find something about this publisher on Wikipedia in order to understand its reputation. But stand-alone articles, with few watchers and scant content based on few sources, are not the only way. List of predatory publishers is currently a redirect, for example... &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 15:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: I think it's worthwhile having information about the predatory publisher. If it continues to be whitewashed, it can be protected. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment another whitewashing edit has been followed up by a post on my talk page which makes some useful points. I've reverted the edit (which lost all formatting, refs etc) and will do a little work on the article now, having done some research. Pam  D  11:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Pam  D  12:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I think having a list along the lines of what Rhododendrites suggests would be a lot more effective than a stand alone article that needs continued vigilance against white washing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.