Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-Century Publishing Corporation


 * 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   Userfy. Upon request by DGG I'm userfying this. Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 20:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The result was   delete. Coffee  //  have a cup  //  flagged revs now!  // 14:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

E-Century Publishing Corporation

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

This non-notable corporation publishes some academic journals that are also all non-notable, in my opinion. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 07:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Rather new company, no indication of notability (yet). No prejudice to recreation if this should change in the future. --Crusio (talk) 08:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge journal articles into this one, per DGG below. --Crusio (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep My reasons: 1. Yes, this company was rather new by the common sense. However, the achievement of having 5 professional medical journals launched successfully, and 4 of them are indexed in PubMed and PubMed Centrals of multiple major countries (USA, UK and Canada) make it unique, and highly notable. 2. Yes, this company does not have extensive coverage from the conventional media. However, it is a company that is dedicated to the Open Access of Science (Knowledge), which is quite different from the most conventional business that is largely aimed at profit-generating. However, the indexing by PubMed and full text archiving of its journals in PubMed Central that are being accessed by hundreds of thousands of scientists and millions of public across the world everyday can be considered as the "media coverage", and is extensive. 3. Hundreds Editorial Board members in the five journals are all from the top universities and academic institutes across the world. Many of them are distinguished investigators, physicians with international reputation in their research field. The reason for these high profile scientists across the world are participating and supporting the subject in discussion is because the cause of this company pursuing is Notable. 4. As a strong believer and long time supporter of the effort of making the knowledge freely available like the air to everyone on this planet, I think that their cause is notable cause, therefore, I truly believe that this page is worth the keeping.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by OpenAccessforScience (talk • contribs) 17:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment You are rather new to Wikipedia, so you are making the common mistake of interpreting "notability" in its common sense (like, "important", "worthwhile", and such). You would do well to read the Wikipedia notability guideline for organizations and corporations, so that you will see what is needed for a company to be "notable" in the WP sense. --Crusio (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I just noticed that you have been helping to improve my contributions here. Many thank for your time and effort to help. But from the reading of the "notability" page of Wikipedia, I found this publisher meets every criteria described: 1. "Reliable, independent secondary sources": PubMed and PMC are the reliable and indenpendent sources and they are continuing cover this company by puting the sentence "Articles from International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Pathology are provided here courtesy of e-Century Publishing Corporation" in every new article that is archived. 2. "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." This publisher is doing the great things to all of us just like Wikipedia and "worthy of being noted", and is "attracting notice", and IS having notable and demonstrable effects on culture, science and education...I can go on to argue on this, but I think that i have made my point and can stop here.OpenAccessforScience (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * delete no evidence of notability and any encyclopedic discussion in third-party sources presented. - Altenmann >t 23:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep & further Comment Please forgive me not faking the second User ID to post the second "Keep" message here...But I do willing to salute to you for your great contributions to this great project over the years. Here is my thought on why this article should be kept. The publisher is different from many conventional businesses that may not have lasting impact to our culture, society and knowledge system. Once published articles get into the PubMed, PubMed Central and NLM's collections and the likes, they will stay there for hundreds, if not thousands years even the original publisher is long gone. It is the duty of any publication who claims herself as an "encyclopedia" to provide the answer regarding the publisher of those papers to future readers who also want to know who had published the papers that they are reading thousands years ago :). Even a publisher is out of business in one year, it is still worth to give her a small corner in any "Encyclopedia" as long as this publisher has some publications (articles) are indexed/archived in PubMed/PMC. This publisher in discussion already have hundreds papers archived in PubMed and PMC, and are certainly going to contributing more, even it disappears tomorrow and never reaches the "notability" as we expect, should not it deserve a short article here in Wikipedia? As the original creator, I feel obligated to improve this article as you suggested, and I will certainly try my best as soon as I have time to get on it. Hopefully, the revised article will eventually acceptable with the help from you, Crusio, DGG, Abductive, John and all caring colleagues here. OpenAccessforScience (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC).


 * delete. No independent coverage. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I do not think the individual journals published by the company are most of them notable yet, but using this article for a combination article in the meantime seems a reasonable solution for the moment. The best solution is to wait a year and try the articles for the journals again. They might become so, but it will need citation figures to show it. It is true that there will not be references to this sort of material from the general media, but if they are of the importance claimed, articles about them in the various medical sources should discuss them. Is there anything in Bulletin of the medical library Association, or ever MEDLIB-L?    DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there's nothing in Research Information about this publisher. This is all the blog coverage I can find: I think Delete until some significant coverage in reliable sources appear, but failing that merge all the journals to the publisher's page. Fences  &amp;  Windows  03:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Dear Colleagues and friends, I just edited the article in discussion as you suggested. Hopefully it has been improved a little bit. Please feel free to improve it or do whatever you think appropriate. Very happy and honored to have this unique opportunity to talk to all of you. Thank you for your patience with me as a new comer and your advices and help in any format. Wish you all have a wonderful holiday season.OpenAccessforScience (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep and follow DGG's idea of merging and redirecting the individual journal articles to this main article. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete none of the business or its products show notability, and neither would they if it was all merged. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Keep A new, small, not famous publisher like this one is notable, may be even highly notable given that it is publishing six peer reviewed professional medical journals, particularly with four of them already indexed in PebMed and other major medical databases. Not see such nice thing often.NorthfaceW (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC) — NorthfaceW (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Weak Delete Were it not for DGG I'd vote a clear delete. What this publisher is doing may well be admirable, but I don't see how it can be said to meet our notability guidelines at present. All the articles on the journals seem to have been written by OpenAccessforScience who I think may be affiliated with the publisher. On the other hand I greatly respect DGG's judgement. NBeale (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2009 (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.