Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gisap


 * 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 delete. The purpose of this discussion was to determine whether this Wikipedia article should be deleted. To that end, the most salient argument here is that there is insufficient coverage about this subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to establish notability. The consensus among editors in this discussion is that this is the case. Mz7 (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Gisap

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

GISAP is identified as questionable by Beall and many others. It is a project of the International Academy of Science and Higher Education (IASHE), also identified as questionable. The article has no independent English sources, and was written by a WP:SPA as a translation form the Russian entry. ruWP has different inclusion standards. In the end, I am unable to trace any reliable third party commentary on this project other than in discussions of predatory publishing. That says to me that it is not notable. The project name, quoted, gets 21 Google hits, including spam. The parent organisation has no article. It is allegedly in London (its company record is in the UK, a private limited company based at an accommodation address with one officer, a Ukrainian art historian living in Odessa, no assets and net liabilities of £660), the only sources here are Russian, whihc probably reflects the fact that it is not actually English, as it claims to be. Looking for sources on either turns up only directories, self-published material, and bloggery (e.g. dismal Glassdoor reviews). Guy (Help!) 09:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 09:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 09:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 10:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: A google search on [ +442071939499 ] (the phone number from [ http://gisap.eu/contacts-form ]) shows some interesting stuff.


 * The Google Images results are especially interesting, showing journal covers that lead to the text of the particular issue (Russian with English descriptions and some really lame English language cartoons about science...)


 * One of the Google images results led me to [ http://court-inter.us/sites/default/files/images/blank-court-ru.pdf ] which led me to [ http://court-inter.us/node/20387 ]. Note the logos and links at the very bottom of that page. Note that [ http://gisap.eu/contacts-form ], [ http://bovasco.com/ ], [ http://iuci.eu/ ], and [ http://court-inter.us/contacts ] all have the same phone number.


 * --Guy Macon (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Incredible! Hence Articles for deletion/Eli Hyder now, too. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It's amazing how much effort they put into this walled garden of fake sites. I wonder what scam they are using to actually extract money from the victims. I suspect that it is taking deposits for fake "Arbitration", identity theft, or both. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

It's amazing how many charges! How many unqualified opinions are set forth here! Who in a civilized society has the right to recognize the fact of committing a crime, except for the court? Why does the opinion of Mr. Jeffrey Bell have such a categorical and final meaning? It's just his private opinion! And the well-known name of this expert does not guarantee the objectivity of his decisions. There can be millions of different judgments on the same issue for different people! In this project there is a large number of experts - doctors of science. Here an anti-plagiaristic check of papers and articles is conducted. Most of these scientists are not from the leading countries of the world. But this does not mean that they should not be respected! Mr. Bell and other critics do not know these experts and can not read scientific studies in Russian, Ukrainian, Kazakh, Uzbek, Tajik, Azerbaijani, Bulgarian, Polish, Estonian and other national languages. How, interestingly, do these people conclude that scientific publications in such languages do not have the right to exist? Such an opinion can be considered a reflection of the civilized principles of democracy, humanity and liberalism? Also, probably, to be Ukrainian and have a "small" business - this is something shameful and criminal… And maybe it's all about squeamish and discriminatory attitude towards people from "third world countries"? Probably, scientists from such countries should be deprived of the right to engage in science and write research in their own incomprehensible languages? Then Mr. Bell will be pleased... And a few words for the participants in this "public police investigation", which disclosed "significant crimes". First, all the projects you mentioned do not bring profit. These are innovative initiatives that are developed and tested by the founders. Secondly, non-professional arguments about international arbitration look a bit silly and cause only a smile. I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the profile (arbitration) international conventions. All commercial arbitrations are non-governmental organizations. International commercial disputes have the right to consider not only public organizations and firms, but also private individuals who are elected parties to the case (arbitration "ad hoc"). Before accusations and insults, you should always carefully check the information and not be guided by negative emotions. I sincerely thank you for your attention. If the article is removed from the Wiki - no one will be particularly upset. Because justice, reliable information and the presumption of innocence are much more important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.54.160.58 (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC) — 194.54.160.58 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * We have a phrase in English that applies here: BULLSHIT. Nobody said that the content of your web page or small business "has no right to exist". All we are saying is that you have no right to free advertising on the English Wikipedia.


 * Please tell us more about this "public police investigation", which disclosed "significant crimes" you speak of. Nobody here mentioned any police investigation, but now that you have alerted us we will certainly search for it.


 * And, by the way, here at the English Wikipedia we have access to editors fluent in Russian, Ukrainian, Kazakh, Uzbek, Tajik, Azerbaijani, Bulgarian, Polish, Estonian, etc. Please explain why you think asking them to translate something will change our opinion of your fake web site and your collection of fake organizations. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Very glad to see your reaction! The discussion here - a small chance to force "sofa critics" to get into the essence of the subject of discussion. Obviously, you are not an accidental critic, but a person who has external incentives. Xenophobia, radical nationalism and the spread of lies are crimes. And you are doing them. And this you create a real basis for applying against you to the police and presenting a multi-million claim to the court for moral damage. All evidence of your guilt is contained even in this correspondence. Any accusations must be based on evidence! You have just a set of fantasies. You do not write harmless theses. A furious anger comes from you. All that you wrote earlier, does not refer to the content of the article, and to the GISAP project. You are interested in founders, organizations and statutory funds. What does this have to do with the article? Does the existence of these organizations somehow violate the law? What law? YOU WANT TO BE THAT SO WAS! YOU ARE CONVINCED THAT THIS PROJECT IS BAD. AND EVEN NOT WANT TO SEE ANYTHING OBJECTIVELY! Please tell me what is really illegal you found! And you can safely apply to the police. Let's see what happens! You, like Mr. Bell, base their conclusions on fantasies and criminal prejudice. Mr. Bell includes thousands of publications on his lists and does not even study them. He just looks at the founders, publishers and authors. If they are from "second-class" countries, then "divine intuition" tells him that this is obviously bad. He does not try to get acquainted with projects, he does not ask questions. How can you conduct an examination without getting to know the object of examination? We (project participants) applied to Mr. Bell - he told us: "this is just my PRIVATE opinion." And he refused to discuss what is embarrassing him and what needs improvement. Mr. Bell has no firms, no statutory funds. And this you do not cause any comments. In this project, hundreds of experts - doctors of science. Almost all (several tens of thousands) authors have scientific degrees. And do you think that Bell's personal opinion (or yours) is more important than the collective opinion of these scientists? In addition, according to the "lists of Bell" there are many issues related to the potential of corruption (because everything depends on one person and his preferences). I note that the GISAP project does much more for science than you do. And does not make a profit. Most authors in it publish their work for 15-20 dollars. This does not even pay for the cost of paper. Many are published for free, because they use prize points and expert status.( In authoritative journals of Western Europe and North America, scientists from "third countries" are often required to pay for the publication of an article from $ 1000.0 to $ 5000.0. In many post-Soviet countries, scientists earn only 150.0 - 200.0 dollars per month). But the project unites scientists, gives them the opportunity to communicate. Publications are only a small part of the project. Here, competitions of scientists are held, congresses are organized. Scientists in different countries create federations of scientific analytics. You know that? Probably, to you the reality is indifferent?! Try to do something yourself! It's very easy to lie on the couch and grumble. You also have a wonderful Freudian slip. You said that we "do not have the right to place free advertising in English in Wikipedia". From what I conclude that you want money. And also you continue to arrogantly assert that foreigners (people of the "second class") should know "their place" and publish only in their own language. Such beliefs are very closely connected with the ideology of fascism. Although it seems to me that you do not really hide it. P.S. I am not the founder or the head of the GISAP project. I often participated in it. I studied the innovative programs of the project and used them to defend my doctoral dissertation on pedagogy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.54.160.49 (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC) If the article does not really comply with Wikipedia standards - it can be clear to me. And it will be accepted by me absolutely calmly and humbly (if it's true) . But unreasonable statements about some "fraud" - this is a blatant lie and provocation! "Prosecutors" publicly display contempt (disrespect)! What is the crime and where is the evidence of this?! Explain, the highly developed gentlemen are democrats, human rights activists, wise experts and humanists! Where are the facts of violation of the law? Whose rights are violated? Is it possible to blame anyone without studying the object and without evidence? Probably, now insufficient knowledge of English is a crime? Or foreign origin? Or maybe Wikipedia encourages the empty chatter of people who have nothing to do? Before this "discussion" I had a higher opinion about this project. And this "Western democracy" is horrifying... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.54.160.49 (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable per GNG. I can't find any independent sources. And the fact that their supposedly bilingual publication have so many mistakes in the English section would suggest also that this is not a British organization and only a scam. Hell, this might just be a component of a larger Russian fake news scheme. So while we're here why doesn't someone ring up The Singpost or the The Washington Post and tell them the Russians are trying to hack the free encyclopedia. And somebody get Guy Macron a drink for his detective work. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Cut the crap, spammer. Nobody here said anything about "crime" or "violation of the law". You might very well be violating several laws, but that's for the police and the courts to decide, not us. What we decide is the content of our encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not here to provide free advertising for your fake web sites and fake organizations.


 * ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!
 * DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
 * ARTHUR: Shut up!
 * DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!
 * ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
 * DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you here that, did you here that, eh? That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me, you saw it didn't you?


 * --Guy Macon (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails GNG without really any coverage in third party sources. The current text has a lot of peacocky langauge, but even in an attempt to salvage that, I don't even see anything that would really indicate WP:NFRINGE either with the Beall's list aspect even. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the literary opus! Bravo! Talented! You're angry because you're wrong! I will not clean up anything! Let everyone sit in their own "shit"! Once again I repeat: if the article does not really meet Wikipedia's requirements for content and form, I am ready to acknowledge this fact. Wikipedia is a private project with its own rules. But if the article does not correspond to personal prejudices, preferences, immorality or ignorance of individual "experts" - this is another matter. While I in this discussion from the critics did not see any professional judgment and reasonable opinion. Only emotions! And these emotions are sometimes very unclean. Do you really not understand that no one has the right to accuse someone openly and openly despise? What false accusations is this fraud? And subjective and pretentious opinions contradict encyclopedism? And more, dear friends! Why do not you deal with more "large-scale" issues. :) For example, President of the United States Trump - some "strange"! We must impeach him on Wikipedia! And Abramovich owns the Chelsea football club. Horrible! He is from Russia and he is also a Jew. Nightmare! Ban this team and expel Abramovich from England! And Uzbek Usmanov owns shares of Arsenal. It is unacceptable! Also it is necessary to prohibit foreign players from wearing the uniform of English football clubs (let's see how strong will be these teams). Surely, many are afraid to look at the blood. Then it is necessary to prohibit battles in MMA and medical operations. And I, for example, do not like cherry jam, fried sausage and Dutch cheese. Can I ask you to cancel them, too? I realized that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. This collection is often perverted and not objective information. The main quality of such information is the obligatory correspondence with private opinions of some dubious "experts". With such an ideology in Wikipedia, there will soon be no objective information at all. Only hungry and evil "experts" will remain. They will have little "food" and they will chew on each other.
 * Hello IP address writer. You have stated, "Once again I repeat: if the article does not really meet Wikipedia's requirements for content and form, I am ready to acknowledge this fact." We have repeatedly stated that this topic is not sufficiently notable to have its own article. Read WP:GNG for details. We're not in favor of deleting this page because we're suspicious of the organisation it discusses, that would be wrong. To be clear, if we thought this scam was notable we'd allow it to have an article. But this is not even a notable scam, so it can't have an article, -Indy beetle (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As evidence that we do not delete articles just because that are about scams, see our article on Mannatech. Mannatech is a scam that is notable. Gisap is a scam that isn't notable. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Alexbrn (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, friends! I did not visit this resource for a couple of days. Unfortunately, I was busy at work. I'm glad that here is still "fun". Yes, I accept the rules of the private project "Wikipedia". To influence such rules is not my competence. Yes, I accept the rules of the private project "Wikipedia". To influence such rules is not my competence. I have no complaints about this project, but there are questions for you, "experts." I see that you persistently continue to use the term "fraud" without any evidence... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.54.160.8 (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You are the only person who has used the word "fraud", moron. Perhaps you are confusing us with someone who is currently suing you for fraud? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:52, 23 December 2017 (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.