Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IGI Global


 * 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   no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 09:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

IGI Global

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 16:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 16:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The subject is a publisher at the high-volume/low-production-value end of the academic publishing industry. There are various sources in google, which fall into four groups (a) passing mentions as the publisher of a work being referenced / cited (this is the overwhelming majority) (b) entries in databases of publishers (academic libraries are big on such things) (c) non-independent materials originating from IGI Global itself or EBSCO (which is a primary reseller of IGI Global works in digital form, mainly selling the content in bulk to the academic libraries mentioned previously) and (d) independent sources which have a take a strongly negative view of IGI Global and/or their business practises, negative to the point of being attacks. See, , , , etc. Content based on those references has twice been as attack content, leaving the article without independent references. PROD was removed by User:Pundit without prejudice. ''Note: This company appears to be completely seperate from the similarly named Insight Global, which appears to suffer from similar issues. '' Stuartyeates (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion about notability here. They definitely have been criticized in the blogs mentioned by Stuartyeates, and also e.g. disputed in the Chronicles of Higher Education forum. This controversy perhaps increases the notability, but only slightly (also, the controversy itself is difficult to be properly sourced). At the very least, they are quite apt at selling books to very respectable universities, e.g. Harvard libraries have 169 volumes published by them, so irrespective of quality concerns voiced at blogs, they are probably not in the same bag as vanity and pay-to-play presses. On the other hand, they just are a rarely mentioned outlet, and looking for sources in their case is a real pain, since google regurgitates thousands of hits with their publications, and not descriptions of them as a publisher. Pundit | utter  13:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The underlying question is whether these critical sites amount to "significant coverage" and "reliable sources" (in which case the topic is notable, the article lives and the content gets included) or not (in which case the topic is non-notable). Third opinions sought. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 03:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure I have an opinion on Idea Group / IGI Global's notability either. I have a minor interest to declare as I used to help review articles for one of their technical journals and had an article published (and I too found their style and methods somewhat "challenging", but their publications generally useful). It is indeed tricky to find reliable independent sources for such a publisher, as they ceaselessly publicise themselves, while people (e.g. authors) who find them useful seldom then write about publishers; and other people tend to ignore publishers completely, unless indeed they find them a nuisance, in which case they blog, negatively: and again, such attacks are rarely in WP:RS. They certainly produce many journals, which in turn makes them widely read; and they have been running for many years now. Notability may however be difficult to establish. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:52, 8 August 2012 (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.