Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medwin Publishers


 * 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. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient Star   Mississippi  18:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Medwin Publishers

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Insufficient independent sources to merit standalone article, page seems to be more of a hit piece, but regardless, is not sourced independently, or from RS'es. — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 21:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Telangana.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - the address listed for Medwin Publishers is a home in a neighborhood in Michigan. Also making note that the author Kjalarr also created Jacobs Publishers, another predatory publisher with a US mailing address but hdqtrd in the same location in India as Medwin Publishers. It not only doesn't feel right, there are no reliable sources for either article to justify stand alone articles. Both are already listed as predatory publishers on Beall's list. They may even be outright hoaxes or at the very least scammers based on their questionable addresses.  Atsme  💬 📧 01:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep the article clearly states that this is a non-reliable publisher. I did look up some of the articles and some of the board members, and they do exist although none are stellar (post-docs, first-job professors, etc.). The occasional article can be found in PubMed. I think it is good to keep this article - the information is acccurate. Lamona (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment None of the reasons you've provided are reasons contained in our guidelines for establishing notability. Just because a company exists and can be verified isn't enough. This isn't the Yellow Pages. Can you point to any sources which you believe meet GNG/NCORP criteria?  HighKing++ 15:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have mentioned that there are sources in the article, and I also found Predatory Journals in Dermatology. I realize these sources may not be enough because they are mainly mentions. If the article is deleted, would a redirect to Beall's list make sense? If someone searches for this article on WP it would be nice to at least give them a heads up that there's something fishy about it. Lamona (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure Wikipedia has a role to play in "warning" people about companies in that manner. In fact, pretty sure Wikipedia doesn't want to be in that role.  HighKing++ 18:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a company therefore GNG/NCORP guidelines apply. WP:SIRS tells us that *each* reference must meet all the criteria for establishing notability - at least two deep or significant sources containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the sourcing meets the criteria, topic fails GNG/NCORP.  HighKing++ 15:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete A complete failure of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Even if this company was notable this article should be WP:TNTed. Jumpytoo Talk 10:43, 24 February 2023 (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.