Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OMICS Publishing Group


 * 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   speedy keep. Obviously a bad-faith nomination; nominator is now blocked as a sock of Rich1982 which is a sock, apparently, of Scholarscentral. SNOW applies as well, despite the "delete" from Shoess. With apologies to that last editor, I'm closing this in part, then, to prevent further disruption from the next drawer full of socks.. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

OMICS Publishing Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet wikipedia standards.Article not necessary for this organisation Henrymark20 (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep -- nom is an obvious sock of and has no business editing at all.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) Speedy keep Only reason for this nomination is that Henrymark20 and his sockpuppet/meatpuppet friends cannot push their preferred POV here. Enough sources to establish notability, disruptive nomination. --Randykitty (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Bad faith proposal. Clearly easily passes WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 8.  Snotbot   t • c »  19:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep As shown by the references in the article, this organization has been the subject of articles in Nature and the New York Times, both in depth, reliable sources. It passes general notability guidelines, per WP:GNG. The article does not seem promotional and while short, is well cited. A notable organization and no major article problems suggests keeping this article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Only found two legitimate new articles, one shown here, and both extremely negative, on the company.  Not enough to pass WP:GNG.   ShoesssS Talk 20:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ??? Since when is the fact that (reliable!) references are negative a reason to delete an article? There's coverage in multiple reliable sources. It's in-depth. How can that lead to a "delete" !vote??? --Randykitty (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think you missed my main point; “…Only found two legitimate news articles”. With only two sources the article does not meet WP:GNG.  ShoesssS Talk 14:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As I replied to the sock below: "Nature, New York Times, Charleston Advisor": that makes three unassailable reliable sources. --Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I’m not questioning the reliability of the source(s) just that there are only three and one is more a press release than an in-depth article. Hey, that’s why we have WP:AFD to handle differences of opinions like this one.  Take care.  ShoesssS Talk 15:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete If sufficient notability is there then editors should be more than double digit should not stuck to two or three frequent editors. So article should be removed Chicago1432 (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC) — Chicago1432 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Number of editors involved is NOT a valid reason for deletion.Theroadislong (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 *  Delete  As per the article edit history frequent editors are Nomoskedasticity and Randykitty and rare editor is Theroadislong are making the group negative. Propably these editors have conflict interest with other publishers. They are picking negative lines from the sources and not following neutrality and removing the imporant positive references. Wikipedia is source for all not only for conflict interest editors, so  delete .Chicago1432 (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC) (user has already !voted above)
 * Keep and improve. This is a key article on an important topic. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The mentions in reliable sources indicate a sufficient level of notability to be included in Wikipedia.  Some work is needed to maintain neutrality though (for example, placing it in Category:Predatory open access journals is based on opinion and allegation).  Peacock (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That category is at CFD and will likely be deleted. Apart from that, the article is NPOV as it stands now, which is not the same as neutral: most independently sourced information about this company is negative, so our article is negative, too. However, that's what the sources say and not a POV of the people editing it. The article does need continuous attention, though, to counteract POV -pushing socks that want to turn it into an ad for the company. Apart from all this, given that this is clearly a bad-faith nom and the only "delete" !votes being mostly from socks, I call for a speedy close of this disruptive AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete---

I disagree with randy kitty because

No third party references are stated in the article as per WP:BFAQ, so this article can be deleted. Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) WP:ORG guidelines (Only few secondary sources are refered) Advertising the organisation rather than providing information about the organisation--NPOV(Doesn't have notable information WP:FAILN) This article doesn't satisfy WP:PRODUCT guidelines stating about services and this article seems to be an "Attack Page." attacking the organization ,as no discussion has been carried out at neutral point of view noticeboard.

Based on all the above reasons,this article can be deleted. Henrymark20 (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC) — Henrymark20 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Are you joking? Nature, New York Times, Charleston Advisor: multiple independent third party references in reliable sources. Certainly not an advertisement, nor an attack page (I don't really fathom how anybody could in one paragraph claim both of these things about one and the same article). Please, take off your socks and walk away. --Randykitty (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Randy kitty..

Thank you for the reply on the talk page and sorry if I have frustrated you on the talk page..

I don’t understand what kind of joke did you find in the context..

I have few concerns about this article..Go through them and I expect an answer for all these concerns

1) Check, You have stated third party references as reliable.so can you please let me know why information related to OMICS Group published in pharma financial express has been deleted?

2) If you could please go through the NYT and Nature, there are both Positive and Negative statements about the Group, can you let me know why only negative is being highlighted and positive is being deleted all the time.

3) To my knowledge, the theme of the article published in NYT and nature should be picked rather than pasting the lines from the source. If lines are to be included both negative and positive lines should be included. Why did you skip this??

4) Please check these links http://www.nature.com/nnano/pricing/index.html

http://www.nature.com/srep/faqs/openaccess-faqs.html

http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/apcfaq/howmuch

Every publishing group charges Article Processing Charges (APC) and it differs from subject to subject and country to country. So, can you explain me why only OMICS processing charges are being highlighted??More over in the nature article regarding $2700 APC it has been stated that they were unable to contact author. How can this be justified??

Randykitty, I expect an answer for all my concerns....Henrymark20 (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * These are matters for the article talk page, not for the AfD. Editors who are not sock puppets are welcome to discuss them there.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2013 (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.