Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preditors and Editors (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Bushranger One ping only 18:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Preditors and Editors
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Completely unsourced. Could not find any reliable sources (per WP:RS standards) for this at all, let alone multiple notable reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage, which is required before a topic can have its own Wikipedia article. Previous AFD in 2008 had only three participants and the two keep !votes were based upon assuming there must be sources without actually trying to provide any. DreamGuy (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - You wrote that you Could not find any reliable sources, but I can't tell how hard you looked. I found plenty of sources by looking at the above Google books and Google scholar links. Here's a few to start you off:
 * Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB. The examples given above strongly appear to be trivial coverage, and not the subject of any article or book.  If the only sourcable fact is "Preditors and Editors is a website listing naughty editors", then that's not enough.  The resulting article would be one sentence long. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  11:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I took some time to look at Dori's links, plus did the reasonable search. The Google scholar links (16 sources) mostly represent works which mention their own merit in a Preditors and Editors readers' poll. Two scholarly pdfs actually do cover the subject of editors and publishers, and P&E does get an endorsement in a single sentence each. A couple more are in the "how-to" category, and in neither case can the site claim more than a bare mention. A book search (which offers 625 results, of which only 316 appear) finds a number of the same kind of one sentence endorsements to which Dori links, plus a plethora of book cover brags. A general gsearch (55,000 results) gets tons of blogs and self-published web material, plus online books which bear the P&E readers' poll award. In no case did I see a reliable source offering so much as a paragraph directly detailing. This and another interview are the closest I got (certainly more than a paragraph, certainly less than RS). After reading, I'm of the opinion that the site is genuinely useful and an excellent resource for authors who are trying to sort wheat from chaff when trying to find reputable editors and publishers. According to blogs, the site editor is getting sued by some publishers the site listed as "preditors". However, none of this is criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. A reasonable case could be made that so many bare mentions might qualify as significant coverage. Offline sources might well exist. But based on what I saw in my search, I can't assert keep. Fails GNG and WEB. I'd be willing to reconsider if other sources arise. BusterD (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete pero Starblind and BusterD rationales. — Hahc 21  15:56, 23 June 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.
 * Delete per WP:WEB. The examples given above strongly appear to be trivial coverage, and not the subject of any article or book.  If the only sourcable fact is "Preditors and Editors is a website listing naughty editors", then that's not enough.  The resulting article would be one sentence long. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  11:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I took some time to look at Dori's links, plus did the reasonable search. The Google scholar links (16 sources) mostly represent works which mention their own merit in a Preditors and Editors readers' poll. Two scholarly pdfs actually do cover the subject of editors and publishers, and P&E does get an endorsement in a single sentence each. A couple more are in the "how-to" category, and in neither case can the site claim more than a bare mention. A book search (which offers 625 results, of which only 316 appear) finds a number of the same kind of one sentence endorsements to which Dori links, plus a plethora of book cover brags. A general gsearch (55,000 results) gets tons of blogs and self-published web material, plus online books which bear the P&E readers' poll award. In no case did I see a reliable source offering so much as a paragraph directly detailing. This and another interview are the closest I got (certainly more than a paragraph, certainly less than RS). After reading, I'm of the opinion that the site is genuinely useful and an excellent resource for authors who are trying to sort wheat from chaff when trying to find reputable editors and publishers. According to blogs, the site editor is getting sued by some publishers the site listed as "preditors". However, none of this is criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. A reasonable case could be made that so many bare mentions might qualify as significant coverage. Offline sources might well exist. But based on what I saw in my search, I can't assert keep. Fails GNG and WEB. I'd be willing to reconsider if other sources arise. BusterD (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete pero Starblind and BusterD rationales. — Hahc 21  15:56, 23 June 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.