Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Science-Fellows Inc.


 * 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.  → Call me  Hahc  21  16:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Science-Fellows Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable publisher of non-notable journals. The only (feeble) claim to notability is that this outfit is listed on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory open access publishers. No independent sources. Does not meet any notability guideline, least of all WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 10:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I think WP:PERP is appropriate as an analogous guideline: if the only independent attention an academic publisher has received is to be listed as predatory, and they don't even stand out among the list of many predatory publishers (there is nothing unusual about what they do), then they're not notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I couldn't find any sources discussing this publisher, and its journals don't seem to have been cited by anyone. --Cerebellum (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2014 (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.