Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (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 keep. Keep, not speedy, but snowy. POV is no reason for deletion (nor is any POV proven), and as multiple editors point out, there are multiple reliable sources discussing the topic. If there are concerns about individual sources those can be addressed on the article talk page; same with POV concerns. I am closing per WP:SNOW since the unanimous opinions of a great number of seasoned editors points toward "keep", and there is no sense in wasting time. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to be an attack article which does not have a NPOV. Looking at the sources, they are either blogs, no RS or do not support the text cited. There’s also the issue of notability, which does not appear to have been established. Looking at the recent editors and edit patterns, can it be said they they have a NPOV? Overall, this article does not belong in WP due to source issues, NPOV issues and notability issues. Tonyinman (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Before bringing an article to AfD we expect editors to do at least a cursory search for possible sources. Such a search using Google News immediately turned up 4 reliable sources discussing this organisation., These seem sufficient to establish the notability of the subject. They also seem to share the same pov as the article. {re|Tonyinman}}, given your accusations against editors of this article, presumably including me, you should have notified them. Most of them aren't active any more or only did technical edits. But I'll ping the ones that are still active and have edited in recent years. .  Doug Weller  talk 13:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please explain which, of any of the sources on this page you consider to be reliable. Thanks. Tonyinman (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, sufficiently sourced (and more sources exist as per above) even after discounting the blogs that specialise in this company. As to NPOV, are there any RS that state the company is not what the article claims it to be? —Kusma (t·c) 13:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please explain which, of any of the sources on this page you consider to be reliable. Thanks. Tonyinman (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)c) 18:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * All of Doug Weller's sources are reliable, they just haven't been added to the article yet. —Kusma (t·
 * Can you provide any examples of reliable sources cited in the article? Thanks. Tonyinman (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The Ottawa Citizen is a RS, and the waset-watch blog cited in the article is not a RS, but links to three RS discussing the article. —Kusma (t·c) 19:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree the Ottawa Citizen is RS, however the article text which relies on a page from the Ottawa Citizen for the citation is not backed up by the content of the Ottowa Citizen page referenced. Tonyinman (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As you started a deletion nomination, we are here to discuss whether we should have an article about the topic at all. If you want to suggest improvements to the article, please state your specific complaints on the talk page. —Kusma (t·c) 20:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your reply is a non sequiter. I don't believe this interaction is constructive so I'm not responding further.Tonyinman (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Certainly there is sufficient coverage, already by the sources listed in the article, to justify notability per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. There are many other examples of nontrivial coverage, e.g. Times Higher Education, Japan Times, etc. There may be issues with neutrality of the language currently used in the article, but, at least at first reading, the statements appear to be well supported by the sources cited. The nominator has not mentioned the existence of any other published sources that present and discuss more positive info about the subject of the article. If such sources exist, or if there is some positive counter-info/counter-arguments regarding WASET present in the sources already cited, such sources/info could be added to the article. The proper place to address the issues of neutrality and the language being used is at the article talk page, not by deletion of an article on a notable topic of significant current interest. Nsk92 (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please give an example of any text on the page you consider to be neutral. Thanks. Tonyinman (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please give me an example of statement you consider to be non-neutral, and why. In the cases where neutrality is disputed, the burden is on the disputer, to bring up a specific issue, not the other way around. Nsk92 (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have given an example in the AFD. I cannot see any text in the article which is neutral, ie all the text in the article is non-neutral. Perhaps you could detail which text you believe is neutral and compliant with NPOV?? Thanks. Tonyinman (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please humor us. Be more specific. Pick one specific sentence or a small paragraph as an example of something violating WP:NPOV and explain why you feel it violates WP:NPOV. Nsk92 (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please note my edits have been civil. I trust yours will be too. In response to your request, the following text in the lede is cited using a personal blog (not RS) and the term was coined by the same person who wrote the blog, therefore not NPOV."The World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology or WASET is a predatory publisher[1]"
 * WP:NPOV doesn't say that the article has to be neutral. Our articles on Creationism and Evolution are not neutral, they make it clear that Creationism is pseudoscience and evolution real science. Doug Weller  talk 19:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I notice in your edit summary you've said "editor clearly doesn't understand our policies." Perhaps you could explain 'your' policies, and do you consider your edit summary an appropriate statement? Thanks. Tonyinman (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, by our I meant Wikipedia's. Yes, you've brought an article to AfD without doing the work that you should have done first and you failed to show good faith concerning its editors. But I'm not going to get into an argument here, if you want to discuss NPOV for this article to it at the article's talk page. The article is going to be kept and it would show good will if you withdrew the nomination. Doug Weller  talk 11:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Personal comments will be ignored, thanks. I conducted a WP:Before and could not find RS sources to support the claims made in the article. Per Attack Pages, I still have concerns about this article.


 * Speedy keep It is as though this nomination is made without a thorough WP:BEFORE accessment.       Celestina007 (talk) 18:30, 05 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Doug Weller and has sufficient coverage and passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep there's multiple statements sourced to reliable sources all describing this organization as a prolific predatory publisher. I don't see any reason for this article to be deleted. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep (edit conflict) Discussed in multiple prominent general-interest and specialist publications. It could stand a thorough edit of the prose, but that's not what AfD is for. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Snow keep. Plenty of coverage in independent reliable sources as detailed above, and even the blogs are of the kind permitted per WP:SPS. The nominator seems to have either failed to perform a proper WP:BEFORE, or has an axe to grind here. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My edit history suggest otherwise. Please refrain from personal attacks. Thanks.


 * Comment. While I disagree with Tonyinman's criticism of the sources (they seem quite adequate to establish what the alleged journal actually is), do the NYTimes and Japan Times articles demonstrate a pre-existing notability, or create it? How is WASET more notable than the thousands of other predatory journals? Would we still keep the article if the POV was different? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * the way we look at notability  at WP, this is not a real distinction: reliable sources establish notability by writing about something. they may have a pre-existing importance in some manner, butthey only acquire notability for the purpose of wikipedia article if they are considered sufficient important to be written about .   DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WASET isn't a predatory journal, it's a publisher of predatory journals and has been accused of scamming by at least one university. And of course then there's the "conferences". Doug Weller  talk 11:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Obvious keep. I can't believe we're even discussing this, given the article includes top-drawer sources such as Die Zeit, New York Times, and The Japan Times. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * But those sources, while clearly RS, don#t actually support the claims made in the lede of the article.
 * Here we are discussing deletion of the article. Concerns with content of the lede (or other parts of the article) should be taken up on the article talk page. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2017 (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.