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. I think there is a very narrow consensus to delete here. The salient argument to keep is from Stuartyeates who points out blog posts about the subject by noted academics like Peter Murray-Rust and Ian Bogost, but the purpose of their posts is to critique IGI Global's disreputable practices. While I think an argument can be made that these gentlemen represent reliable sources, I don't think their posts qualify as in-depth coverage as demanded by the WP:GNG. I'm not personally going to salt the article because I think there could be a good, well-sourced article that actually reflects the company's perception within academia as a "vampire press" and not the bland bit of first-party-sourced PR fluff being considered in this discussion. A Traintalk 17:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IGI Global[edit]

AfDs for this article:
IGI Global (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources establish that the company exists, but no more than that. Beall considers the company to be worthless and its publications borderline predatory, but even that is hard to source as it's not open access so not included in his list of predatory journals. The "sources" are directories and a press release from IGI, there are no independent sources about the company. Evidence of WP:ITEXISTS does not meet WP:GNG. Guy (Help!) 06:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interestingly WP:PARITY like argument. Hm. User:Randykitty, thoughts on this Afd and the above sources? Jytdog (talk) 08:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A publisher does categorically not inherit notability from works they publish. As much as I !voted keep above, if we have to rely on arguments such as these, we have to delete. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What else is a publisher notable for if not their published works? Is not an author not notable for their published works? Etc. I could not see anything under WP:INHERITED against this. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By default, we generally expect a subject to be notable when it's received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. That's coverage of the subject in particular, not of notable works tied to it. For some subjects we have subject-specific notability criteria which grant notability under certain scenarios -- like a musical group with two independently notable musicians, or winning an Academy Award, or holding a named/endowed professorship at a university. The idea isn't to short circuit the need for sources, but to say that these conditions make it so there will be sources. Sometimes that means we get permastubs or articles sourced almost entirely to coverage of its component subjects, but meh. Anyway, we don't have that sort of thing for publishers, as far as I know. Most relevant is WP:ORG. There was a proposal for Wikipedia:Notability (publishing) but it failed pretty hard. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:ORGSIG: "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." I would argue that the above demonstrates this in science, perhaps education too. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WorldCat stats would only be relevant if libraries did selection based largely on publisher, which seems unlikely; much more likely these are compilations of academic works which are then purchased by the libraries of the universities at which the academic authors work. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with this assessment. In my view, publishers listed by reputable indexes such as the ACM Digital Library (the ACM is the leading computer science professional body internationally), Scopus, etc., are notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. These can be considered under the following from WP:ORGIND in my view: "Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as [...] websites". An explicit list of acceptable indexes for academic publishers would be useful. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, we need to avoid using WP:BLOGS as sources, anyway, especially to establish something as important as notability (which, as all or most of us know, is the general answer to whether or not we should write an article on the subject). -- Gestrid (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For academic journals we take inclusion in respected databases only as a sign of notability if said databases are selective. So inclusion in DOAJ or Google Scholar does not contribute to notability, even though those are respected. In the present case, none of the databases concerned are selective but instead try to be comprehensive, so I don't think that inclusion in them contributes any notability, it just confirms that the company exists. --Randykitty (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing the rather fundamental point that inclusion only indicates that something is likely to be notable. Notability on Wikipedia is established by non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. Not directories. Not indexes. Guy (Help!) 20:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of those are non-selective directory-style databases. The phonebook is reliable. Being listed in it is routine and does not confer notability. --Randykitty (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Typefi thing is a promotional piece by the company producing Typefi. The Nasee piece is a promotional press release. The "sources" used in this article are starting to near G11 territory: one of them is even a (completely inappropriate) promotional slide presentation of the company and its products! --Randykitty (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about this: Hai-Jew, Shalin (2015). "Profiling an Entity across Multiple Social Media Platforms". Colleague 2 Colleague. Fall/Winter (16). — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seen. Interview with IGI staffer plus database-style listing of facts about the company, it's people and it's product. No evidence that any information on in that was supplied by anyone but IGI, so not independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — In summary, while no one reference or academic index listing constitutes "notability", I believe that as a collection of evidence not included in the previous IGI Global entry they do, even with deletions by an editor. I would ask that this comment not be moved or changed by another editor. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More