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. Michig (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SCIENCEDOMAIN international (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)

Non-notable marginal publisher. No independent sources. None of the journals they publish is itself notable. Their only claim to notability is being included in a list of "predatory" publishers, which is not enough to build an article upon. Randykitty (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 22:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete reliance on primary sources and a lack of significant coverage by media. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article needs to be re-written, not deleted. The company publishes 25 low-quality, scholarly journals. Were it written from a more objective point of view, I think the article would have good encyclopedic value. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• What is notable in some sense is that each and every one of those 25 journals is of such low quality that none would qualify as notable. The only info from an independent source that we have (and as far as I know, the only independent info that can be sourced to an RS that exists) is their inclusion on a list of predatory publishers. I don't see how an encyclopedic article could be written based on that... --Randykitty (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This publisher is very small and lacks minimum coverage in media. Even a small publisher needs to prove itself, to get sufficient attention. Its text is mostly taken from the publisher's own website (a kind of self-promotion). Visitors can visit the website of the publisher and can see all the information. No additional information is provided in this wiki page. This page does not add any extra value.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Patricia9876 (talk • contribs) 11:33, December 15, 2012— Patricia9876 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• STRONG Delete Non-notable publisher, wanted to advertise its own portfolio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wang Tiong (talk • contribs) 13:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC) — Wang Tiong (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete I strongly second the opinion of user Randykitty. It should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitandkat (talk • contribs) 16:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC) — Kitandkat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with a prejudice. Certainly not notable, appears to have advertising overtones. Recommend deletion as a means of correction, main contributor nor others have taken bold action to fix it. T.I.M^(Contact) 21:19, 18 December 2012 (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.