Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medknow Publications

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Medknow Publications

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. ∯WBG^converse 14:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd consider Medknow to be a notable (if not very good) subsidiary of Wolters Kluwer, which publishes several notable journals (see Category:Medknow Publications academic journals). Not sure deletion is the best outcome, but redirecting would be better than deletion if it comes to that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note, it was briefly on Beall's list [1] for having an 'vague/unproven business model', but it was taken down because 'It is the publisher for many well-respected Indian professional societies and is disseminating abundant, high-quality research.'. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gave the article a polish and a spitshine. Trimned a lot of WP:WEASEL/WP:PROMO stuff.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Headbomb, which part of WP:NCORP is non-comprehensible? ∯WBG^converse 07:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Which part of 'meets WP:GNG' is not? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Headbomb, WP:NCORP is the only guideline that effectively supercedes GNG per WP:ORGCRIT. I can go into a detailed analysis of sources (esp. intellectual independency); shall you wish so. ∯WBG^converse 07:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Feel free to intellectualize the sources, but WP:ORGCRIT does not supercede WP:GNG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: How does it fail WP:NCORP, anyway? The "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?" Science article, obviously very critical, gives it not just as an example but as "one of the largest open-access publishers". The "India's Efforts in Open Access Publishing " article names Medknow the first "among leading [Open Access, Indian] publishers", for example. So Medknow has 1. significant coverage in 2. multiple 3. independent, 4. reliable 5. secondary sources – which of these is not true? Tokenzero (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Beall either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes the GNG, and as best I can tell, WP:NCORP too. XOR'easter (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A reasonable number of independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2019 (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.