Deletion of OMICS Publishing Group (2nd nomination)

Comment: easily meets  per in-depth coverage in ''http://www.nature.com/news/investigating-journals-the-dark-side-of-publishing-1.12666 Nature'', ''http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/05/u.s.-government-accuses-open-access-publisher-trademark-infringement Science'', ''http://chronicle.com/article/Publisher-Threatens-to-Sue/139243/ Chronicle of Higher Education'' and ''http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/predatory-publishers-criticised-unethical-unprincipled-tactics/6656122 Australian Broadcasting Corporation''. , this is not a  and the content is entirely  summarising all of the reliable sources that are available
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP||WP:BLP||WP:NPOV)

Comment: Meets  and  standards
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ORG)

Comment: We do seem to have enough to meet . Any problems with the article should be addressed through the normal editing process. I don't think  applies
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:TNT)

Comment: Article appears at this point to be essentially entirely "this is a predatory company" material which is of marginal encyclopedic value.  This has nothing to do with any issues as to whether any of its publications are RS for anything at all, but whether the article ''as it stands'' pretty much fails  and appears unlikely to reach that required state
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: Having reviewed this article's sourcing, it seems to me it easily passes our notability guidelines, nor has any other policy-consistent deletion rationale been supplied--point in fact, for that reason, this is an extremely flawed nomination, OTRS or no.  Addressing the comments of those two editors who have thus far !voted for delete, I can't see how this article constitutes an attack page simply by virtue of the fact that the sources we utilize are overwhelmingly critical of the company; there's no shortage of articles on topics for which the bulk of our sources are largely critical.   doesn't mean that we present every topic as if the wider world were ambivalent about it.  Rather it means that we keep our personal perspectives out of the matter and only report what reliable sources say, as accurately as we can.  As such, our neutrality policies will often require us to relay information that is decidedly critical of a topic, from multiple sources, specifically because we do not filter the information through out own perspectives
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)