Deletion of Natural Science (journal)

Comment: to Scientific Research Publishing for most of the same reasons I already gave at the AfD for another journal by the same publisher, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Quantum Information Science. We do not have evidence (in the form of indexing in ''selective'' third-party indices, as opposed to the take-all-comers ones) that this is a notable or significant journal. And we do have evidence (given on the publisher's article) that the publisher is a predatory one that has engaged in scientific misconduct including copying papers inappropriately from other journals and failing to conduct proper peer review. The lack of evidence for the quality of this particular journal presents us with a neutrality dilemma: we can't accuse it of being one of the bad ones without evidence but on the other hand we don't want to present it as respectable when it may not be. The problem is caused precisely because the journal does not pass  in that we do not have nontrivial sources that pay particular attention to the quality of this specific journal. The one difference between this AfD and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Quantum Information Science is that in that case there was also an issue with promotional and COI edits by the article creator, whereas in this case the responsible editor (Phoenixred) appears to be of good faith
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I oppose a "merge and redirect" decision. There are several reasons for this: First, the article as it currently stands has zero information sourced to reliable sources (Ulrich's just lists publisher-provided info), so there is nothing supported by |reliable sources here. Second, what goes for this journal, goes for all the other journals from this publisher: are we going to present info on each and every one of their journals (in a neutral way) in the article on the publisher? I already see them opening the bottles of champagne... Third, if the article is not deleted but only replaced by a redirect, we'll have to put that redirect on our watchlists, because given this publishers history of trying to spam WP, we can expect regular attempts to revert the redirect. If there is no redirect, any recreation will pop up on the new article feed and is likely to be picked up by someone. (Of course, this third reason is just an argument of convenience, my first two arguments are the most important ones
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)