Deletion of Kowsar Publishing

Comment: This publisher is notable because of predatory claims and for a https://retractionwatch.com/category/by-publisher/kowsar/ high retraction rate. It also publishes multiple indexed journals. Indexed journals are generally considered notable. I appreciate that notability is not inherited but also appreciate {{u|DGG}}'s point that it is difficult to find sources for publishers and, yes, we do shortcut  for important subjects (, , , for instance) that don't tend to get the mass-media attention that would give them the internet search hits
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NPROF||WP:NTV||WP:GEOLAND)

Comment: and '''Opposition''' to using Web of Science as ''Keep'' rationales - While this company ''may'' be |notable based  (likely still fails ), has anyone checked out Clarivate Analytics (owner of Web of Science) financials lately? Declining revenues, increasing losses, piling debt—this thing is a Manure|corporate dung heap I wouldn't touch with a 10' pole from an investment standpoint. I see trends emerging in this space where one Private equity|private equity firm passes off an investment to another Private equity|private equity firm or a Initial public offering|willing sucker until the Rodeo|rodeo ends. So, in short, I won't change my vote on the basis of this company likely still failing , I feel compelled to make this important observation re: Web of Science (a corporate product) and Clarivate
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:SIGCOV||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: Half the references are sourced to the organisation's own website, and the remainder are primary sources (an open access and copyright policy as a source? Really?). Not a single one would qualify as a |reliable source. Likewise, I cannot find any better sources from my own searching
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: or'' '''Draftify''' without prejudice to re-creation in the future. The factual accuracy of this article is in question, including whether the fact this publisher's journals undergo peer review as it is named on Beall's List. When you strip out that and its uffery|puffery, there is nothing worth salvaging in this article. If someone wants to work on this article, I wouldn't be opposed to '''Draftify''', but ''as written'', it's a '''delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)