The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC) reply
The subject is a publisher at the high-volume/low-production-value end of the academic publishing industry. There are various sources in google, which fall into four groups (a) passing mentions as the publisher of a work being referenced / cited (this is the overwhelming majority) (b) entries in databases of publishers (academic libraries are big on such things) (c) non-independent materials originating from IGI Global itself or EBSCO (which is a primary reseller of IGI Global works in digital form, mainly selling the content in bulk to the academic libraries mentioned previously) and (d) independent sources which have a take a strongly negative view of IGI Global and/or their business practises, negative to the point of being attacks. See [1], [2], [3], [4], etc. Content based on those references has twice been as attack content, leaving the article without independent references. PROD was removed by User:Pundit without prejudice. Note: This company appears to be completely seperate from the similarly named Insight Global, which appears to suffer from similar issues. Stuartyeates ( talk) 06:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC) reply
The subject is a publisher at the high-volume/low-production-value end of the academic publishing industry. There are various sources in google, which fall into four groups (a) passing mentions as the publisher of a work being referenced / cited (this is the overwhelming majority) (b) entries in databases of publishers (academic libraries are big on such things) (c) non-independent materials originating from IGI Global itself or EBSCO (which is a primary reseller of IGI Global works in digital form, mainly selling the content in bulk to the academic libraries mentioned previously) and (d) independent sources which have a take a strongly negative view of IGI Global and/or their business practises, negative to the point of being attacks. See [1], [2], [3], [4], etc. Content based on those references has twice been as attack content, leaving the article without independent references. PROD was removed by User:Pundit without prejudice. Note: This company appears to be completely seperate from the similarly named Insight Global, which appears to suffer from similar issues. Stuartyeates ( talk) 06:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC) reply