Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austrian Journal of Statistics


 * 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 redirect to Austrian Statistical Society. (non-admin closure) SST  flyer  14:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Austrian Journal of Statistics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable journal. Article claims indexing in Scopus, but this fails verification. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  17:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  17:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I cannot believe that the Austrian Journal of Statistics is a journal that is marked for deleteion. We exist since the 60's. We are listed at - Ulrichsweb - DOAJ - and many other indices. We are not in Scopus but it is already verfified. We are not in JCR, but we applied without success. We are open-access without fees for authors. We are not one of the non-serious journals that takes fees from the authors. We have a malfunction practice of 5 pages (see www.ajs.or.at). The organisation behind is the Austrian Statistical Society. Why such a journal should not be listed in Wikipedia? Only because we are not at the Thompson-Reuters list (JCR)? Can you believe that it is hard to get accepted by them when you are open-access without fees? We would be a too serious competitor for the traditional journals that takes horrible fees for open-access. Wikipedia should support free and open-access journals by listing them. Otherwise we do not have any chance against the Springer and Thompson-Reuters world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthias99991 (talk • contribs) 11:09, March 6, 2016‎
 * I added a link to 2 listings of the journal (Australian Mathematical Society and DOAJ)alexkowa —Preceding undated comment added 14:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and not intended to support OA, Springer, Thomson-Reuters, or anything. thanks for adding those indices, but these are listings that are routinely removed from journal articles (as are, e.g., mentions of being included in GScholar) because they are not selective in the sense of NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I would be surprised if such an old journal wouldn't meet our notability guidelines, but I agree that right now, there's little to support this journal's notability (scoring a C on the Australian Mathematical Society ranking is likewise not very impressive, given this makes it equal to the Smarandache Notions Journal ). Notability might be easier to established if looking up German sources. Creating an article on the Austrian Statistical Society and merging the content there would be preferable to deletion if the journal itself doesn't meet our notability guidelines. You might want to follow World Institute of Pain for an example on how to write an article on a professional society. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. I'm surprised that a journal this long-established appears to be so unknown, but I couldn't find any good sources, also under the German name. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   22:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence of notability by Wikipedia standards. The reasons given by the one editor (with a coi) wanting to keep it amount to saying that we should keep the article for promotional purposes, and so they are not consistent with Wikipedia policy ("Wikipedia should support free and open-access journals by listing them. Otherwise we do not have any chance against the Springer and Thompson-Reuters world.") The king of the sun (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect if needed. Delete as all of this is questionable for the applicable journals (WP:MEDIA) notability. Asking for education analysis.  SwisterTwister   talk  21:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Comparison of statistics journals Austrian Statistical Society, where it is mentioned. Color me surprised that a long running journal like this doesn't already have an impact factor assigned to it, or an article somewhere on the journal's history. I was unable to find sources that either satisfied WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Headbomb's idea of merging to a Society article is a good one, but must await that article. Despite lack of sources for notability, basic facts about the journal are verifiable, perhaps enough to warrant an entry in Comparison of statistics journals. Update: Thanks go to DGG for the creating the Austrian Statistical Society article. It is the better redirect target. --Mark viking (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the Society.  If the article were not at AfD, I would normally do something like that by moving the article and adding a sentence or two. But to avoid confusion, I started the article Austrian Statistical Society as a stub, with a link to the article on the journal, and will transfer the material later, giving attribution. If anyone cares later, they can do a history merge; my rate of success in doing it properly is 50%, soI no longer attempt the procedure. The journal was known until recently as  Osterreichische Zeitschrift für Statistik-- the history of changes of title is unclear from the OCLC record, but I'll track it down.  DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.