Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Research on Steiner Education


 * 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   delete. Spartaz Humbug! 15:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Research on Steiner Education

 * – ( View AfD View log )

New journal established in 2010. Not notable yet, article creation premature. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Crusio, thank you very much for your support in improving this article and for supplementing basic informations (info box). I read about the quality criteria regarding academic journals in the English-language Wikipedia. I am convinced that it is possiblle to fulfill the requirements. My idea: not to delete this article but to improve it step by step. I would appreciate all your further suggestions. Best regards, Issajewitsch (talk) 10:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, a new journal, only two issues published, not indexed anywhere (in particular, not indexed in Social Sciences Citation Index, Scopus, etc). No evidence of passing either WP:GNG or Notability (academic journals). Nsk92 (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: it is indexed in the equivalent Norwegian index. hgilbert (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Norwegian site you mention is not an "equivalent" of citation indexes like Social Sciences Citation Index, Scopus in any sense. The site itself appears to be very obscure and a listing there does not make the journal "indexed". The citation indexes like Scopus, Web of Science, etc, contain publication data about every article published in a journal indexed there (the author(s) names, article title, abstract, references, citations etc). That is what being "indexed" means. This Norwegian thing you mention appears to simply record the fact that the journal exists, basically like a catalogue entry. That is far cry from being "indexed". Nsk92 (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's listed in the official Norwegian register of approved academic journals. It's also, to my knowledge, the only such journal in its field. It's quite common for journals in the humanities and social sciences not to be widely indexed, especially non-English journals or journals in small or emerging fields of research. 129.240.214.129 (talk) 08:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC) — 129.240.214.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. That's not correct. There are databases specializing in social sciences and/or humanities journals. This journal is not indexed in any of those databases either. --Crusio (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep is the right decision. Здравствуйте, товарищи (that means: Hello colleagues). The reference list has now newly added literature. A registration of the journal by the DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) is in process. New steps are planned. Best regards from Russia. Issajewitsch (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC) — Issajewitsch (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The references you added are to the articles published in this journal itself. They do absolutely nothing to establish its notability. Nsk92 (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a highly specialized, peer-reviewed journal on research in Waldorf education, the only such journal in this field. Interestingly, with only two issues so far for this journal, there are 3 citations in recently published books, one of which contains a chapter revision of one of the RoSE Journal articles. Given the publication in Europe in both German and English, I agree it's not surprising that this journal is not widely indexed yet. --EPadmirateur (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 3 citations of articles published in this journal is miles away from establishing notability. If there were a few thousands (or at least a few hundreds) citations, there would be something to talk about. The fact that there are so few citations may not be surprising, but that is exactly the point: there is no indication of notability of the journal at this point and the article's creation is extremely premature. The journal is not indexed in any of the major citation indices, the existing citations are in single digits. The entry fails WP:GNG by more than a mile, and it does not come close to passing the more generous standards of Notability (academic journals) either. Nsk92 (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Друзья, дело в том that I added in a new footnote the comment and the reference of the German "Wissenschaftsrat" regarding the editorship of Research on Steiner Education, established by the Alanus University of Arts and Social Sciences. This Council is the highest representative (state) body for science in Germany. It is responsible for the accreditation of universities and their research and study profiles. It should be clear that this Council represent a high independent level of evaluation. The quoted source has a high degree of reliability. Best regards: Issajewitsch (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * An in-passing mention in an internal report (even though it is posted online). It looks like the journal might become notable in the future, but at this point, it isn't and WP is not a crystal ball. --Crusio (talk) 07:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry: "internal report"?? The report of the Council is accessible for everybody! (Published on the website of the Council) This is part of a transparent and verifiable accreditation process of the scientific community in this country. The importance of the journal for present is formulated by the authors of the evaluation report. And Crusio, excuse me: to write about a "crystal ball" in the context of such a source is not fair. It is polemic.Issajewitsch (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 08:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC).
 * Sorry, I didn't intend to be polemic. However, that report states that this is a good initiative. I don't think anybody will disagree with that. Whether it's going to be more than an initiative and develops into a notable journal remains to be seen in the future, hence the reference to the "crystal ball" (if you click that link, you can read the relevant policy. --Crusio (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Seems to not pass WP:NJOURNALS. Too soon, too soon... Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lacks the coverage in independent, reliable sources to justify an article.  Eluchil404 (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:NJOURNAL and WP:GNG, no independent significant coverage found. Dragquennom (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2011 (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.