Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statistica (journal)


 * 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   keep. Consensus is to keep at this time (non-admin closure) ES  &#38;L  12:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Statistica (journal)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Statistical journal of unclear notability that was established in 1931. Notability tag removed by article creator, arguing that the journal meets WP:NJournals#3: "The journal has an historic purpose or a significant history". I gingerly suggest that this is not the same as a long history and don't see any evidence of an "historic purpose" or a "significant" history. Despite its longevity, the journal is not indexed in any selective databases, nor do there seem to be any independent sources. In view of this: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm the article creator. I removed the Notability tag after challenging the tag itself with Criteria 3, as Randykitty explained. I'm looking for external sources for that. The journal clearly had more readers and importance in the past that nowadays, that's for sure. I would keep it, but of course I'm biased (as I created it in the first place :-). --Aubrey (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I added a Repec citation, and a even more strong statement :-) I discovered this source: Encyclopedia of statistical sciences, vol 8, Samuel Kotz & Norman L. Johnson (eds), Wiley, New York, 1988, pp.633-634. The problem is that it is a paper volume, but I have scanned the pages. Do you want to see them? i can provide a Dropbox link. Aubrey (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think RePEc is very selective, see this page. The mention in the encyclopedia is potentially more interesting. If this is not available somewhere online (I don't see it in Google Books), then perhaps a Dropbox link would be good. 5provided I can access this anonymously). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You should see this. I don't know if you can access anonymously though (I bet so, but I'm not an expert). The link is public. Aubrey (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting that, saves me a trip to the library :-) Did you notice that the entry on Statistica is written by (the then editor-in-chief) Italo Scardovi? The piece does indeed not really read like a neutral encyclopedia entry. So I'm afraid that neither RePEc (not selective) nor this encyclopedia (not independent) add to the possible notability of this journal. --Randykitty (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. This book looks like a reliable source to me and has nontrivial information about the journal. Additionally, 10.1410/34279 may also have some relevant information, but I don't have free access to it so I can't tell for sure. And this popular press article mentions Fortunati's founding editorship of the journal but without much detail. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting finds (you're a better sleuth than I am :-). The abstract for the doi that you gave can be seen here. I don't have access to the full text either. The press article indeed is just an in-passing mention. The book look like a reliable source, but unfortunately doesn't get beyond an in-passing mention either. It's weird that it is so difficult to find something about such an old journal... --Randykitty (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I can try to access that document from my university, tomorrow. I've seen now that the editor-in-chief is the author of the entry in the Encyclopedia. That makes it nNPOV, I understand, but let me say that the fact that the entry exists is more NPOV. I mean, the curators of the encyclopedia decided to have that journal in it, and then asked a presentation from the editor-in-chief. I guess this is what pretty much happened. Anyway, always better to find other sources. Aubrey (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: the popular press article is from the magazine of the University of Bologna. Fortunati will get the name of a road, in Bologna (a flag of notability, if you will :-) Aubrey (talk) 10:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! But for Fortunati, not the journal, I fear... --Randykitty (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've found the article you mentioned, La Statistica nell’Università di Padova: un percorso emblematico dalla Restaurazione all’età repubblicana, but it's in Italian. You can access it here. There is a bit of the story of the journal (previously called Supplemento statistico ai nuovi problemi di Politica, Storia ed Economia). We now have 2 external neutral sources that cite it, and the entry on the Encyclopedia of statistical sciences (which, altohugh is a reliable source by itself (as an entry of a famous encyclopedia of statistics) is written by the editor-in-chief). I'm not sure I will find other sources. Aubrey (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for uploading that. I don't speak Italian, but can read it a bit. Yes, the journal is mentioned. However, I see two problems. First of all, the journal this article is published in (Rivista di storia economica) does not seem to be notable itself. Second and (much) more importantly, this is again not an independent source as at least one of the authors (the second one) is a member of the editorial board of Statistica. So we have 1 independent source (the book found by David Eppstein) that mentions the journal in-passing, and 2 non-independent sources, that can be used to source uncontroversial stuff, but don't contribute to notability. I'm sorry, I don't want to be obtuse, but I'm not swayed by the argument that the encyclopedia entry indicates notability, solely on the basis of the editors having asked the EIC of Statistica to write a few paragraphs about his journal. --Randykitty (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep—Unlike, I am persuaded by the references currently in the article, and I think they are enough to satisfy the GNG. The fact that articles were written by the journal's editor doesn't matter that much to me, because they are not WP:SPS. The articles were reviewed and supposedly verified, before being published in other journals.  In a recent AfD on a different article on an obscure and obsolete programming language, a source was found - an article written by the programming language's author. However, this article was published in Byte magazine, a quite reliable source with editorial oversight, so the article was universally accepted as reliable.  Same story here. If the articles offered as sources were published in Statistica, then they'd be totally unreliable.  However, their being published in other journals makes them totally reliable.   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 23:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I never claimed the sources were self-published or unreliable. I do maintain that they are not independent, which is something different. The comparison with a computer language is not completely apt either. If I do research and report on that in a scientific journal, that is perhaps not the same thing as writing a blurp in an encyclopedia on my own journal. If I report on my research, I have no qualms noting possible weak points or alternative explanations of my results. If I write about my journal, I may perhaps make it look a bit more important that it is, or not mention some skeletons that may be hidden in some cupboard. I doubt that such a short blurb in an encyclopedia would be scrutinized the same way as other content. As for the journal article, the journal in which that was published would probably not pass WP:NJournals itself... --Randykitty (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The reliability of the sources discussed above (regardless of their independence) gives us enough information to actually write an article. As for notability, for me the longevity of the journal tips the balance in its favor. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2013 (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.