Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biometrics (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The result was Keep (non-admin closure), nom withdrawn, notability established. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biometrics (Journal)

Biometrics (Journal) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

The society may be notable but it doesn't appear to have an article to merge this with. The article asserts zero notability but there isn't an appropriate speedy. This is a name and URL -- a google search for the journal's notability is problematic due to the frequency of the word biometrics, but I find no evidence of notability. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

along similar lines, adding the following, no assertion of notability and unable to find any:

Meeresforschung (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn

• Very weak keep. The journal appears to have some notability, and the society itself is pretty notable. I agree - International Biometric Society should have been written first. Hazillow (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Clarification: I am referring to the Biometrics Journal and not Meeresforschung.Hazillow (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I doubt we're going to get enough material on the journal to make a good seperate article, whereas it could make an excellent section in an article about the society itself. Better to delete now than try to lump things together later. Err, Biometrics again.Sockatume (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This is a journal with a long history and of some note. The article may be lacking but that is a reason for improvment. Note also it isn't unusual for a journal to be of more note than the society which publishes it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Connolly (talk • contribs) 02:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Improve I've now done some work including references and a relevant link to another entry. Have a look! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Connolly (talk • contribs) 03:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment it's much improved and asserts some notability now, thank you. However I still think it needs independent sources to meet WP:N, JJL says below its historically significant and influential, I think we need a source (not the journal itself) verifying that. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 12:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Reply thanks, tricky to find an independent reference to a journal in itself (rather than a reference to an article IN the journal). The JSTOR link is the best evidence of notability I think... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Connolly (talk • contribs) 23:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep important, historically significant, and influential journal. JJL (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be a notable journal (it's even archived in JSTOR!) --Itub (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Rename to International Biometric Society and make this a sub-section.—RJH (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment that sounds sensible but isn't. Journal's have a life quite independent of the society that acts as the journal's patron. A journal might be notable (if only for a given article) while the society might not be.Nick Connolly (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep the journal itself is notable, as is every major peer-reviewed journal with a substantial presence in the academic world. The JSTOR listing is sufficient independent proof--they are very selective. Normally we take listing in Journal Citation Reports as sufficient, because they are also selective. This particular one is especially notable as the founding journal of a discipline. the society, as the main one in the subject is also notable, and should by itself have an article,as is customary. The situation is different for society newsletters dealing with their internal affairs, which almost never get articles of their own. DGG (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I added some published information about how well it is ranked by professionals in its area; it seems to be the best biometrics journal and very good more generally among statistics journals. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Nom withdrawn per addition above that established notability. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC) I'm going to list the German one separately TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:49, 26 February 2008 (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.