Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musicologica Austriaca

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. Nakon 02:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Musicologica Austriaca[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is indexed in the DOAJ which (since March 2014) is highly selective.Boocan (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry, but DOAJ is not "highly selective". All they try to do is keep predatory journals out, but apart from that they are all-inclusive. --Randykitty (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a matter of opinion, I would say. You'll have to go through a detailed application process at DOAJ which is selective in any case. Besides, it seems this journal is also on Ulrich's anyway... Boocan (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has been concensus about this for years now in the Academic Journals WikiProject. Similarly, Ulrich's is not selective in the sense of NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NJournals has no clear statements with regard to such journals in the humanities. It recommends to "look at how frequently the journal is held in various academic libraries". I would say, the 63 libraries listed at Worldcat may be worth a consideration. If the music libraries of Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia and others consider this journal worth enough to be collected, it might be notable enough for Wikipedia to have a little article, particularly since we only discuss a floating degree of what might qualify this journal to be worthy a Wikipedia article. Given the matter, this discussion and this pseudo quality-control gets increasingly ridiculous. The Wikipedia I'm used to is an open system, not an excluding peer-reviewed academic journal... So please get down from your horse, calm down and let go. Nobody is hurt. This journal is obviously international. And the article is correct and adequately referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boocan (talk • contribs) 19:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you start a WP-wide discussion that we abandon WP:N. As an aside, I'm sitting in an easy chair and I am calm. Sorry that I had to propose your article for deletion, but that's how things go. And you still have almost a week to come up with real evidence that this is notable after all. Not a paltry 63 libraries, though (for an OA journal, that's unbelievably low, as it doesn't cost anything to a library to provide a link to the journal and thus add it to their offerings). --Randykitty (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, it always is up to the editors to prove an article is worthless. Second, this is not only about an OA journal which of course does not need to be found in any library. Third, you rigidly and exclusively stick with Criterion 1 which you obviously can not find to be met. Although I believe you are 100% convinced that none the two other Criterions are met (since Google Scholar is not considered a reliable source for Criterion 1, you certainly reject the 500+ citations to be used for Criterion 2 as well), this will again be a matter of view... Boocan (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I do believe that a wide debate is needed, but not inside WP. We rather need a discussion about editors' ethical standards... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boocan (talk • contribs) 23:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, you cannot prove a negative. It's up to those that !vote "keep" to back up a claim of notability with in-depth sources. Second, that works both ways: so why do those 63 libraries you mention list it? Reality is that libraries will add OA journals to their "holdings" very easily, as it doesn't cost them anything. Third, 500-odd citations would not make a single researcher notable, let alone a whole journal. Finally, would you care to expand on your last comment regarding editors' "ethical standards"? --Randykitty (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say this but the statement libraries will add OA journals to their "holdings" very easily, as it doesn't cost them anything indicates that you are not really familiar with what you are talking about. There is not one library on the world that adds an OA journal to its holdings, because no one has to. Since an OA journal is "open access", you'll find it on the internet everywhere, so there is no need of a library to store it, whatsoever.Boocan (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Libraries will add such journals to their websites, it will then show in WorldCat as being "held" by that library. They don't actually store the journal, which is why I put the word "holdings" between quotation marks. --Randykitty (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing convincing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gotta agree with Randykitty here. However, creating Austrian Musicological Society and merging there would be optimal.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although this seems to be an academic journal with excellent scholarship, it is unfortunately not sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.