Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Survey Research Methods

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 merge to European Survey Research Association. It can be moved out again later if it becomes more notable. I suggest this meets both the weak keep and the weak delete opinions. I have done the merge. Bduke (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Research Methods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

"aims to..." "will be..." no evidence of RS coverage and scant ghits from a selection of search terms (that one gets the most, with significant false positives from the organization) I see no evidence of notability for this journal. European Survey Research Association, which publishes it, has a page of questionable notability due to a lack of sources but it already says all it needs to about the journal so I don't see it worth a merge. Travellingcari (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The merge into European Survey Research Association might make the latter notable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I tried searching for third-party information about the journal to use as a source but the best I could find was this blog entry. It seems to be a serious journal too new to have the published articles comparing its content to other similar journals, etc., that one can often find for older more established journals. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The journal is listed in the Open Journal Systems database[1] and most of its articles have circulated in the research community before their publication. I guess the journal will need a couple of months/years to take off, but it seems to be already notable. Sort of. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 05:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per David's research. Eusebeus (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2008 (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.