Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered) (3rd nomination)

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered)

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

This defunct fringe magazine has been put up for deletion before, but the fundamental thing missing has been detailed coverage by third-party independent sources. Much like the discussion here, there is one and only one source (Michael D. Gordin's book) that satisfies the third-party rule, and this source isn't enough to be able to write an article on this subject. The discussion of this particular periodical takes place on three pages and doesn't really explain the context in enough detail as to be able to properly contextualize a Wikipedia article about the periodical itself (as a resource for the Velikovsky affair, Gordin's book is excellent). Material can easily be merged over to other articles on the broader, more encyclopedic subject. As it is, this is just a leftover part of a walled garden of Velikovsky nonsense that Wikipedia has had over the years and we have been slowly weeding for lack of adequate sourcing that isn't dominated by fringe or unreliable sources (I'm looking at you Henry H. Bauer). jps (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments in last deletion discussion. Played a significant role in the Velikovsky affair, so passes WP:JOURNALCRIT, criterion 3. StAnselm (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Since there is only one source that (minimally) attests to this, this is not a good argument. In fact, it seems that it may be an argument for deletion owing to not aligning with WP:FRINGE notability guidelines as a fringe journal. jps (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - If I'm reading the past deletion discussions correctly this is the 3rd time, under a 3rd account you've nominated this article for deletion over the course of 10 years. Are there new arguments? James J. Lambden (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes. There are not enough WP:FRIND-compliant sources.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete If there is only a single source that is not enough to establish notability. Can someone convince me by providing a list of the RS that have covered this please?Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was able to find the following independent reliable sources. I've included Bauer on the following grounds that (a) reviews of the book are generally good (b) his views on Aids are irrelevant to his book on Velikovskianism, otherwise we'd have to question Newton for his views on the occult (c) I asked whether Bauer would be an issue, at WP:RSN and others thought not. I also declare that I am under a topic ban, and while I thought that "broadly construed" did not appear to extend here according to guidelines as no part of the article includes the banned subjects, another admin thought that it did, but let it go[1]. I also need to declare a potential conflict of interest, as I sell access to the contents of this periodical via my website catastrophism.com, though I have never made a profit, and it makes no difference to the sources provided. --Iantresman (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Goldsmith, Isaac Asimov, Scientists Confront Velikovsky, "Introduction", publ. 1979, W. W. Norton & Company. Page 21 etc (see)
Henry H. Bauer, Beyond Velikovsky: The History of a Public Controversy, Publ. 1999 University of Illinois Press, 354 pages ISBN 0252068459 ([2])
Scott McLemee, "Catastrophe Theory (Review of Michael D. Gordin, "The Pseudoscience Wars", in Inside Higher Ed, February 6, 2013
"Velikovsky: AAAS Forum for a Mild Collision (News and Comment", Science 15 Mar 1974: Vol. 183, Issue 4129, pp. 1059-1062
Michael D. Gordin, The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe, "Chapter 6: Strangest Bedfellows", University of Chicago Press, 2012 (Amazon) Numerous mentions
Laird Scranton, The V--Iantresman (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)elikovsky Heresies: Worlds in Collision, Publ. 2012 Bear & Company (Amazon)[reply]

There are also these mentioned by Green Cardamom in a previous AfD, though I have weeded out incidental mentions:

James Gilbert, Redeeming Culture: American Religion in an Age of Science University of Chicago Press, 2008
"The AAAS Debate", The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: Volume One], ABC-CLIO, 2002

I would reject Bauer out-of-hand as he seems to make common cause with pseudoscience and the book he wrote about Velikovsky, while better than others, does not rise to the level I would like to see in a reliable source. He is too credulous when it comes to obviously incorrect claims such as those offered by Velikovsky. Other than the Gordin source, all the rest of the truly close to WP:FRIND sources are just offering passing mention. jps (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Science magazine source includes background information on Pensée, and I believe establishes historical context per WP:JOURNALCRIT. Goldsmith has at least a dozen mentions, most of which are in the body of the text. Bauer has at least 40, most in the text. A check of reviews of Bauer's book are nearly all positive, and the preface (page xii) of his book indicates that he had several people review his text before publication, including Ellenberger who is considered an expert in the field, and was used by Gordin. --Iantresman (talk) 15:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bauer, I think, we must consider separately as I am not convinced his pseudoscience proclivities make him a independent enough source for establishing notability. The News and Comment section of Science does not seem to mention this journal in a serious way. Quotes of what you were referring to might be good. jps (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you and I don't need to be convinced about Bauer, we just need some sources to support the your view. I am not dismissing them, only saying that we should be guided by WP:TALK#FACTS. I have seen many sources that are happy with Bauer, I think we need to see some of those that don't. --Iantresman (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the WP:BURDEN is reversed per WP:REDFLAG. I haven't seen a single source about his book on Velikovsky that acknowledges his pseudoscientific proclivities. Problematic. jps (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to know, and suggests that we do not need to consider it per WP:TALK#OBJECTIVE and WP:TALK#FACTS. You may be right, but this is not a WP:NOTFORUM, so no problem. We must have sources that share your insight. --Iantresman (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you can find a source that deals with Bauer's pseudoscience advocacy while discussing his work on Velikovsky, that would be appreciated. However, the point is that you don't look for sources that make the point that a source is bad. When you identify a poor source, you look for sources that can contextualize it. Then you can use it. But as it is, we are trying to decide which sources speak to the notability of this particular magazine. In this case, we would want to find sources written by people who are not inveterate pseudoscience promoters. jps (talk) 00:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- really this and Kronos should be considered together. Velikovsky's views are rubbish, but they have eben much discussed, so that discussion forums ought to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion forums are notable? I'm sorry, I don't understand this argument. We are looking at a magazine here. jps (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and / or redirect to Immanuel Velikovsky; I believe the topic is adequately covered there. No need for a more in-depth discussion on the fringe topic under consideration. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2017 (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.