Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmos and History

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. Even if I found the point on passing WP:NJOURNAL was made out, which I don't, that is an essay and passing it does not show notability I am afraid. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmos and History[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NJOURNAL. This WP:FRINGE journal has not generated the necessary notice for a standalone article. jps (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, though I read a Josephson article, and didn't understand a word of it. More important, it fails WP:NJOURNAL and hence GNG. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 16:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing anything stand out from the WP:NFRINGE area either. I feel like a journal would have to get pretty notorious for pseudoscience in that area to reach notability that way too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fringe journal that fails WP:NJOURNAL and WP:GNG. I don't know who is doing the "peer reviewing" over there, but the results suggest that it consists of asking some crackpots to review other crackpots. I can think of no other way that [1], [2], and [3] got published. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be scrupulously fair, it is indexed in Scopus [4], but in a very "yes, this exists" way. We're not talking about Noûs or Erkenntnis or Foundations of Physics here. I tend to think that when the subject matter tends to the fringe, we have to be particularly careful about trusting any kind of metric, because it's on the fringe where the gaming of metrics is particularly deleterious. Would I !vote to keep a journal that publishes drily respectable content if all we had on it was a database entry? Well, the harm of doing so would be less. In this case, there doesn't seem to be anything to say about it, other than the list of people who have published there, and that list is a litany of reasons not to take it seriously. Journals can become notorious for printing bunkum, but this one seems to be both nonsensical and ignored. XOR'easter (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources are pretty much all of the form "X exists" or "$CRANK wrote for this journal, source, p[aper by $CRANK in this journal". Guy (help!) 23:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:JOURNALCRIT. It satisfies Criterion 1 via C1.b (included in selective citation indices, indexing services, and bibliographic databases) through inclusion in Scopus. It is also included in ESCI, which Clarivate (publisher of Journal Citation Reports) characterizes as "a trusted set of journals" which "contains quality publications, selected by our expert in-house editors for editorial rigor and best practice at a journal level" [5]. Notable writers publishing in the journal include Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson [6], MacArthur Fellow Stuart Kauffman [7], neural network pioneer Paul Werbos [8] (discoverer of backpropagation), and physicist Henry Stapp [9] (worked with Pauli, Heisenberg, and Wheeler). Yes, the journal values "questioning and challenging prevailing assumptions". But per WP:FRINGE: Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. The threshold for whether a topic should be included in Wikipedia as an article is generally covered by notability guidelines. That is why we have criteria like the above, which this journal satisfies. Tim Smith (talk) 02:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:JOURNALCRIT is an essay rather than a guideline, it also says "It is possible for a journal to qualify for a stand-alone article according to this standard and yet not actually be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." That seems to be the case here. --tronvillain (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To quote WP:JOURNALCRIT, It is possible for a journal to qualify for a stand-alone article according to this standard and yet not actually be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. In the absence of reliable, independent secondary sourcing beyond a couple database entries, we don't really have material to write an article with, and notability is not inherited from a few notable people having published there over the years. Yes, we have articles on publishers with shady reputations, pseudo-academic organizations that are outright frauds, and worthless journals. But in those cases, there's something to say, and here, there ... isn't, really. We shouldn't let databases do our thinking for us. (It's also worth reflecting that Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) is an essay, not a guideline; i.e., it hasn't gone through the process of codifying a solid consensus behind it. So, while it has good advice, it's not as field-tested as the guideline for academic people is. Discussions about deleting articles on journals come up less often, and consequently, the precedents are less numerous, and the gray areas are grayer.) I'd be open to discussing a redirect to the publisher, but slice it any way I try, I can't make a case for a stand-alone article. XOR'easter (talk) 06:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, replied to the above comment before reading further and seeing that you'd quoted precisely the same thing. Ah well. Superficial reading of WP:JOURNALCRIT combined with treating it as a guideline seems likely to promote a lot of journal stubs. --tronvillain (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep indexed in Scopus since 2011, passes WP:NJOURNALS. Ranks #295/606 in Philosophy (not that this would ever make it a WP:RS). Cited decently often (e.g. [10]). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Headbomb, LOL! First cite was to a Lulu book. Because of course it was! Guy (help!) 13:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bunch of quack cites to it yes. Which is normal, given the quackiness of its content. But you'll have Edinburgh Press books citing it too. The more "serious" cites come from the realm of ~~religious pablum nonsense crap~~ *cough* theological studies though, not physics. Stuff related to Hegel mostly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Open Humanities Press - There doesn't seem to be much to write about if the only sources are primary. —Paleo Neonate – 14:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Explorations of of the origins of consciousness are not WP:FRINGE. If you deem so, then you might as well delete all of Richard Dawkins's books and explorations.Whiteguru (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What do Richard Dawkins' books have to do with this journal specifically? XOR'easter (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Or with WP:FRINGE? —Paleo Neonate – 09:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if there weren't fringe issues, there don't seem to be enough sources to actually say much about it. --tronvillain (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2020 (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.