Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered) (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. This discussion hinged around referencing and the quality thereof, but there was no consensus on whether there does or does not exist sufficient source material to support this article. Significant concerns were also brought up with the quality of the article, this would be handled via the normal editorial process. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Accroding to Wikipedia:Notability (media) and WP:MAGAZINE, a magazine is notable for the following reasons.

  1. have produced award winning work
  2. have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history
  3. are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area
  4. are frequently cited by other reliable sources
  5. are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets

The only possible justification for this magazine being notable would be the claim that it "served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history". But this magazine did not. The claim in the previous AfD was that the magazine served a historic purpose of encouraging Carl Sagan to participate in a special session of the annual AAAS meeting devoted to debunking Immanuel Velikovsky. I'm sorry, that's not a notable historical event and the story can be easily covered at articles about Immanuel Velikovsky, for example. A separate article is not needed at all and this article, in particular, is serving as a coatrack for WP:FRINGE promotion as it stands. jps (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the editor Iantresman had commented here but removed his comments, as such the discussion might read a little strangely. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware you are under a topic ban with respect to astrophysics and plasma physics topics. Is that not so? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Immanuel Velikovsky ... to argue that Earth suffered catastrophic close contacts with other planets (principally Venus and Mars) in ancient times. ... Velikovsky argued that electromagnetic effects play an important role in celestial mechanics" 09:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
It is not up to another editor to invite you to violate your topic ban. It is irrelevant that most people don't take his views seriously, it does concern astrophysics broadly construed, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should make this an exception for his topic ban as it is an article Mr. Tresman began. WP:IAR, WP:AGF and all that. That said, I don't think any of the sources Mr. Tresman provided speak to the issue of the notability of this particular magazine. We need to establish it as having a "historic purpose". None of these sources really do that. They are just sort of little cul-du-sacs in the neverending story of Velikovsky polemics and mourners. jps (talk) 03:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is mentioned off-handedly in a few books which makes it somewhat different than other short-lived student newspapers from the 1970s which would probably be speedily deleted on the basis of zero coverage, but to justify an entire article on the periodical you need to have sources written about the magazine itself, not just in reference to other things. What we have instead are sources that mention the magazine as part of a larger story. Not everthing that is merely mentioned is article-worthy, and what we have here is an article that has to be written based on primary sources because there are no independent critical reviews in reliable sources. This is a problem. It's just not possible to write an article on this magazine because no one has noticed it outside of the WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning a magazine as part of coverage of crackpots and crackpottery does not make the magazine itself notable enough for an article. That's covered in WP:FRINGE#Notability. Listing the journals that authors who mention this magazine cite does not show notability of the magazine. Wikipedia criteria definitely casts a critical eye against WP:FRINGE claims because they tend to be over-promoted with unreliable sources. Indeed, that's much of the way this article is written. jps (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For a journal of this type it had a large circulation and therefore has a significant part in the controversy over Velikovsky in the early 1970s. asnac (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't talking about a journal, we are talking about a series of ten magazines. I don't think it follows that a series being viewed by 10,000 - 20,000 automatically means something is historically important, and the ten issue series already get some coverage here: Immanuel_Velikovsky#Velikovskyism. From an editorial point of view, what's to keep here? It consists mostly of two big quotes and two paragraphs sourced to primary sources. What was so historically important about it? For example, the article itself gives no indicators. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I said ten articles I meant ten magazines. I've corrected it as such, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said journal because it had a lot of academics contributing to it. For me, this is a key aspect of why it should be kept. If it was college ephemera written by students for students then it would be a different matter. I understand your concern about the lack of secondary sources. However, we're accustomed to using journals to establish notability, but it's a harder matter to find third-party sources that confirm the notability of a journal itself, as journals are only the sum of the articles they contain. What makes this one worth keeping is that the subject (Velikovsky) is notable, those writing the articles were professionals in their fields, it had a relatively large circulation, and it formed the basis of a controversial book. asnac (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"What makes this one worth keeping is that the subject (Velikovsky) is notable," WP:NOTINHERITED "those writing the articles were professionals in their fields" it's a fringe magazine, it is not an academic piece ", "it had a relatively large circulation," 10-20k "and it formed the basis of a controversial book". I don't know why you say Velikovsky Reconsidered is particularly notable, but that sounds like WP:NOTINHERITED again, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources, and until that is rectified, there isn't that much to say otherwise we have the current mess of an over-reliance on primary sources. What can be said about it can be said in Immanuel Velikovsky. Putting GNG to one side, there is also the issue that there is no indication of this journal having some major historical contribution, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It should be noted that User:Iantresman is a personal friend and sometime business partner of the people who founded and edited this magazine. jps (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Tresman I don't think it is outing since you have already outed yourself. Personally I think you should have disclosed any personal connection before commenting per WP:COI, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regardless of who created the page, it had a high circulation and the articles were partly anthologized into a book which shows a lot of hits on Google Books it has been influential or often mentioned, within the context of the Velikovsky affair. If nothing else this page helps us document an aspect of the Velikovsky affair neutrally. COI is a problem to check for neutrality of writing, not a reason to delete article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The vast majority of those WP:GHITS you are noticing are to a walled garden of unreliable sources that are promulgated by the magazine editors and founders themselves and their associates. jps (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gosh I dunno there's so much outside a walled garden that references Velikovsky Reconsidered. Here's just a start
  • This is not a complete list, from Google Books, quite a bit more. Probably could find more looking in JSTOR, Gale, EBSCO and other commercial databases. Most of these are trivial for GNG purposes, the point being, pretty widely cited book/periodical about fringe science theories and catastrophism. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, gee, not only is it not a complete list, it's a list that is pretty poor from the standpoint of a bibliography on THIS subject. Have you read any of these books? How do you propose to use them as sources for this magazine? Additionally, on what basis did you decide that Hank Bauer's book should be considered an independent source? There is a place to write an article on Velikovsky and his ideas, but the question we're asking here is whether this particular magazine has been covered enough by outside sources to actually write a good article. You'll note that except for Bauer's credulity, none of those sources are currently used in the article. I challenge you to explain how one might do so. Seriously. I'd like to see it done if you're really so convinced this is salvageable. jps (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:COI explicitly states: "Conflict of interest is not in itself a reason to delete an article, though other problems with the article arising from a conflict of interest may be valid (see criteria for deletion)." I submit that the very existence of an article on this obscure 10-issue magazine is used by those associated with the enterprise to promote their associations and beliefs, and there is evidence that this is going on in this discussion. It is only right that people be made aware that the arguments by associated individuals are occurring in such a context. jps (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not that obscure given all the RS books that footnote or mention it (in the context of fringe culture). You may be right about promotion. Who has time to do battle with full time fringe theorists easier to just delete. But this is a marginal case that looks like endless wack-a-mole. Time might be better spent with NPOV and balance issues. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How can there be balance when there are no independent reliable sources? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Topic seems notable, article is well written, NPOV and sourced. No reason to delete. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which source in the article do you consider to be the most reliable? jps (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most reliable ??? WP:RS provides various tests for reliability of cources, but it does not set out a scale of comparative reliability, so your question makes no sense. Which sources do you consider to be unreliable ? As nominator, it is up to you to make your argument for deleteion. So far you haven't convinced me, and asking rhetorical questions does not help your case. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See the way WP:RS talks about "the most reliable sources"? That's because some sources are more reliable than others, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am unimpressed by your sarcasm. I see just one place where WP:RS uses that phrase : "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources". I have no argument with that. But I still maintain that WP:RS does not set out a scale of comparative reliability - it simply gives tests that classify a source as reliable or unreliable. So asking a rhetorical question about the "most reliable" source makes no sense. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I submit that none of the sources the article uses are reliable enough to be good to base a neutral article upon. jps (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sarcastic and bitchy statements like "I'm sorry, ... this article, in particular, is serving as a coatrack for WP:FRINGE" just make it sound like this deletion is being proposed by a spiteful editor who is on some kind of edit-warring crusade to introduce bias. Whither neutrality?--feline1 (talk) 09:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading the previous AfD discussion (2007), I would also stand by everything I said then. I'd also not that the editor "Nondistinguished" was also later exposed as a sockpuppet of "ScienceApologist", despite trying to have me banned for suggesting he was. Pretty much everything he ever typed was in bad faith. /smh--feline1 (talk) 09:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait, hang on: jps *is* "ScienceApologist"! lmao How many times is the same editor allowed to nominate the same article for deletion before it falls foul of WP:TROLL? --feline1 (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't raised a single argument for keeping the article, but rather personally attacked the nom, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. I have raised arguments for keeping the article (they were presented in its first AfD discussion) *AND* "personally attacked" the nom. :) --feline1 (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability is not temporary, but this publication appears never to have seen significant independent coverage. Relatedly, please try to stay on topic - we are here to discuss an article, not each other. Talk Page Guidelines apply. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IRWolfie. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Contrary to one editor, Pensée has received significant coverage in reliable sources, such as Henry Bauer's 1984 Beyond Velikovsky from Univ. Illinois Press and Michael Gordin's 2012 The Pseudoscience Wars from Univ. Chicago Press. A publication does not need to rival Time, Life, Newsweek, or Sports Illustrated to be notable. It only needs to be notable in its niche and Pensée was arguably notable enough in the early 1970s to motivate the AAAS to hold a symposium on Velikovsky's ideas in February 1974 in San Francisco where Carl Sagan famously confronted Velikovsky. Phaedrus7 (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a longlasting publication and the specific issue is already covered in some detail over at Immanuel Velikovsky. II | (t - c) 01:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment here are some references for this article. striking several refs per Talk:Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered)#References for this article and discussion here. 64.40.54.4 (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dumond, Joseph F. Remembering The Sabbatical Years of 2016. Bloomington, Indiana, USA: Xlibris Corporation. p. 45. ISBN 9781479770397. Retrieved September 11, 2013.
    • Ginenthal, Charles (1995). Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky (illustrated ed.). Tempe, Arizona, USA: New Falcon Publications. ISBN 9781561840755. OCLC 33128016. Retrieved September 11, 2013.
    • RGA Dolby (May 1975). "What Can We Usefully Learn from the Velikovsky Affair?". Social Studies of Science. 5 (2). Thousand Oaks, California, USA: SAGE Publications: 165–175. doi:10.1177/030631277500500203. ISSN 0306-3127. OCLC 2242476. Retrieved September 11, 2013.
    • Gordin, Michael D. (September 26, 2012). The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe (illustrated, reprint ed.). Chicago, Illinois, USA: University of Chicago Press. p. 180. ISBN 9780226304427. Retrieved September 11, 2013.
    • If somebody asks politely at WP:REX they can probably get the full text of these citations emailed to them. 64.40.54.112 (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC) — 64.40.54.112 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • It appears just from the titles that these sources are about the general Velikovsky affair rather than about this journal. That affair is already covered pretty well over at the bio. We need sources that specifically discuss the magazine, not sources which discuss the same issue as the magazine. II | (t - c) 01:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion on the sources might be more valuable if you had read them :) These are sources confirming the notability of Pensée in the events of that affair. It's notability is one of the things under question in this AfD.--feline1 (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As there was a question, I just wanted to confirm that the sources I listed above do discuss the Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered issues of the magazine (i.e. they directly discuss the article of this AfD). Again, I will point people toward WP:REX if they still have a concern (i.e. you can easily verify it for yourself). Best.. 64.40.54.174 (talk) 04:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So I went and checked "What Can We Usefully Learn from the Velikovsky Affair?" and it gives one line to mention Pensee. Yes this is passing coverage and not helpful for establishing notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't give a shit about the ideas or ideology of either the individual or the editors and neither should you. When there is a book called this: Henry H. Bauer, Beyond Velikovsky: The History of a Public Controversy, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1999; 354 pages ISBN 0-252-06845-9 and when there is another book resulting from this ten issue run of a journal, we've got ourselves a notable subject, worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Passes GNG. The end. Carrite (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I follow; why does the name of the book matter in establishing the notability of Pensee? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I really despise warning flag bombing. There are no fewer than five sitting on this piece. Trout for whomever did that. Carrite (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's Science Apologist for you lmao --feline1 (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and refocus article as Pensée. It seems a bit 'jumping the gun' to have an article on a "special series of ten issues of the magazine Pensée", when there is yet no article on the actual magazine. This would make a lovely section. And if enough notability can be established for this subseries, then I would happily support a split. But for now, it's like having an article on History of X without an article of X.--Coin945 (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst your point might seem like "common sense", in reality, Pensée appears to have been neither notable nor widely read by anyone (probably not even on its own college campus) until it was revived for its "Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered" series - at which juncture, it became a focal point for Velikovskian mayhem across America and Europe. I've certainly never seen any of the pre-IVR editions.--feline1 (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closing admin: This is a somewhat complicated issue. Clearly, there is a lot to consider. Let me explain what I think the best rationale is for keeping the article and why I reject it. These 10 issues were instrumental in encouraging certain members of the AAAS to have a special session (note, we have no article on that special session and rightly so, even though it is more notable that this magazine) to provide what essentially became a platform for Carl Sagan's most famous speech on the subject of Immanuel Velikovsky. That session basically put a book-end on the so-called "Velikovsky Affair" and ensured that the proposals related to this kind of "catastrophism" would be relegated to the fringes of the fringe from there on out. To that end, one might argue that as the impetus for the meeting the 10 issues are notable. But the question we have to consider is whether they are notable according to periodical notability guidelines, because if an article is kept for this subject the question is, how will Wikipedia accommodate an article on the subject of the ten issues of this magazine? Right now, the article is chock-a-block full of original research and primary source claims that will have to be removed. What will be left? Well, there is one source by a Princeton historian that mentions the politics behind the Talbott's falling out with Velikovsky over this magazine, but that's basically one sentence. There are certain references to the magazine from the reports on the AAAS special session, again only brief mention. The rest of the sources are credulous primary source documents that cannot be used to good effect per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Essentially, what we'll end up with is a stub that can go no further and, more problematically, it's a stub that fundamentally violates our own notability guideline. The rest of the arguments that there are "sources" that can be had are basically spurious: the sources are corrupt. jps (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike a court-room, we don't make closing arguments directed to the judge. It's bad form to lobby and appeal to the closing admin. We're supposed to work out consensus among one another and the closing admin looks for consensus achieved, or not. Suggest striking "to closing admin". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but come on, this is Science Apologist we're dealing with here. He is not interested in seeking consensus, nor does he really give two hoots about "notability": he is just interested in eradicating all mention of pseudioscience from wikipedia, by whatever means he thinks he can get away with. This is the second time he's tried to have this article deleted, and it probably won't be the last. --feline1 (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This topic area is under discretionary sanctions per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions. If you continue to direct personal attacks against Jps and poison the well, I will take this issue to arbitration enforcement. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware Mr JPS had ever apologised for his personal attacks on *me*, nor disavowed the sentiments behind them. Doubtless he will soon prove this by attempting to have be sanctioned yet again. Oh wait, it's already started! :-D --feline1 (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what past grievance you have with him, if you can't stop yourself from attacking another editor don't edit, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
that's exactly what I said to JPS one time! lmao --feline1 (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is also amusing how if I put a courtesy sanctions notification on your talk page, you declare it to be "trolling", but if you put one on mine, that's apparently fine /chuckles/ --feline1 (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pensée_(Immanuel_Velikovsky_Reconsidered)_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1068982660"