Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kronos: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Synthesis

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 keep. Consensus herein is for article retention. As per this discussion, adding the {{Cleanup AfD}} template to the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kronos: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Synthesis

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

This WP:FRINGE journal published a number of papers related to Immanuel Velikovsky and has only been mentioned in sources that are devoted to them (thus not independent as we would require). The single reliable source used in the article is Donald Goldsmith's Scientists Confront Velikovsky, but the mention in that book of this particular fringe journal is off-handed and doesn't speak to the question of notability that we would generally like to see. Moreover, there does not seem to be much in the way of discussion of this subject as a subject in the books and papers that are written about the notable subject from which it sprung: the Velikovsky affair. Henry H. Bauer's book on the the Velikovsky Affair, which does mention this fringe journal, should be considered with a severe grain of salt considering his WP:FRINGE status. I am hesitant to use him as evidence for notability. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Talbott (4th nomination). jps (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The journal is discussed in some reliable, non-fringe sources: see this book, for example. I'm open to being convinced otherwise but to me that suggests that it's notable, even if it is FRINGE. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Gordon's book is excellent, but this is the only mention of the fringe journal in the book, and, as far as I know, that's it as far as independent sources go. I would consider this a trivial mention. If that is the sum total of the sources we have on this topic that are reliable, it's frankly not possible to write a decent article on the subject. jps (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon moi, but when Gordin's book is searched simply for "Kronos," 16 mentions are shown, considerably more prominent than supposed by jps. The journal is notable for the number of mainstream scholars/scientists who contributed to the discussions, such as Richard Parker in Egyptology and David Morrison in astronomy; but its incorporation in the entry would constitute OR. Phaedrus7 (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify -- This was potentially a significant journal, though I have never seen it and it may be concerned with FRINGE issues. Nevertheless, even if it was only concerend with FRINGE views, it might be significant in convering them. A subscription of 1500 is quite respectible for an academic journal. The problem is that the article is currently almost entirely about criticism of Velikovsky and is being used as a COATHANGER for that, but this merely concerns a couple of articles in early issues. It is often difficult to find independent sources about a journal, so that I am not concerned about that. I tried a google scholar search, but I am getting so many false positives that this is little help. Kronos appears also be a software programme and "Kronos: Journal of Cape History". I would like to see us cut this down to what this narticle says about the jounral, with a couple of sentences on its discussion of Velikovshy. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with some trimming. Not sure it needs to be totally stubified, but in general I agree with Peterkingiron here - even if the journal's content was FRINGE, it is still notable. If nothing else, it's of significant historical interest. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep noting that Henry Bauer's coverage of the subject in his Beyond Velikovsky is very much of RS quality by virtue of its being published by University of Illinois Press and the large number of very favorable reviews in prestigious scientific journals including Science and Nature. Just because Bauer holds unorthodox views on other subjects does not automatically condemn his reporting on Kronos as FRINGE. As an example of the nefarious tactics used in Wikipedia to denigrate Bauer, one editor once accused this chemistry professor with a PhD in Chemistry of never having performed any scientific research, which is required as preparation for the degree's dissertation, in an attack on Bauer's published criticism of HIV/AIDS research. Phaedrus7 (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I cannot tell if this meets WP:GNG. The sources cited seem to meet WP:RS but I am not sure if there is enough depth of coverage in them - possibly not. No one seems to be examining WP:NJOURNAL. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I agree with Peterkingiron and Fyddlestix, the page can be kept with some trimming and removing claims that aren't well sourced.Amitbanerji26 (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2015 (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.