Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brief Chronicles

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 default to KEEP Notability claims clearly on the fence, give this one some more time. Mike Cline (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brief Chronicles

[edit]
Brief Chronicles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

New journal, only 1 issue published as yet. Does not even have an ISSN. Article creation premature: this cannot yet be notable. The article mentions that the journal is indexed in the World Shakespeare Bibliography and by the Modern Language Association. It is not clear to me how discerning these databases are and I feel that this confers at best a marginal notability. In short: this does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:N. Hence delete. Crusio (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I finally made it to work and was able to verify that the journal is indeed indexed by the MLA. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, thanks for the factual update. I'm impressed that BC is already listed. And I appreciate your clarification of facts that, although I personally knew to be true, might otherwise be in doubt. This is totally aside from issues of "voting." As I hoped you can tell, I try to take a long range view of the present discussion. I like to follow Hamlet's Senecan advice to Horatio (modelled, it has been suggested, on Sir Horatio Vere: "Give me that man/That is not passion's slave, and I will wear him/In my heart's core, ay, in my heart of heart,/As I do thee" --BenJonson (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to supply direct documentation to the fact of inclusion in both MLA and World Shakespeare Bibliography data bases. The journal has applied for ISSN but not yet received one. I would add that Crusio, although nominating the page for deletion, apparently did not know what MLA means, a striking indication that his recommendation is based on less than complete knowledge of the relevant facts. I wonder if Drmies would be so kind as to be more specific when he says that "I am not that impressed by the membership of the board." If that is based on his reasoning that "I don't really see any Shakespeare bigwigs," then I would submit that this is hardly a reasoned position. Many members of the editorial board are distinguished academicians, and perhaps it would behoove wikipedians to adopt a somewhat more inclusive definition of "notability" than to imply that only journals started or staffed by "bigwigs" in a particular field should qualify for this designation. Thank you for your consideration. Drmies, I appreciate your support, even if it seems overqualified to me, for inclusion of the journal. --BenJonson (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it is worth, members of editorial boards don't put much weight in the balance either way. If no "bigwigs" are included that can be a warning sign, but if many bigwigs are included, that doesn't necessarily mean much either. That's why we don't list board members in journal articles... (see discussion here). --Crusio (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would just note that there is a difference between "distinguished academicians" and "Shakespeare bigwigs." The first do not, in my opinion, add to the notability of a Shakespeare journal. Ben, perhaps my statements seem overqualified to you, but keep in mind that we are on a continuum here, and if that continuum is one of notability we're at the lesser end since the journal is so young and cannot, therefore, have proved itself by being discusses in other sources. Crusio, I beg to differ--if Stanley Wells or Gary Taylor edit a certain new Shakespeare journal, then that journal should be considered notable in an almost hereditary fashion (and we do list editors in journal articles). But that's a discussion for a different place. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies, yes I understand that distinction very well, believe me. And I agree with your assessment that this is a continuum and that it is fair to remark that BC may be currently at the "lesser end," which is part of why I stated to Crusius that he might want to take a breather and wait and see what happens over the next year or even six months. He naturally replied that Wikipedia can't really make decisions based on unsourced statements from academic proles (:) like BenJonson. But I have followed the Shakespearean question as a topic in intellectual history for nearly twenty years now, and the shifts and realignments which are currently taking place behind the scenes are momentous indeed. Some of today's experts will be tomorrow's discredited cheaters, and some of today's nobodies will be tomorrow's experts. Take, for instance, the credentials of Dr. Carole Chaski, one of the editorial board members of Brief Chronicles. She is probably *the* world authority, certainly one of handful who might be regarded as such, on the subject of linguistic identification of authorship. She currently consults with the secret service, among other high profile clients. There is an awful lot of chicanery in this field, much of it by academicians, and some of it by distinguished "bigwigs" in the Shakespeare industry such as Donald Foster, who no longer works in academia after he was successfully sued by Stephen Hatfill for misidentifying him as the anthrax terrorist. Only five years ago, Foster was a "bigwig" in Shakespeare studies. My point is that when you consider what expertise really consists of, Chaski is the expert -- Foster was a wannabee who violated the protocols of scholarship in the course of pursuing his "bigwigdom." He got caught. (If you have the interest, see the introductory essay of BC, here: http://www.briefchronicles.com. Again, thank you for your thoughtful moderation on this point and your consideration of my remarks. I am unfortunately overfamiliarized with wikipedia participants who cannot seem to hold a discussion without larding it with insults. --BenJonson (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I was not referring to Crusio in the above negative remark about some other wikipedia editors. I have found him always to be courteous, even when he and I don't agree on a particular point.--BenJonson (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --as I expressed on the article talk page both the MLA and the WSB seem to satisfy Criteria 1 ("The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the journal is included in the major indexing services in its field") - although I now understand that this is a linked essay and not a formal guideline. Especially the MLA, as noted by Drmies, above. Also, the editor, Gary Goldstein, is the previous editor of The Elizabethan Review , ISSN 1066-7059, a semi-annual peer reviewed journal published from 1993 to 1999 on the English Renaissance. Cheers!Smatprt (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 00:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read that discussion; thank you for the link. I wish someone had brought that up earlier. However, my one argument for keeping still stands--MLA indexing, which is a big enough deal, in my opinion. I have faith that in the near future some RSes will turn up that will allow editors to insert the appropriate caveats in the article, and some can already be made based on the table of contents of the first volume--I will leave that to the experts (Sh. is a bit too modern for me). Note: I have no desire to ever say that this journal would count as a reliable source for any kind of factual, objective statement. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not voted yet, and will not until all the remarks of others have been posted. I wonder if Paul Barlowe could clarify a point of confusion. How does one distinguish between a "fringe theory" and an idea that is merely out of favor in the court? This term is repeatedly used regarding the Oxfordian perspective, but has never been justified in an credible manner. Significant numbers of informed scholars and leading Shakespearean actors believe the theory is credible. Given that that is already the case, at what point in the history of the debate would Paul acknowledge that the idea is no longer "fringe." It is incumbent on those who use such terms to clearly define what they mean, and not to assume that they can be meaningfully used without proper definition. In such an instance, proper definition includes specifying what the term does *not* cover. Suppose, for example, that a leading Shakespearean scholar such as Marjorie Garber or Graham Holderness were to announce tomorrow that he or she either 1) fully supported the theory or 2) felt the theory was credible and that wikipedia editors such as Paul Barlowe should stop referring to it as a "fringe theory." Would that constitute sufficient grounds to agree that the term is inappropriate? Or would it require an even more thorough demonstration of its stupidity? -- and if so, what would that look like. I want to know the answer to this question NOW, because even if the majority of editors vote to remove the page NOW, I want to know under what circumstances such a decision would be reversible. Is it too much to ask that wikipedia be held accountable to such a standard of discourse? I hope not.--BenJonson (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this particular new journal. It's very hard to judge a new journal. I'm a little more open to possible notability of such a journal than Crusio. When from a truly major scientific society, like the ACS, any new journal of theirs is certain to be notable, since all their other journals are --and are generally more than notable, generally the standard top level journal in their subject specialties. And if from a major publisher, like one of the best university presses, a publisher where essentially all of its journals are notable, the new one is very likely to be notable also. The same goes for a journal edited by a person extremely notable in the subject. But the question here is whether the "managing Editor" role by Gary Goldstein is sufficient for notability . I do not think so. His previous journal was borderline notable at the very best, being in only 33 WorldCat libraries, which is extremely low for a popular subject like this; it certainly does not make anything else he does notable . He has no published books in WorldCat. The book listed in his cv on the journal page is from a very minor publisher, and does not yet seem to be in any worldCat library. A Google Scholar search for him [1] shows very little. I notice he does not in the cv claim to have a faculty appointment anywhere; I do not think he would himself be notable under WP:PROF. The General Editor, Roger A. Stritmatter, is assistant professor at a minor university. The positions of people on the editorial board matter very little. Chaski may be an expert, but not in English literature. Looking at the authors of articles, very few hold university positions. I notice, interestingly, that many of the people involved in this publication seem to be interested in the fringe position that the Earl of Oxford wrote Shakespeare. That would not necessarily rule out this journal, but it does affect the way one might look at the advocacy for the inclusion of the article. The argument above that the people involved are not currently recognized as important in the subject, but soon will be, is typical of a a subject where the correct answer is "not yet notable". BC is far below the lesser end of notability. DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DGG:
Thank you for clarifying that I work a "minor" University, whatever that particular code word means. Actually, all of the members of the BC editorial board are experts, of one form or another, in their particular areas of specialization. And sir, as a matter of fact, under any reasonable application of the notability rules, I do happen to qualify, even though there is no wikipedia page about me. My dissertation was widely covered in the intellectual news media, including (favorably in both instances) in the Chronicle of Higher Education and the New York Times, as well as being mentioned in articles in the Washington Post (for which I have written) and Harpers. I have published over sixteen academic articles in peer reviewed journals in my areas of specialization. Now that you have some facts, would you still hold to your old opinion?
You baldly state that "the positions of people on the editorial board matter very little." This statement conveys most tellingly in its absolute lack of any real content. What do you mean by "positions"? If you mean the academic affiliations, then your contradiction is blatant to the point of hypocrisy. You just got through saying that because I'm an assistant professor at a "minor" university, I'm not notable. You can't have it both ways. "Matter very little" -- to who or in what do they not matter? You imply that you are referring to the wikipedia standards of notability, but you make no reference to any relevant language which would justify your inference. Instead, it appears that you are mistaking your own uninformed opinion that, because you disagree with the position advocated, you want (sometimes) to ignore the credentials of those who hold the contrary opinion, with reality. In other instances, you want to use their alleged lack of credentials to argue that credentials are all that matters. I realize that you probably don't see this as a contradiction, but it is. You're trying your best to rationalize the "cognitive disequilibrium" that results from the fact that normally you would respect the academic affiliations of the board members, but in this case you'll make an exception because you don't like what they seem to be saying.
It is also interesting to me in reviewing your remarks to what extent you have selectively developed your case. You refer to a google search on Gary Goldstein, but apparently either did not make a google search on Coppin State University *Associate* Professor Stritmatter, which would have produced dozens of hits, including to some of the sources mentioned above. You state that Dr.Carole Chaski is not an expert in Shakespearean studies. This is correct. Please review her qualifications in light of the declared editorial purpose of the journal in question. The subtitle is "An Interdisciplinary Journal of Authorship Studies." The editorial board is designed to maximize professional expertise in those areas which are relevant to the journal's subject of inquiry, which are by no means limited to those narrowly construed as experts in Shakespeare.
I asked Paul Barlowe to justify his use of the standard cant phrase, "fringe" position or topic. I ask you to do the same. Let me tell you what I think you are really saying, and I'll listen politely to any reasoned response that avoids calling me a holocaust denier or similar glib epithets which have besmirched the history of this topic: "because a majority of people in a given field don't agree with something, we will ignore the objective standards which wikipedia has established for determining notability (in this instance, that the primary and most important criterion of notability is that the journal in question be indexed by the relevant academic indexing services, which it is) and side with the majority. We like what the majority says. We don't know anything about the debate, but we feel that wikipedia should not offend powerful majorities. We haven't read the journal in question, know next to nothing about the arguments it makes or the larger intellectual context in which those arguments are made, but we will vote to determine that the article's subject is not notable so that we can uphold wikipedia 'standards.'" Forgive me for remarking (and please don't take it personally) that this strikes me as the blind leading the deaf, dumb, and ignorant.-- (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that disclaimer "please don't take it personally". Otherwise we might all think you're referring to the participants here.
It is telling that 55 percent of the comments so far are from the editor of the journal, which is about par in any discussion in which he participates. And it's hard to know where in the scholastic firmament such a noted scholar fits when he creates a Wikipedia page for the sole purpose of supporting an argument on a deletion page.
This is just the latest example of how Wikipedia is being used to promote the fringe theory of anti-Stratfordism and Oxfordism. Lest one doubts that it is a fringe theory and that the proponents don't think so, take a look at Talk: Shakespeare authorship question, at which the main anti-Stratfordian editor there, Smatprt, regularly quotes WP:FRINGE as justification for his edits. See here (read the bullet points) and the very last comment here. And in fact, he added it as a notable example at the Fringe theory article, because the first rule of PR is any exposure is good exposure as long as they spell the name right (or in this case, get the link right).
My vote? I really don't care. After a long and contentious argument over whether journal this could be considered a reliable source, in which I argued that WP:PARITY applies, it seems apparent to me that a lot of Wikipedian editors who don't really have the background to make judgments about topics they know little about judge only by the arguments made during the process. It also appears that the Wikipedia community apparently doesn't care that its encyclopedia is being used to promote a fringe theory that is dismissed by almost every Shakespeare academic. So go ahead and let him have the article, but I think it only fair that it should be limited to the same word count as the article for the Review of English Studies.
Oh, and to set the record straight: Donald Foster is still very much employed in academia as a Professor of English on the Jean Webster Chair at Vassar College, definitely not a minor university. BenJonson's malicious comments appear to be motivated by professional jealousy and border on slander and should be removed forthwith. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tom Reedy

I was wondering when you would guys would show up. Tom, you seem upset that I have made a lot of comments on this page. That may be true, but it is also a red herring. Neither you nor Nishidani have answered my basic question about why Wikipedia standards for notability should be ignored in this case. Your answer seems to be that, according you, any discussion of the Shakespearean authorship question constitutes indulgence in a "fringe theory." I don't think anyone involved in this discussion, in either a minor or a major way, needs to hear that again. It may be that under the protocols as established by Wikipedia, the Shakespeare Authorship entry has been defended in one way or another by other editors under the "fringe theory policy." I have never done so. What I object to, moreover, is the vulgar manner in which you, Nishidani, and others have had recourse to this piece of linguistic property as a stick to beat up on those who have a different perspective than your own, the dominant one. Saying that any doubts about the authorship question amount to indulgence in a "fringe theory" is your way of avoiding the substance of the doubts which have historically been raised as to the bona fides of the traditional Shakespearean attribution, which is increasingly doubted, as you know, even within the academic community on which you and Nishidani depend for your definitions of reality. What you and others really are objecting to about the inclusion of an entry for Brief Chronicles is that to accept it would force you reconsider your own history of the cavalier misuse of these sorts of argument by epithet, by demonstrating that the dispute in question is taking on an increasing level of credibility within higher education. That is manifest by the academic qualifications an affiliations of the members of the BC editorial board, however modest they might seem in comparison to such wunderkinden and Prometheans as a Greenblatt, a Marcus, or a Shapiro.

You seem to have overlooked my call, based on the narrow Wikipedia definition of the term "fringe theory," for some clarification. I am still waiting for someone -- anyone -- to explain to me what would constitute grounds to determine that the theory in question was no longer "fringe." This seems like a reasonable question, to which all Wikipedians would want an answer, but perhaps there are some here who feel that it is not and we should instead all be free to use that term whenever we like without specifying more carefully the conditions under which the label would be removed. But it seems to me that if Wikipedia wants to remain relevant in negotiating disputes of this nature, which are fundamentally historical in nature insofar as they respond to new evidence and evolving standards and modes of inquiry, it ought to pay some attention to such questions. The justice of any quasi-judicial proceeding (of which the present discussion is an instance) necessarily depends on understanding the circumstances under which another judgment would be rendered. This concept is fundamental to any system of justice which recognizes that even courts sometimes make mistakes. So, to, the history of ideas instructs us that experts are routinely wrong, even about matters of their alleged expertise. Can anyone enlighten me on this point?

You write: "It also appears that the Wikipedia community apparently doesn't care that its encyclopedia is being used to promote a fringe theory that is dismissed by almost every Shakespeare academic. So go ahead and let him have the article, but I think it only fair that it should be limited to the same word count as the article for the Review of English Studies." You say that the subject is "dismissed by almost every Shakespearean academic." This is simply not so, and it is a telling point against your interpretation of the present moment that you should feel the need to continue to express your convictions in such quasi-absolutist terms. It is quite true to say that the Oxfordian and anti-Stratfordian positions remain a distinct minority within higher education. But that is not the same thing, at all. More importantly, I beg to differ with you on your statement about Wikipedia. It seems to me that the Wikipedia community is in fact doing an excellent job of airing the opinions relevant to the points at issue. It is evident, however, that the community is not entirely in agreement with your characterization of the nature of the dispute. That being said, I appreciate your not jumping into the fray with an immediate recommendation for deletion. As you know, I have great respect for Review of English Studies, as well as for Cahiers Élisabéthains, The Shakespeare Yearbook, and many other academic journals which have been kind enough to publish my (or your) work.

I established the wikipedia page for Dr. Chaski for many reasons, not the least of which is that she is a notable modern intellectual whose accomplishments have been deemed notable by every editor who has commented on the talk page of the entry. If you dispute the notability of the entry, I request you to so in the appropriate venue, and not to violate the fundamental rule of Wikipedia editing, namely to "assume good faith," by imputing to me motives about which you are wholly uninformed.

Finally, let me address your point about the good and learned Dr. Foster. Firstly, if I erred in stating that he was no longer employed at Vassar, Dr. Foster has my heartfelt apology. Secondly, as to your extraordinary statement that this error was motivated by some personal malice, I respectfully repeat my comment above about motives. You need to be careful here, Tom, because malice is a legal term, and you have not demonstrated, and cannot demonstrate it. Having apologized for perhaps misunderstanding Dr. Foster's current employment, let me ad that it is wholly undeniable that Dr. Foster's work has been substantially discredited in the eyes of many over the past ten years. It is evident that his scholarship over-reached his understanding of his subject matter. Anyone who has followed his case will be aware of this. As for my alleged "jealousy" of Dr. Foster, Tom, you surely are creative about psychoanalyzing people of whom your acquaintance is grossly superficial. That is really really quite funny. Believe me, there are people of whom I'm jealous, Tom. I'm jealous, for example, of Dr. Chaski. I'm jealous of Graham Holderness. I am jealous of William Leahy. I am jealous of Douglass Brooks. I am jealous of Marjorie Garber.I'm sometimes even jealous of Daniel Wright (not, however, in any of these cases from psychopathology you ironically impute to me). I am not, however, jealous of Donald Foster, Tom. I do not regard him as a credible or noteworthy scholar, and credibility in my book (which means having a credible argument, supported by facts, and when you make a factual error, being able to admit it candidly) would be a prerequisite to any jealousy I might feel for a fellow scholar. If a person does not have credibility in my eyes he is unworthy of my jealousy, no matter how famous he may seem to be. Notice, however, that I have not involved myself in editing Dr. Foster's Wikipedia page. While he is not notable as a scholar, in my estimation, he is notable, as a lesson of how not to do scholarship. It is never wise to expose oneself to a multi-millon dollar lawsuit by falsely accusing an innocent man of being a biological terrorist, and I advise you, as a fellow Wikipedian, not to follow his example. --BenJonson (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am tempted to join my voice with Nishidani's and, in the spirit of the Shakespearean works, vote to immolate this entry. It would be a fitting result, although a setback for Wikipedia. However, I'll wait to see if anyone else has anything to say before casting my vote. And I'm still waiting for an answer to my question of what additional merit is required for a scholarly journal to be considered notable. Anyone? --BenJonson (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's refocus, shall we? Here is the most relevant portion of the guidelines on Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)
"If a journal meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, it is notable. If a journal meets none of these conditions, it may still be notable, if it meets the conditions of WP:Notability or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the journal will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. See the Notes and Examples section below before applying this guideline.
  1. The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.
  2. The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources.
  3. The journal has a historic purpose or has a significant history.

(my emphasis)

I think it is important to clearly record this reference here, on this page, because the above discussion makes me wonder if those voting definitively to delete the page in question are familiar with either the facts of the case or the protocols that we are advised to employ in interpreting them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenJonson (talk • contribs) 01:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please notice that there is no qualification here. The guidelines state that "if the journal meets any one of the following conditions....then it is notable. They do not require all three to be met. They do not say that if one of the criteria is met then the journal may be notable. They say that if any one of the conditions has been met, then the journal is, ipso facto, notable.
The guidelines continue to stipulate that "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the journal is included in the major indexing services in its field. Examples of such services are Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Scopus. A few simple mentions in passing that "Journal of Foo is an important journal" should not be taken as evidence that Criterion 1 is satisfied."
Now, it is in evidence that the journal in question is included in the major indexing services in its field. The two most influential and relevant are the MLA database and the World Shakespeare Bibliography, which are the equivalent in the humanities and Shakespearean studies respectively, of the examples used in the Wikipedia protocols. I fail to see how anyone can reconcile a vote to delete based on these stated criteria. Hence we have the wholesale incorporation, largely if not exclusively for the sake of its rhetorical effect, of wikipedia policies on "fringe theories."
So, here is a question for the real Wikipedia experts: are ANY OTHER "fringe theories" for which it can be shown that journals promoting those theories are in fact indexed by the major indexing services in the field? And is there a valid precedent, in which such an example (assuming one can be produced)was deleted on grounds of a failure of notability? If so, I will gladly vote with the current majority. If not, I will hold my vote an abeyance indefinitely until someone satisfies my previous requests, still unanswered, for clarification on other contentious points. Why would Wikipedia invent a special exception for this particular topic? Why would it condone allowing unsubstantiated accusations of "fringe," or irrelevant claims that this or that person associated with the journal is or is not in himself or herself notable -- to trump the clearly stated protocols by which Wikipedia allegedly determines notability? A one sentence reply or simple vote with the present majority will not answer this objection. It will merely make it more obvious that the majority wants to have its way without considering the historical complexities of the case, and is moreover willing to ignore the relevant Wikipedia protocols in order to get its way, putting power above rational and informed debate. Thank you for your consideration.--BenJonson (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, here's the most relevant portion of the page: "This page is an essay on notability. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more editors on how notability may be interpreted. It has not been accepted as a Wikipedia policy or guideline, though it may be consulted for assistance during an AfD discussion or when considering creating a standalone article, and may become accepted as a guideline at a future date." I feel sure this discussion will impact the future content of that page. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Tom, I moved your comment, which interrupted my analysis, down here so that I could respond to it without creating chaos. You were so eager to get into a duel about which is the most important part of the cited page that you interrupted me before readers could get a chance to follow my logic. You have a point, and I should have been more careful about noting the distinction you make. But here is my question: Is there a better Wikipedia source that could inform our discussion? Is there any actual official "guideline" on this topic? If not, I suggest that your point verges on immateriality. Wikipedia is a community of contributing editors, some of whom have thought more carefully and thoroughly about dispute resolution than others. If there is no official Wikipedia policy on how to help resolve this question, then the next best thing is the unofficial analysis of a group of seasoned veterans who have put a great deal of energy into proposing a policy, which is what the page in question represents (thank you, Crusio and other editors of the page!). Your argument that the contents of the present discussion will influence the development of the page in question would be considered by anyone who understands principled debate to be a slippery fish. Even if you are right that the present discussion would lead to a reformulated "policy" which would retroactively ban the BC entry (which I'm not so sure you are), what sort of standard of fairness does that imply? You've made quite a few edits to the SA page which impute all sorts of logical fallacies to the skeptics (many of which apply also to scholars who support your position, if sometimes in different ways, although you seem unaware of it). What kind of logic allows you to change the terms of a contract, to delete the "opt out" clause, after you sold me a house with a leaky basement? to At present we have the guidance as worded; changes to it might apply after the fact to other disputes. For you to read backwards from imaginary changes that have not been made and may not even have been contemplated to try to influence this debate is just....("break, my heart; for I must hold my tongue") wholly inappropriate.
I note, moreover, that you have not disputed my statement that the logic of these informed comments, if we accept their guidance, pretty much obliges us to vote support a "Keep" vote. Nor have you supplied an answer to my question about whether there is precedent for banning an entry on a peer reviewed academic journal, excerpted by leading indexing services, based on the logic that it allegedly represents a "fringe" theory. Surely, given all the talk and policy of "fringes" and "fringe theories," there must be other instances of this contradiction. I'm giving you a chance to convince me with evidence. Please set aside for a moment your tendency to indulge in head-butting with me about what is or is not important, and give me an example that would constitute informative precedent for the vote to delete. If you'll kindly do that, and also state the conditions under which you would theoretically concede that the theory in question is no longer "fringe," then I'll gladly vote to delete my own entry, and I won't look back. I have other, better things to do with my time, like create or improve other Wikipedia pages which provoke less angst. Thanks.--BenJonson (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Listing in MLA establishes sufficient notability, which is further reinforced by listing in WSB and having met other WP inclusion criteria pointed out by BenJonson. Any COI issues can be dealt with as the editing of the article progresses; this is not a discussion of COI. Inclusionability is not based on age or length of existence. The WP guidelines are clear. Softlavender (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note and reminder Oh my, I seem to have unwittingly stirred up a hornet's nest here. This is a reminder to contributors to this discussion that the topic at hand is not whether the "authorship question" is fringe science or not, neither is it about the perceived academic quality of participants to this debate, nor is it about the value of the relative positions of "Oxfordians" or "Stratfordians" or other partisans. The only question that we are concerned with here is whether this journal is notable. The closing admin should take note of the fact that BenJonson (according to his user page and remarks made here) has a COI (he is the General Editor of this journal). As for BenJonson's question on my talk page, whether I want to reconsider my nomination given the current discussion: No, I don't. Although I value Drmies' careful evaluation (but leading to only a "weak keep", I should say), I value DGG's opinion even more (and note that DGG is even more committed than I am to keeping articles about journals). The long defenses of the journal posted here have a perverse side-effect: if so many words have to be spend to argue notability, there actually cannot be much there... Usually AfD discussions concerning journal articles are pretty brief and factual. --Crusio (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crusio, Thank you for the clarification and for restating your position. Since, however, at least two participants have alleged or implied that the issue in fact is one of "fringe science," that has tainted the discussion. There is therefore documented in the discussion an unresolved conflict over the basis for a decision; allegations of "fringe science" have inappropriately been used to determine "notability." This seems particularly significant given that no one has still offered even a grain of a response to my question of under what conditions a journal in this question might actually obtain "notability," since the suggested guidelines articulated on Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) have not been applied by those voting for deletion. Instead, it has even been suggested that notability should be denied, hysteron proteron, because at some future point in time, those guidelines might actually be changed in order to justify the deletion of this very article! One reason the discussion has involved so many words is that so many seem reluctant to engage in good faith to clarify such matters of common concern to Wikipedia. Regardless of the outcome of the discussion, some light deserves to be shed on that question. --BenJonson (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify even more: whether this is a journal devoted to a fringe topic or not is not really relevant either. What we need is evidence that this meets WP:N. It is unlikely that WP:Notability (academic journals) would be modified just for this single case (do I detect some hubris here?) In any case, it is not a guideline but just an essay basically only representing the personal opinion of some editors. --Crusio (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely with your statement that "whether this is a journal devoted to a fringe topic or not is not really relevant." If anything I said seemed to imply otherwise, I must have been sloppy in my exposition. However, Crusio, I don't understand your next sentence: "What we need is evidence that this meets WP:N. WP:Notability (academic journals) is unlikely to be modified just for this single case." The position clearly articulated on this page by all those voting against deletion, and by myself, is that the criteria outline in the referenced page (whatever you want to call it) have been met. I further stated my opinion that in the absence of better guidance, the page in question should be regarded as the best reference currently available on the subject. The second part of your sentence does not seem in my understanding to jibe very well with the first. But if it means what it seems to me possibly to mean, I would reply that I did not claim that the page was unlikely to be modified for this single case. I questioned the relevance and appropriateness of Tom Reedy's introducing a claim, projecting that such modifications would take place, as an argument in the discussion. This is not fair game. I have not heard anything yet to cause me to modify my opinion on that point.--BenJonson (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger, they are two sentences, not one: "What we need is evidence that this meets WP:N." and "WP:Notability (academic journals) is unlikely to be modified just for this single case." They appear to be one because the links butt heads. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I normally find DGG very persuasive, but not in this case. This article meets our guidelines. Also, I read the article carefully and found it to be a net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment Would you mind clarifying exactly how it meets our guidelines? --Crusio (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ret. Prof, an Oxfordian colleague of "Ben Jonson", was specifically canvassed by him to comment here. See User talk:Ret.Prof. Paul B (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Paul. Yes, its true that I asked Ret.Prof, who I met through his editing and oversight on the page Pasquill Cavaliero, to examine the talk page here and offer his comment. Is that prohibited? If so, I would appreciate your pointing me to the relevant protocol. Also, I wonder if you might be so kind as to state your evidence for the characterization that RetProf is an "Oxfordian colleague." Did you do any research before making this characterization? Or are you just assuming that no one would vote in favor of not deleting the page based unless he or she was one of my "Oxfordian colleagues." For my part, I have no idea what RetProf thinks about the Oxfordian question. But you appear to have "inside knowledge." Please explain yourself. Thanks. --BenJonson (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If memory serves, the Prof has expressed Oxfordian views in the past. I apologise if I am mistaken. Yes, it is not considered appropriate to "canvass" editors with a view to bolstering a specific point of view in a discussion. See Wikipedia:Canvassing. Paul B (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
/********* The statement by Paul about me is totally false. - Ret.Prof (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC) **********/[reply]

If "memory serves"? What the heck does that mean? Can you possibly be any less specific? In any case, please be advised that your scenario that I recruited RetProf because he is part of some Oxfordian cabal is simply a fantasy on your part. I posted the links in my response, Paul, which documented the history of my acquaintance with him. I didn't ask you, moreover, for your opinion about "what is considered appropriate." I asked you for a link to the policy to which you allude. I think I am not the one to whom you primarily owe an apology.--BenJonson (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the authorship sympathies of Ret.Prof have anything to do with his interpretation of how it meets the guidelines. Reviewing his contributions and talk page, it seems to me he has much more expertise in Wikipedia policies than I have, and I'd really like to know his answer to Crusio's question. Several times when I thought I understood a policy it turned out I was mistaken, and in any case reading the opinions of others is instructive in learning the policies, which I am trying to do. I complained above that many questions seem to be decided by people who don't know anything about the subject, but I don't believe Ret.Prof is an example of this. I want to add that I am especially heartened by reading this on his page: "I hate bitter infighting and users who are skilled at skirting our policies, never acting quite badly enough to be thrown out." Tom Reedy (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In reference to Paul's response on "canvassing", I think he is mistaken. Here is the actual policy wording: "Canvassing is sending messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive.
Ben's request for an opinion was acceptable as the message was not "written to influence the outcome". Ben wrote: "Would you be so kind as to review the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brief Chronicles and, if you feel so inclined, to express an opinion?" - Nothing in that message even hints at an attempt to "influence the outcome". I hope this clarifies things for both Ben and Paul. Smatprt (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Smatprt, for doing what Paul would not, namely citing the actual relevant policy. Anyone who reviews my public comment to RetProf will see that I in no way sought to prejudice his response. I solicited his opinion as a senior wikipedia editor. By the way, Tom, thank you for your clarifying point. I agree with you, also, that the authorship sympathies of RetProf, which are still entirely unknown to me and appear to have been fabricated by Paul, are irrelevant to the question at hand. --BenJonson (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I really have taken offense at the false accusations and personal attacks leveled at me by Paul B. If you think for one moment I will allow you to intimidate me, you are sadly mistaken. I now strongly believe the article should be kept! I hope that the closing Admin will take your attempts to corrupt the process into account!!! - Ret.Prof (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These fits of hysterics are becoming downtight ridiculous. I wrote that "if memory serves, the Prof has expressed Oxfordian views in the past. I apologise if I am mistaken." So, I may have misrememered and have said as much. These wild claims of fabricating evidence and false accusations merely indicate an inability of some editoers associated with this position not to see consipracies everywhere. Paul B (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"misrememered" "editoers" "fits of hysterics" "downtight ridiculous" . . . There should be a literacy test for Wikipedia editors! In any event, I accept your apology and suggest we get back to the matters at hand - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a maturity test for other editors. These comments merely display your ignorance. These errors are all typos, genius. They arise because of the layout of the "qwerty" keyboard and the fact that I am writing very quickly. This is because I have other things to do. If you can't understand the difference between literacy and hand-eye-coordination you really have no place here. When, like, me, you have published three books and many, many articles you may be able legitimately to comment on my "literacy" Paul B (talk) 12:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, you made my point. Your errors are because you "type very quickly". In other words you are sloppy and careless. And it is the reason we are having this conflict. You made a false accusation because you didn't check your facts. Having "other things to do", is no excuse for being sloppy and careless here. Therefore I suggest that you think first, slow down and and use SpellCheck. The truth is that your edits have been weighed, measured and found wanting. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am a long-time reader of and discussant on Wiki,previously active on many of the authorship pages, as well as a contributor to scholarly journals, both orthodox and non-Stratfordian, including, in the near future, Brief Chronicles. I am therefore happy to disclose my interest in the authorship question, meanwhile realising that almost all arguing here have an interest one way or the other in the same question. However, that should not be the issue. The issue, as I understand it, is notability and I agree that the MLA listing establishes it. I also wonder whether, if this was a new Stratfordian journal, there would be as much argument regarding deleting it. Mizelmouse (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The call to delete states that "this does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:N." The discussion has repeatedly proved this to be in error. In over four days, no response has been given by those moving to delete to repeated questions about what would constitute notability, given that they claim the journal currently does not qualify. Attempts to prejudice the discussion with false speculations about motivations and collusion are documented. Use of atrocious spelling by those attempting to define what constitutes a notable academic journal are documented. Attempts to undermine the validity of comments in WP:Notability (academic journals) ignore the fundamental fact that the entire motion to delete is predicated on these comments as if they are standards for adjudication, and therefore if these are mooted, so is the original proposal, rendering the entire discussion irrelevant and logically defeating the motion to delete before it began. Let's all get on to more important things, like improving Wikipedia.--BenJonson (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment. Most of this discussion is indeed irrelevant. We do not have articles for every new journal that comes out. Paul B (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, Paul. Perhaps I could ask you a couple of questions: First, how many new scholarly journals that deal with English literature, to your knowledge, have started or wished to start Wiki articles? And second, how many of those have been deleted? Mizelmouse (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think what would be even more interesting to know is how many Wikipedia articles about scholarly journals that deal with English literature were started and written by their general editors. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting , Mizelmouse. And how is this question relevant? Paul B (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A worthy question. Within the past month, I have proposed four new journal entries. Three have been considered unworthy of opposition. Only one has provoked a call for speedy deletion. Perhaps Paul, since he takes such an interest in this question, and possess such a finely honed sense for "relevance," has more comprehensive statistics.--BenJonson (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which ones? All I can see is Cahiers Élisabéthains, which I gave the benefit of the doubt, given that it has been published since 1972 and is published by the CNRS, and The Shakespeare Yearbook (similar: 1990 and Texas A&M). I don't find any other new journal articles in your edit history. The fact that they "have not been challenged" may just mean that nobody noticed them yet (despite my daily "trawling" of the "new pages" for journal articles). --Crusio (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Crusio is right. I took the time to fix format and obvious typos. (Crusio's English is very good considering it is a second language). I don't envy the Amin who has to sort through this AfD. This is a good faith edit and if anyone takes offense, feel free to revert. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have a long history of agreeing with Drmies about journal notability, and it was Drmies and I who largely wrote WP:SJ on that exact subject. Our reasoning in that essay is, at least in part, about the amount of "benefit of the doubt" that Wikipedia should give to scholarly journals in notability debates--and our conclusion is that substantial "benefit of the doubt" should go in favour of inclusion.

    In this case, there is doubt. I give particular weight to Crusio's nomination and DGG's supporting remarks, but I also give particular weight to Drmies' response about the MLA database.

    Given that there is doubt, I can only go with weak keep.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall, thanks for clarifying the principle of "benefit of the doubt," and for your support for the preservation of the entry. It looks to me like your vote did not tally. Did you intend it to? If so, you may wish to supply the required formatting. With your vote, the tally is 8 "keep" and 5 "delete." --BenJonson (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't worry about it, BenJonson. My words appear exactly as I intended, and the official line is that this is a reasoned debate rather than a vote. In other words, the person who closes this debate will read what I said closely--along with the essay I cite, if they are not familiar with it--and will give it the appropriate weight.

The closer is looking for "consensus", which is not a word that Wikipedia chooses to define (and there are good and valid reasons why it should remain vague. You will come to appreciate why this is so if you participate in significant numbers of AfDs). "Consensus" does not mean "unanimity", but it does mean that an opinion from a well-established user in good standing can sometimes be sufficient to prevent an article from being deleted--the more so if there are several such users.

In particular, the closer is looking for a consensus to delete the article (which should be supported by well-reasoned arguments that are not refuted). If no such consensus is apparent, then the closer may decide that the outcome of this debate is "no consensus"--which means "no consensus to delete", i.e. the article is kept for the moment.

However, a "no consensus" outcome does not prevent subsequent deletion discussions, so if you strongly feel this article should be kept, you should add reliable sources which are independent of this publication to it as soon as these become available.

The (admitted) lack of reliable sources, apart from the MLA database, is the deletion camp's strongest argument and to be completely candid, I am not at all sure that it has been overcome. If the debate is closed with the arguments as they currently stand, then this matter will fall within "admin discretion", i.e. the person who assesses this debate would be within their rights to decide either way.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall, you should have disclosed that you were asked[2] to participate in this AfD by one of the keep proponents. Nsk92 (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I'm quite familiar with consensus, having grown up in a Quaker meeting. In such a context, the concept of consensus is predicated on a willingness to engage in an active dialogue, which includes responding to the voiced concerns of the other participants in the discussion. I hope that those responsible for rendering a decision in this instance will review to what extent such an obligation of engagement has or has not taken place. I have repeatedly requested, for example, that those responsible for urging the deletion of this article specify the conditions under which they believe notability might be met, and even offered to vote for deletion if this and some other considerations could reasonably be fulfilled. There has been a conspicuous silence in response to these requests for clarification. I'm not sure that under such circumstances (let alone the repeated personal attacks and slurs which have characterized the remarks of several who voted in this discussion in other wikipedia contexts) the tradition of decision by consensus can have much meaning. --BenJonson (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, S Marshall, for weighing in; it seems to me you've summarized pretty well where the discussion is at--and it is true that inclusion by the MLA is my only keep-argument. Usually, such inclusion means that other sources are available that bolster the argument for keeping the article, but that does not seem to be the case for this journal. One such argument could be a proven relevance to the field, which here cannot possibly be proven since there's only one issue out. Another argument could be the scholarly weight of the editorial board, and there seems to be a consensus here that this weight is not particularly great (and I agree). So that leaves a weak, weak keep argument at best--and BenJonson, if it is my position at all to give you advice, the more you put your hand on one side of the scale, the more it seems to tip to the other side. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall, should you have disclosed that you were asked [3] to participate in this AfD by Drmies, one of the weak keep proponents per Nsk92 (talk) ? ? Again, this is a good faith question as I respect your weak keep, but stand behind my Strong Keep - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any time a specific user (as opposed to a Wikiproject or a deletion sorting list) is notified about a specific AfD, this constitutes a form of canvassing, that needs to be disclosed, as a matter of form. Nsk92 (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so Paul B's disclosure of RetProf's canvassing was entirely legitimate, contrary to the subsequent "clarification" of Wikipedia policy. His only error was impugning the said RetProf with the belief of Oxfordism, which mistake caused RetProf to strengthen his "keep" reccomendation. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prof, you've been around here, and I respect your work--you can see easily enough why I "canvassed" S Marshall (and of course I gladly accept your good faith). We've worked together on that journal standard, and you can also see that I did not ask him to vote any specific way; moreover, I had no way of knowing that he would vote the same way I did. Nsk92, I'm sorry, given that S Marshall does not have a history (as far as I'm aware) of voting one way or another on these matters, I think that canvassing is a bit too strong of a word here. I hope it is obvious that I was asking a fellow scholar for an opinion, and I hope also that it is obvous that this wasn't "written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion." How about a round of good faith for everyone present? BTW, I think that the weakness of my keep should indicate sufficiently that I don't have a dog in this fight. But I'm sorry if my attempt at asking S for his opinion brings him into disrepute--that was never my intention. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about matters of protocol and of proper form. When someone asks an individual user (for whatever reason) to participate in an AfD, this fact should be disclosed, no exceptions. Nsk92 (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it is being asked explicitly: in order to have a keep on this article, what is needed is that WP:N is satisfied. This means that we need independent reliable sources discussing the journal and establishing its notability. In journal-related AfDs, as Drmies and S.Marshall already say, we usually take inclusion into major databases as indicating that a RS finds the journal notable. Drmies and S.Marshall find inclusion in MLA enough for a (very) weak keep vote. With all respect for these two respected editors I am not so sure about that and follow DGG (who usually fights very hard to keep journal articles). (That's "respect" twice in the same phrase, but I just had a transatlantic flight behind me and am waiting for my shuttle connection to Washington :-) Apart from this, I intend to stay out of this debate: I have learned to steer away from the highly-charged, highly-emotional wikidramas. --Crusio (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2010 (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/Brief_Chronicles&oldid=1253361776"