MyWiki:Articles for deletion/Brief Chronicles (2nd nomination)

__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__

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 merge to Shakespeare Fellowship. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Brief Chronicles

AfDs for this article:

The given page title was invalid or had an inter-language or inter-wiki prefix.

It may contain one or more characters that cannot be used in titles.

Brief Chronicles (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)

Brief Chronicles is a "peer-reviewed journal" created to promote a fringe theory. The article about it was created by the editor of the journal, Roger Stritmatter, after the publication of the first issue, and was nominated for deletion the same day. After a discussion dominated by Dr Stritmatter's own lengthy comments, the nomination was closed with no consensus. Three years later, there are zero third-party sources. This publication is not notable enough to have an article separate from Shakespeare Fellowship. Delete. - Cal Engime (talk) 04:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Undecided. This is problematic. On one hand, the journal exists, though it is misrepresented in the description. On the other hand, it's pretty non-notable, its only mention in scholarly literature to point out that it's a fringe journal. On the third hand, we have pages for such ridiculousness as the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt, whose only reason for notability that I can tell is its promoters keep shoving it in the face of Shakespeareans every time they get a chance, mostly on their own websites and internet comment boards. Any meaningful rewrite will creep towards its own POV, as these pages, if unwatched, have a tendency to do. Maybe create a List of fringe promotional journals and include it? Tom Reedy (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I think a paragraph or two on periodicals in the Oxfordian theory article would give due weight, though it should be a higher priority to cover The Elizabethan Review (which at least had the distinction of an appreciative citation in Orgel's Oxford edition of The Winter's Tale), and anything that might go back to the days of Looney and Greenwood—you and Paul know more than I do about the history of this. As for the Declaration, WP:OTHERCRAP just shows that more than one article has to go, but that article cites coverage in major news sources and a book from a university press. I do see a lot of overlap between that page and List of Oxfordian theory supporters. Anything we can do about that? - Cal Engime (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I edited out the ostentatious self-important promotion. See what you think. (The info box was superfluous; the article is a stub. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• I restored the infobox. Journal articles, whether a stub or not, should have an infobox, which contains bibliographic info not otherwise available. As I see no evidence of independent notability, the journal does not appear to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Merge to Shakespeare Fellowship (including the infobox) seems like an acceptable solution, changing the current article into a redirect to the appropriate section in the article on the Fellowship, to maintain editing history. --Randykitty (talk) 07:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I cut it because "Shakespeare authorship question" is not a discipline, academic or otherwise. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Then the solution is to replace that with an appropriate discipline, not removing the whole thing... --Randykitty (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Is fringe theory a discipline? Tom Reedy (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The field listed was originally English literature, but Dr Stritmatter strongly preferred interdisciplinary studies (and argued at AfD that the editorial board's lack of English scholars didn't matter because it's an interdisciplinary journal, not an English journal). I don't think an infobox is needed for a non-notable fringe journal. - Cal Engime (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Merge to Shakespeare Fellowship. It doesn't really meet WP:NJournals, but it does exist, so its own section in the SF article should meet the needs of readers (and I'd say without the info box, since it's not really an academic journal according to the WP definition). Tom Reedy (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

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.