Deletion of Cosmos and History

Comment: per nom, though I read a Josephson article, and didn't understand a word of it. More important, it fails  and hence GNG
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NJOURNAL)

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

Comment: I'm not seeing anything stand out from the  area either. I feel like a journal would have to get pretty notorious for pseudoscience in that area to reach notability that way too
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:NFRINGE)

Comment: Meets .  It satisfies Criterion 1 via C1.b (included in selective citation indices, indexing services, and bibliographic databases) through https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/21100201721 inclusion in Scopus.  It is also https://mjl.clarivate.com:/search-results?issn=1832-9101&hide_exact_match_fl=true&utm_source=mjl&utm_medium=share-by-link&utm_campaign=search-results-share-this-journal included in ESCI, which Clarivate (publisher of ''Journal Citation Reports'') characterizes as "a trusted set of journals" which "contains quality publications, selected by our expert in-house editors for editorial rigor and best practice at a journal level" https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/webofscience-esci/.  Notable writers publishing in the journal include Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/778, MacArthur Fellow Stuart Kauffman http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/410, neural network pioneer Paul Werbos http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/785 (discoverer of backpropagation), and physicist Henry Stapp http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/592 (worked with Pauli, Heisenberg, and Wheeler).  Yes, the journal values "questioning and challenging prevailing assumptions".  But per : {{tq|Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. The threshold for whether a topic should be included in Wikipedia as an article is generally covered by notability guidelines.}}  That is why we have criteria like the above, which this journal satisfies
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:JOURNALCRIT||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: Fringe journal that fails  and . I don't know who is doing the "peer reviewing" over there, but the results suggest that it consists of asking some crackpots to review other crackpots. I can think of no other way that http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/785, http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/408, and http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/791 got published
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NJOURNAL||WP:GNG)

Comment: indexed in Scopus since 2011, passes . Ranks #295/606 in Philosophy (not that this would ever make it a ). Cited decently often (e.g. https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22Cosmos+and+History%3A+The+Journal+of+Natural+and+Social+Philosophy%22).&#32
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NJOURNALS||WP:RS)