Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered) (2nd nomination)
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 Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Newspapers.2C_magazines_and_journals|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  and . 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
— User:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV, 15:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:FRINGE||WP:UNDUE (Wikipedia:Fringe theories)