Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmos and History
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
— User:XOR, 06:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:JOURNALCRIT||WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:ESSAY||WP:PROF (Wikipedia:Notability)