Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kansas History


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Kansas Historical Society. Smerge. None of the keep arguments has addressed a compelling policy based argument backed up by sources. Spartaz Humbug! 05:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Kansas History

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources (some minor awards -to articles, not the journal itself- leading to in-passing mentions and library catalogs are not WP:SIGCOV). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODed with reason "Significant academic journal as part of a significant historical society in the US". However, this assertion is not supported by any independent reliable sources, neither for the journal nor for the society, so merging this to the society does not appear to be a good alternative. Anyway, PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Kansas. Randykitty (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - This was never published as an academic journal, and should not be assessed that way. It is (or was) a publication of the Kansas State Historical Society in Topeka, Kansas. It was published as "a journal of the Central Plains : a ten-year cumulative index." Whether or not this is currently in publication is probably not an issue. But as for the validity, it is listed at the Library of Congress, and World Cat as of 1978. — Maile  (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: academic journal or not, being listed in WorldCat or the LoC is not an indication of notability as inclusion is automatic for any periodical published in the US and is certainly not SIGCOV. --Randykitty (talk) 07:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My remarks above do not say WorldCat or the LoC gave it notability. I only said "validity", which is not the same as "notability".  Validity just affirms they exist.— Maile  (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody has questioned the validity, it exists. But what makes you think this is notable? --Randykitty (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is a scholarly journal (although it might not have been considered one when it was still under the umbrella of the Kansas Historical Society...Kansas State University has a significant history program). And it's not at all unusual for articles within scholarly journals to win awards...awards they wouldn't have won had the journal not existed. Coverage and scope is sufficient in my view. But if it is decided to delete, then the article about the precursor journal (Kansas Historical Quarterly) should come up for deletion as well. Its article is just a stub. Intothatdarkness 17:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: the awards make perhaps the articles notable or their authors (even though they look pretty minor to me), but even if the journal had not existed, those articles would have been published elsewhere, there's an abundance of local history journals. Whether this is deleted or kept, the article on Kansas Historical Quarterly should be a redirect at best as we don't make separate articles for periodicals if their name changes. --Randykitty (talk) 07:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "..even if the journal had not existed, those articles would have been published elsewhere." Seriously? How can you know that? While you can assert there are a number of local history journals, that doesn't automatically guarantee publication or anything else. I don't find your contention persuasive or indicative of this journal lacking notability. Intothatdarkness 12:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a fact in academic publishing: if an article is rejected by one journal, it almost invariably gets eventually published elsewhere. These articles got an award. Even though minor, it would not have been difficult to get them published elsewhere. --Randykitty (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I know about academic publishing, but your statement is still opinion and isn't in my view related to the notability of this journal. The fact is they were published in THIS journal, and received awards when published in THIS journal. Intothatdarkness 13:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, I was just responding to your hypothetical "if this journal didn't exist". My point remains that these minor awards for articles (not the journal) do not make this notable. --Randykitty (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No...you were asserting these articles would have been published anyhow, which you can't know. While this might at one point have been a local history journal (that's debatable, but the article isn't about the precursor journals), Kansas History is now overseen and published by the notable history department of a major university. I see no reason to modify my Keep based on what you've demonstrated so far. Intothatdarkness 16:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And I don't see even a shred of policy-based reasoning to keep this.WP:NOTINHERITED. --Randykitty (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I get a strong sense of IDONTLIKEIT here. Which is not a solid reason for deleting the article. Intothatdarkness 02:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And given the absence of any independent RS that you come up with, I get a strong feeling of WP:ILIKEIT, which is not a solid reason to keep the article. --Randykitty (talk) 06:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep -- It is difficult to get independent RS for academic societies and their journals, but that does not mean that they are NN. My guess is that this is a low level academic journal, but it is peer-reviewed.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Since when is it sufficient to be peer-reviewed in order to be notable? A few weeks ago there was a huge discussion at WP:NJournals and other places where some editors only wanted to accept that a journal is peer-reviewed if that was confirmed by independent references. And journal articles would only be acceptable if they meet GNG, forget about NJournals... I feel like I'm sitting on a seesaw...--Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment We have three keeps and the original nom who seems determined to badger anyone who votes keep. Three to one seems like a reasonably clear consensus, especially since there have been no other delete noms. The journal itself is an academic, peer-reviewed publication put out by a major university and its articles have won awards. It's not a newsletter pushed out by a county historical society. Intothatdarkness 18:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree to keep as well based on the reasons stated above. In addition, the article may have been edited lately, but I don't see language that would indicate that there were contributions by a close contributor. It is linked from a number of articles and seems to me to be a worthwhile and helpful article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - So far we have no policy-based arguments supporting keep. has confirmed that the journal exists, but this is not a valid reason to keep the article. They note that the journal was never published as an academic journal, and should not be assessed that way - in which case we default to WP:GNG, and no reliable independent sources has been provided (the Buckskin Bulletin gives a passing mention; everything else is either primary or a catalogue listing). There is the argument from  that the journal is notable because of the awards it has won - which might possibly pass C3 of WP:NJOURNALS. However, if we are going to make this argument, we would need evidence that these awards are indeed significant enough to demonstrate the journal's historical importance in its subject area - and for this we would need reliable secondary sources attesting to the importance of these awards, which have not been presented (and I cannot find any evidence of this myself).  notes that this is a low level peer-reviewed academic journal; however, being peer-reviewed does not make an academic journal notable (indeed, pretty much every academic journal is peer-reviewed - almost by definition).  notes that the article does not show signs of a conflict of interest, and that the article is useful - neither of these are valid keep reasons. Determining the notability of academic journals is notoriously difficult - and, for that reason, controversial. WP:NJOURNALS can be a useful resource but it is imperfect and controversial - notably, it does not have the consensus around it to be a policy or guideline. However, the recent critiques of NJOURNALS have been that it is too lenient, that too many non-notable journals are kept based on NJOURNALS arguments. What is less controversial is that a journal which does not pass the requirements of NJOURNALS is likely to not be notable. In this case, we have a journal which is not indexed by any selective databases: indexing in such databases can be a useful benchmark for notability. Equally, WorldCat lists Kansas History as being held by 1372 libraries worldwide. Whether this counts as sufficient to establish notability is a subjective judgment call - but, by comparison, the American Historical Review is held by 2945 libraries and the Journal of American History is held by 2691 libraries. To my mind, this would be the best argument for keeping this article, but - especially absent any further indicators of notability - I find it to be insufficient. And, given that there is no subject-specific notability guideline for academic journals, we ought to be referring to the general notability guideline, which requires independent reliable secondary sources, of which none have been provided. WJ94 (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * One of the awards was presented by the Western History Association, an academic organization promoting scholarship in this area. I don't know that I'd call that a minor award. But clearly mileage will vary. Intothatdarkness 15:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)


 * For perspective, look at the huge number of awards that this association gives every year... --15:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Randykitty (talk)
 * Do you have any reliable sources which support the significance of this award? WJ94 (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have any that say it's not? Frankly, since there isn't as much money or status in the humanities their organizations don't tend to be as exhaustively or obsessively covered as, say, science or obscure soccer players. The nom appears determined to steer this through to deletion, so I bow to the inevitable. Intothatdarkness 17:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge - Maybe it's just a newsletter or a magazine but it's obv a major publication by and for serious Kansas history nerds, and third in a chronological series of three per this. We cite it in articles such as Sacking of Lawrence. If the consensus is that it's not notable enough, I believe it should be folded into a section of the article about the historical society. jengod (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge both Kansas History and The Kansas Historical Quarterly into Kansas Historical Society. The second journal seems to be little more than a name change from the first, and both are inseparable from the organization that produces them. Nothing would be lost by merging and presenting this information in the context of the organization. BD2412  T 23:52, 17 October 2023 (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.