Deletion of Shii Studies Review

Comment: to the "keep" !voters: If this were not an academic journal but, say, a soccer club, would you still use arguments like "this is a legitimate club", "their executive committee has notable people on it", etc? Of course not! So why should we include an article on a journal that has, so far, not made any splash in the real world at all. Given its age, we don't even know whether it'll survive. (Yes, I know that Brill is a notable and respected publisher. I have some examples on my user page of journals from notable publishers that folded after a few years and never made any impact at all). ''At best'', this is a case of 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: per nom. Fails  basically. &#32
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NJOURNALS)

Comment: Lack of independent coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject fails . Nothing I can find indicates that any of the criteria of  are met either. I note that notability for journals is neither inherent nor inherited despite assertions to the contrary
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NJOURNAL)

Comment: Cannot see how this passes .   also seems very problematic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NJOURNAL)