Deletion of Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture

Comment: or '''Merge''' into Daniel C. Peterson - I'm just not finding any significant secondary sources about this journal.  Most of the references I'm finding in secondary sources are written by the journal's founder, which might as well be considered a primary sources.  Of the small handful of secondary sources written by people unaffiliated with the journal, most of them deal with the rather dramatic split at FARMS that prompted the journal's creation rather than anything about the journal itself.   I'm not finding any evidence of this journal's "renown" in any way.  I haven't found a single academic paper, even in among LDS scholarship, that has referenced a single one of its articles.  To be fair, this journal has published a grand total of six issues as of this writing.  Therefore, this might just be a matter of |being too soon.   As of right now though, it doesn't meet any of the criteria that Hodgdon claims it does.  1)  As near as I can tell, it hasn't been cited in another publication of any kind.  2) The journal hasn't been around long enough to have any verifiable influence at all mostly because 3) the journal doesn't have any significant history
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: Here's what I think: peer-reviewed academic journals should be automatically in, period. If you wanna call that logic a manifestation of |IGNORE ALL RULES, fine. Here's why though. This is an encyclopedia based upon footnoting to so-called reliable sources. The highest order of these are peer-reviewed academic journals. There are hundreds and probably thousands of them, and we as Wikipedias occasionally need to make use of a roadmap to see the terrain. If somebody cites this journal or that there are sometimes circumstances when further investigation is necessary. Wikipedia articles on these journals should be part of our investigative process — a quick and easy part. If we're gonna go tossing articles on journals just because their sourcing is sub-optimal or their information is largely self-sourced, we're cutting off our nose to spite our face. A comprehensive encyclopedia ''needs to contain this information
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)