Deletion of Democracy & Nature (2nd nomination)

Comment: a journal of which 17 issues were published, and for which there is no reliable evidence of any widespread currency.  Many of these journals are vehicles for vanity - there is no evidence on which to weigh whether this one is or not, because much of what is said about it is not |verifiable from |reliable sources.  A journal can publish an article by anyone through syndication or by paying them - do we have any evidence of whether the illustrious contributors thhought this a credible journal?  Whether they submitted to the journal or whether they were approached for a piece of editorial?  What the peer-review process was?  Taylor & Francis stopped printing it after five issues; is that a sign of a significant journal?  Plus, the reaction of the "editorial board" is a clear violation of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:OWN)

Comment: Before anyone pounces on me, I'm just one of the guys that reviews the AfD nominations and closes them when appropriate. The discussion above, if it can be called a discussion, is out of place. Parts of it should be conducted in the article's talk page, other parts in personal talk pages. The editorial board announcement is so terribly out of place that I should remove it outright. I'm trying to find a way not to close this as "no consensus" but it's very hard. As I see it, this is not a problem of notability but of verifiability and control of content (please correct me if I'm wrong). If a journal is published over years and receives contributions from notable people, then it's notable. But if the only way to verify anything about it is by consulting the editors, and moreover, if the editors want to have control of the Wikipedia coverage of the journal and the concepts it presents, then we have a serious problem. I can only suggest that everybody calms down and think of a suitable compromise. If you can't compromise, then this article will have to go. '''Legal threats, editorial pronouncements, and accusations of any kind not backed up by policy and immediately accessible evidence will not be tolerated.''' Just for the record, |Wikipedia is not a democracy
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: I voted delete last time and none of my concerns then were satisfactorily addressed. As to the other articles, why would we need two articles on the same subject anyway? Actually I'm not even sure about one.  The statement at the top of this page is a claer violation of , of course
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ownership of content (WP:OWN)