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 no consensus. This was such a heated debate with too much WP:WALLSOFTEXT that I admit I glanced over it for the most part, but clearly there isn't any consensus here, and I noted Steve Quinn extremely valid policy based keep comment regarding the original concerns of the nominator that wasn't rebutted in the end (while disagreeing with other keep commentators). Secret ^account 03:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relatively new journal. No independent reliable sources about this journal, not indexed in any selective database. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This deletion discussion was posted immed. after this article was started. Per the mission of Wikipedia and the rationale for our guidelines, obviously the inclusion of this journal for encyclopedic coverage is merited.
First, note that the religion of Mormonsism has as many self-described adherents, for example, as there are Jews in the U.S. Secondly, whereas scholarly journals themselves are rarely rarely the subject of news pieces yet this journal--one which, despite its stable of authors inclusion of many recognized authorities w/in the discipline, nonetheless is the sole independent/not LDS Church - affiliated LDS journal with a special emphasis on apologetics--already had received not merely mention but in-depth coverage in the sectarian Deseret News, in the secular Salt Lake Tribune and at Meridian Magazine, among other places. Additionally this journal's articles, in the mix at the new graduate programs specializing in this burgeoning new field (Ut.St.U., Clarement, Ut.ValleyUniv., a few others), are contained within appropriate data bases. So, bottom line, per WP's general notability guidelines there already exist sufficient sources in spades to indicate that this year-old journal is of renown w/in its field of Mormon studies. Likewise, per the essay (not a guideline) wp:Notability (academic journals):
The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.
The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources. [And]
The journal has an historic purpose or a significant history.
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If it's so reliable then why can't a search turn up more hits on reliable cites? Considered to be influential is opinion, not fact. Again if very influential why are there no hits during search? Per nom doesn't meet criteria for inclusion. Caffeyw (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 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. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 07:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative, creating The Interpreter Foundation and merging it there seems to make some sense. But the journal isn't notable on it's own, so I would say merge or delete. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same thing, actually, but that article would suffer the same problem in that there's a lack of secondary, independent, and reliable sources for it. At least, not yet. I split the difference and thought maybe a merge with founder Daniel C. Peterson, who is unquestionably very notable, would be a good compromise until the foundation and/or journal get legs of their own after which new articles can be split off. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 22:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In the field of Mormon Studies Interpreter is notable; however if it ~~may~~ does not yet meet wp:NJournals, at least in part because it is only just over one year old, so it would then seems reasonable that the content be merged into (and the article link redirected to) Daniel C. Peterson until there are additional references that better support a stand-alone article. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cmt - The general notability guidelines are the final arbiter. In cases where popular press accounts don't mention some academic journal, then we go by whether the journal is cited by peers, bottom line. I.e., Is where Wikipedia is now that an paper-published entity that is (/aspires to be...?) a scholarly journal must clear higher hurdles of notability above those that must be cleared by, say, a blog-type website (say, Mormon Stories Podcast) that is but a "popularizer" of scholariship but one mentioned in news sources?
Btw the whole, generally wiki - blue linked editorial crew at Mormon Studies Review has moved over to the new venue, not just Peterson. (Well, either The Brethren -- Mormon corridor - speak for "the Church" -- got tired of there being apologetics with quasi-official standing (there is no official LDS apologetics or even theology, by the way), so decided to have BYU's Mormon Studies Review only do straight scholarship--or else the dean or whathaveyou at BYU's Maxwell Institute preferred a more "hard scholarship" approach.) In any case, for whatever the reason, the new version of M.Studies Review is to be somewhat apologetics-light and the crew that edited it moved their apologetics-heavy enterprise over to the new, independently issued Intepreter. Note that, parallel to this decision, the infamous Dehlin affair occurred: namely, within the very first issue of the Interpreter, a review of the Mormon Stories Podcast was published that generated much controversy among M.Studies scholars because its basic criticism was that the podcast was not apologetic/faith-promoting enough. As one example of the commentary the affair generated, see this essay over at Patheos.com but there was a raft of others, elsewhere, as well. ....--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another link to commentary on Greg Smith's Interpreter review piece.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Salt Lake Tribune mention of the journal is clearly an independent source, it is hostile if anything, and the SL Tribune is normally considered reliable. This journal clearly is a notable work. We clearly should have an article on it. Mormon Studies is a growing field, and this journal is clearly a natable work in the field.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which mention? Could you provide a link? The link to the SLT in the article does not mention the Interpreter. --Randykitty (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here [1] is the April 25, 2013 Salt Lake Tribune article which mentions the Interpreter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Mention" is indeed the correct word here. If ever I've seen an in-passing mention of something, this is it. --Randykitty (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about developments in Mormon Studies, one of the mentioned developments is the creation of this journal. It is clearly an recognition that this journal exists and is worth noting. Your attempt to pretend this is not a source that can be used ignored the reality that is exactly the type of sources that we expect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. And to paraphrase what you said above: This journal clearly is not a notable work. We clearly should not have an article on it. WP:TOOSOON obviosuly applies. --Randykitty (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it's an academic journal derived as a split from a notable academic journal, it's notable. If it were the successor to the entire journal, we would simply move the article to the new title, for it's our practice to keep the article at the current title for uncomplicated title changes (unlike libraries, which make a new entry for each substantial title change) . But if it's a split, oir a mov e of the editorial board but not the sponsorship, or a disputed ownership or split within a discipline or anything complicated, it's clearer with a new article. Normally we wait till an academic journal is indexed, but we can cover a new one if it's clearly important enough for that. In a situation like this, it is.

The reason for the special notability criterion for academic journals is that the ordinary GNG criteria do not apply. But when they do apply, they're an alternate reasons covered by the GNG. It's just like WP:PROF--if researchers are notable under these special criteria, they're notable, but they can also be notable because of popular reputation if it meets GNG regardless of whether the academic world would consider them notable. This has happened, for example, when a young research makes a discovery that is picked up enthusiastically by newspapers & magazines. (It's reasonable, because if the public sees the news articles they will want the background, just as for anyone else covered by newspapers & magazines.)

Incidentally, there is in my opinion no adequate notability criterion at WP for popular magazines of any sort--we have to use common sense and judgement, and in general we do.

I hope the objection to including this journal is not ideological, but when I see a dispute about anything LDS connected, I know enough about what can happen around here to wonder. DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1/ As far as I can see, this is not a split off of another journal. 2/ Even if it is and if that other journal would be notable, WP:NOTINHERITED applies. 3/ This is not a rename of an existing journal, else I would indeed just have moved the old one to the new name and we wouldn't be at AfD. 4/ "we can cover a new one if it's clearly important enough for that" is a completely subjective argument and not based in any policy. 5/ "I hope the objection to including this journal is not ideological": I hope this remark was not directed against me. This is not the kind of arguments that I expect of DGG who should know me better by now. --Randykitty (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Randyditty said, "[...T]his is not a split off another journal."
Someone should e-mail Peterson. Then he can so he contact the Review's publisher's security, so they can carry his cardboard box of stuff back up to his old editorial suite. Haha - Like they'd have such digs. <sighs> Snippet from the Peggy Stack Trib piece: "'The time has come for us to take the Review in a different direction,' Maxwell Institute Executive Director M. Gerald Bradford wrote in a June 17 email to Peterson, who was out of the country at the time."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth the only ongoing wp:BIAS/wikiinstitutional disconnect I see w rgd to wiki's coverage is merely that editors with more exposure with whatever subculture contextualize news about its current events just a bit better. In the current case, Peggy Stack, the Trib's "Mormon beat" reporter, finds some details "dog-bites-man" when boiling events down for her intended, secular audience. So, although she will dedicate a phrase or two in mention the careers of the notable LDS apologists at BYU, she's not going to embroider her pieces with any accolades about them. What she does however wax poetic about are the roses being thrown to secularists over at the Maxwell Institute. That indeed is man-bites dog. But, if somebody slows down their speed reading a notch or two they will see that the WhoWhatWhereWhen&How of the genesis of Peterson et al's new adventure is right there in Stack's piece. Here is the take down (emphasis mine) from the Interpreter crowd's POV:
In the past, those who did Mormon Studies got their training in other fields and pursued Mormon Studies, initially on the side. This is true of most of the bigger names in Mormon Studies such as Richard Bushman (American history), Terryl Givens (comparative literature), Arthur Henry King (Shakespeare), Leonard Arrington (economics), John Sorenson (anthropology), Hugh Nibley (history), Dan Peterson (Arabic), Lou Midgley (political philosophy), Noel Reynolds (political philosophy), and Jack Welch (law). At one time most of these, such as Nibley, Sorenson, Bushman, Givens, Peterson, Reynolds, Welch, and Midgley, were associated with the Neal A. Maxwell Institute but the Institute’s current management has decided to go in a different direction. link
This "new direction" is that Stack describes, in the second paragraph of "Split Emerges Among Mormon Scholars," as:
"A year after the two sides publicly parted company over the direction of the Mormon Studies Review, each group has launched its own writings, with separate boards of editors and mission statements."
Its not about who is a quicker study. Again, it's merely that busy Wikipedians who might merely skim a lengthy piece about a subject foreign to them, looking for the title of a the publication "Interpreter" will only observe a remark in passing and zero coverage whereas those comprehending the piece in its full see an in-depth treatment of the split methinks.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your rant above convinces me that you have an agenda and that you're not here to create a neutral encyclopedia. --Randykitty (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is there a notability guideline for academic journals? — Bdb484 (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments articulated above by DGG, John Pack Lambert, and Hodgdon's secret garden. There's more coverage in popular sources about the founding of this journal than is typical for academic journals, and it's evident that this publication is already of some significance to the LDS world. Since much of the coverage also relates to Daniel C. Peterson, I can understand why some of the !voters have suggested a merge to his article, but on balance I think it's been sufficiently explained why it's better to have a separate article for the journal. If this is kept, I hope the article will be expanded a bit to discuss, in NPOV terms, the reasons for its founding and its stance within LDS scholarship. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said "it's evident that this publication is already of some significance to the LDS world". You see, that's that rub. There's several people saying that it is evident, but no one is showing. What we need for this discussion is showing. Basically, we need citations from independent, reliable sources and there just aren't any of any significance. Several have pointed out a single mention in a single local newspaper, which was pretty run-of-the-mill. If that's all there is, then there's really nothing. I have nothing against this journal or anyone involved in it. But it has really only published a small handful of issues and really hasn't gotten any notable coverage, even within the field of Mormon Studies. Of course, this might change in a year or two when people take notice and it starts to develop a reputation and some notability in its own right. From there, citations and references will naturally flow. However, that hasn't happened yet. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 16:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, the Deseret News ran this article [2]. Anyway, you can't exactly dismiss the Salt Lake Tribune as just a "local paper". It is a regional paper of some respect. I know you will try to find problems with the Deseret News article, but they did run an article. However the Deseret News also ran this article [ http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765594746/FAIR-Conference-ends-as-new-Mormon-scholarly-journal-begins.html?pg=all] by Joseph Walker, so it is clearly an indep3endent reference in an independent publication, the people creating Interpreter have no control over editorial decisions at the DN. So we have definite notice in the two leading newspapers in Utah. This is a noted and paid attention to publication.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Tribune may not be a "local paper", but its "coverage" of the journal is just an in-passing mention. The first Deseret News article given above looks like an opinion piece written by the Peterson and is not independent. However, I agree that the second Deseret News article is more extensive. It's thin, it doesn't satisfy WP:NJournals, but it does seem enough to just get by WP:GNG, which trumps the rest. I therefore change my !vote to Weak keep. --Randykitty (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given you are the original nominator for this AFD, are you officially withdrawing this nomination? - 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be inappropriate, as there are other delete !votes and a closing admin might still decide that those carry the day. --Randykitty (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Granting DN, one article doesn't really pass WP:GNG in my book, but I'm not fanatical about it. I'm fairly confident that this journal will eventually gain the reputation needed to pass WP:GNG and WP:NJournals both. I'm still in the WP:TOOSOON camp, for now. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 23:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't disagree with you. I, too, don't see the hurry. It would've been better to wait a year or two, until notability is established without any doubt and make a solid article that doesn't need propping-up by irrelevant blog "references" and such. AS I said, it's thin. It may or may not satisfy GNG, which is why I went for a "weak" keep. I'm curious what the closing admin will have to say about this issue. I do want to say this, though: although DGG came with the (in my eyes unfounded) accusation that people might try to get this deleted because it is LDS related. Frankly, I get the strong opposite impression. --Randykitty (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cmt - For the love of Mike. It's a sad, sad crew around here. All you have to do is to press the Scholar button on the top of this page to come up with this citation from Harvard Divinity School: [3]. The Books button comes up with 3,140 hits for the full title of the journal. Furthermore Interpreter itself is obviously listed within databases as a scholarly journal. For god's sake isn't there some kind of bad stuff that's supposed to happen to editors who make baldly false statements out of laziness slash prejudice/wp:BIAS (see likewise eg here)?
Folks, can you hear yourselves? Don't just categorize something as nothing worth perusing. Greet all subjects with curiosity and intelectual vigor. As just yet one additional example, isn't it a truly bizarre breach of Wiki standards to dismiss coverage of subjects within not one but two articles in the S.L. Trib and on top of that then to dismiss any coverage at all of a subject such as LDS apologetics w/in the D. News, en toto? Religious features in the D. News, the paper of record for M'mnism, are published within the national printed Sunday edition of the News along with its local [sic] Salt Lake City edition, each with approx. half the rag's tot. circulation of about 178,000. By way of comparison, the international business daily the London-based Financial Times has a combined print-and-digital circ. of 600,000 whereas the Christian Science Monitor ~~isn't even printed on paper any more~~ [added later: is now a weekly magazine, with a circulation of about 600,000]. As for the D. News's digital subscriptions, it currently ranks as the 22nd online-subscribed newspaper in the U.S. {link} In fact, I dare say, it's even odder is for WP editors to poohpooh any well-established religion beat reporter out of hand (as Randykitty did when earlier this year he first tossed out the Trib's P. Stack piece out of the Wiki article about the being-revamped Review ... along with an interview with the director of the Maxwell Institute on the Institute's own website, which he rejected as only a newspaper piece and an impertinent blog (see diff). Geez folks! When a renowned religion reporter, think Sally Quinn, can't be trusted to get stuff right because the lofty subject is academic and should the say (theoretical) main journal of Adventist apologetics cum Adventist studies be branched off into its own, independent publication and if we then have Wikipedians afraid to read such sources in a comprehensive manner but instead to merely perform perfunctory word/phrase searches in them--well, we've a problem, in my opinion.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I told you this before, so sorry if it is a repeat: you might benefit from reading WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. And with that remark, I terminate my participation in this debate. --Randykitty (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. However I hope you now agree that if news sources say a journal won't publish orig. scholarship but will contain reviews of developments within an academic field that this fact can certainly be contributed to a Wikipedia article about that journal, no? Thanks. [Added later: See Talk:Review journal.]--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the discussion on the article, Hodgdon. Personal attacks and accusing people of prejudice are not constructive. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 04:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. This journal needs more time (per WP:TOOSOON) to meet notability standards WP:N or WP:NJournals. I agree that coverage of this topic on Wikipedia should probably wait a year or two, and perhaps by then it will have received signifigant coverage. Significant coverage means more than passing mention, which is all I have seen, along with blog entries, except for one or two paragraphs in a local paper. Furthermore, the blogs cited as references are not considered reliable sources in this instance, because these do not fit the criteria for reliable sources on Wikipedia.

Also, the actual topic covered by all of these sources seems to be the need for more coverage of the LDS Apologetics discipline; and not this journal, which is the actual concern of this AfD debate. Notability of the editor or staff members is not inherited by the journal. Additionally, I am not seeing any evidence of a split, and even if that is the case, notability is still not inherited. Hence, this "new" journal must achieve notoriety on its own merits. This can be accomplished simply by coverage of the topic, and not merely passing mention, by independent reliable sources. Independent reliable sources can also be selective databases per WP:NJournals. However, this journal is not listed in any selective databases.

Finally, I am not seeing widespread coverage of this journal in either Google Scholar or Google Books. Google scholar lists only Volume 3 of this journal ("Interpreter: a Journal of Mormon Scripture, Volume 3 (2013)"), which cannot be considered a reliable source; and one "Journal of Comparative Theology" article that cites the "Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture" only once. This does not demonstrate a significant impact in its field, defined broadly or narrowly construed.

Google Books shows no independent coverage of the topic and no citations for this journal. Please take a look here. The first entry is a link to this journal's website. The next three are the three volumes of this journal. None of these qualify as independent or reliable sources. After that there is no coverage and there are no citations. The only reason for 3,210 hits is because it seems that Google Books is parsing the search term, "Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture", into words and phrases, and then supplying an entry. Apparently, there are many and varied topics covered by Google Books when using this search term. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for vacillating, but ShinmaWa's comments and (especially) Steve Quinn's detailed analysis make me go back to my original "delete" !vote. --Randykitty (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 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. Carrite (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question So you think we should have articles for all journals published by, for example, OMICS Publishing Group? --Randykitty (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry to disagree with User:Carrite. Wikipedia has set a bar for acceptable inclusion. That bar is notability, and in the case of academic journals, WP:NJournals is useful. Also, notability has been built on consensus.

It appears the main reason for the consensus of notability is that we are "an online community of individuals interested in building and using a high-quality encyclopedia". Our goal is the creation of " a free, reliable encyclopedia"; and I think our goal of a "reliable encyclopedia" needs to emphasized.

Furthermore, we seem to be competing with other Encyclopedias, such as Britannica, to have reliable information. Otherwise, Wikipedia becomes just another unreliable website; millions of people's personal blogs, or discussion platforms consisting of good ideas and unsubstantiated material.

Without notability we become a soapbox, a platform for promotion, a collection of random information, a directory, a catalog , maybe some sort of newspaper (sensational or otherwise), guidebook, handbook, or a place to test out new fiction, and so on. So, I think we have to draw the line somewhere, and we, as a community, already have drawn that line. Pertaining to the journal "Interpreter", as has been stated above, it has no discernible impact in its given field, and has not achieved notoriety. Sorry to say, but Wikipedia is not the place to give this journal free public relations, or promotion. Also, Wikipedia is not meant to act as a press release, with the oldest and latest updates pertaining to a given online publication. -- Steve Quinn (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, based on what I wrote above, it can be seen that Wikipedia has a purpose. It is that purpose which keeps editors focused on the task at hand; which is building a dependable encyclopedia. If people want to find out about the academic journal "Interpreter" or read any of its articles, all anyone has to do is go to the web site. We cannot be a repository of academic journals we like, or journals that we think should be here.. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NJournals is not a guideline and that you believe it is reveals supreme ignorance of the workings here at Wikipedia. It is, rather, an essay by wikipedians with an interest in documenting the meritorious path for otherwise notable journals not covered in press reports to pass the bar to inclusion. You lost me when you claim the journal was not split from M. Studies Review. Here is the dictionary definition of split. If this was not split from there, with the entire editorship and board of the previous journal immediately setting up shop under a different monicker, that of a new-founded foundation for apologetics and related scholarship, then there are no journals that have ever been split. The Salt Lake Tribune is not a local paper, with concern to Mormon studies. It is the only place where secular journals document the happenings in Mormonism (the D. News is obviously sectarian).

If a subject is of interest to religious Mormons (the most religious and conservative adherents, according to research, of all American religions. Peterson founded the first journal of apologetcs, FARMS Review, which later came under the umbrella of BYU. Now that his crew's journal is independent again, it is the sole place specializing in this genre. (There is also one indie journal out there that specializing in LDS theology, such as it is (as theology, per se, is not a very common field for LDS to specialize in.) It's like this, folks. If a field of scholarship of interest to religious Jews (for me to resort to a reductio ad Judeaum here) receives coverage in the primary Hebrew newspaper in Israel that religious Jews read along with coverage in the Jerusalem Post, if someone dismisses the same as merely local coverage this is patent wp:BIAS (and I don't care if the religion in question is Salinger's beloved Vedantaism or Jews for Jesus. The name of the game is cultural diversity, man. Get with the program!)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to politely, but strongly, remind you again that accusing editors who have a different position than you of being motivated by religious bias has absolutely no place in this discussion. Please keep this discussion on the merits of the article and only this article. Thank you. PS: WP:ONLYESSAY -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 23:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am more concerned about the tendency of some to crush information they may not like through the deletion mechanism than I am about the possibility that we might lean too much upon self-sourcing of articles for academic journals, myself. Not to say that's actually happening in this case, but it is a 20x greater concern of mine in general... Moreover, WP:NOTABILITY is a guideline, WP:IGNOREALLRULES is a policy — a higher level of organizational law. There's no objective reason why "Keep Because We Should Keep" is an invalid argument in terms of policy. Carrite (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question: Do you think we should have articles for all journals published by, for example, OMICS Publishing Group? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. I mainly discussed notability per WP:N, or if you like WP:GNG. I only mentioned WP:NJournals. However, that criteria (WP:NJournals) is still relevant. Any academic journal indexed in selective databases will pass AFD. Same with any journal that has an impact factor; it will pass AFD. Are there any comments pertaining to notability (as described in my above post) , such as what Wikipedia cannot be, and what is the underlying goal behind editing here? Thanks. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cmt - Steve, you ignore my point about the journal being sourced to be a split from a notable journal and ignore my point about the Salt Lake Tribune (not to mention the D. News) being more than a local paper with regard to the coverage of Mormonism, just as Tibet is more than a local spot w rgd the coverage of Tibetan Buddhism and instead respond only to the point about what is or is not a guideline. Look, boredom is a low level of disgust. If this is the only problem being encountered here, fine. This is admirable. However, if the disinclination to delve into the sources and ascertain what they are describing is anything at all related to the kind of seat-of-the-pants dismissal that Tom Cruise would give to sources within the social science of psychology, then we would have a real problem. And, when people keep making obviously false statements due to not engaging with the issues, not getting a real grip on what is going on w/in M. studies. It goes like this. (1) You claim there are no books that reference the journal. (2) Then, I go and find some. (3) Then I observe to myself that you have obviously been arguing from not only your own opinions but your own facts, to borrow a phrase from Daniel Patrick Moynihan. (4) Then, people who have heard your false claim believe you and chime in in agreement with your conclusion based on falsehoods. -- You see, if this is repeated over and over and over again, my reaction becomes that your approach is willful, is based on some kind of--- ... ... bias? But, I'll edit my statement and change my estimation to simple boredom, per wp:AGF.

Let's say that a book published by Signature Books references the journal. Then you say that Signature, a publisher of peer-reviewed scholarship, is not notable so can't be used. Then I go to a journal that references the importance of Signature Books as a publisher within Mormon studies. And then you say ..... It just goes on and on and on and on.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't taken time to google this much but, first of all, all of the Interpreter's issues are listed at Google books, not just the third volume. So that is an um mistake. Furthermore, offhand, for example Here the Mormon studies graduate program at Utah Valley Univ. extolls Interpreter as a source. Also see a syllabus here. A couple clicks of my mouse would lead to similar recommendations from the M. studies grad program at Utah State Univ., the one at Claremont in Calif., syllabuses for the M. studies courses taught at the Grad. Theological Union at Berkeley, and so on.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hogdon, I don't how I lost you after saying there is no split, because although I did say it, I was not the first one to say it. I meant the journal; formerly entitled "FARMS" (now Mormon Studies Review) does not appear to have physically created a spin off journal or a split off journal. I can see that the current editor for Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture, Peterson, came from Mormon Studies Review, where he was in the capacity of editor in chief there. So, I am now guessing that Peterson's move from one journal to the other is being interpreted as a split. I also agree Peterson is a notable person, and probably has a profound depth of knowledge. But does this mean the journal is notable just because he and maybe some of the other editors and maybe some of the executive board are well versed and knowledgeable in fields that pertain to this field? Not necessarily, according to WP:NOTINHERITED.

Furthermore, "Interpreter" has no connection to BYU, even though someone here seemed to indicate that it does. It is independently published by The Interpreter Foundation. However, the former "FARMS" journal (now Mormon Studies Review) is published by the "Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship". So these do not share the same publisher, which is further evidence against a physical splitting off. The only thing that happened here is Peterson moved from one academic journal to the other.

As for books discussing this topic, I provided a link to Google Books [4] that shows no independent coverage of the "Interpreter", nor are there any citations in any books. We both did the same search. Can you provide some links to books that discuss or cite this journal? Believe me; I would be happy if they exist. Sorry to say, but I think that Hodgson has not reviewed the books listed at Google Books, which follow the first three volumes of this journal.

I did not refer to the Salt Lake newspaper as a local paper. The one possible acceptable article in that newspaper might not be construed as an independent source because it is Mr. Peterson describing or promoting this journal. I agree that this article is worth reading, but it doesn't mean it is independent coverage. If I offended by saying the Desert News is a local newspaper, then I apologize. It just seems to be a local newspaper compared to the Salt Lake newspaper. Lastly, reading the content of these articles does not change my view. Mormon studies in general, and the discipline of LDS Apologetics seems to be outside the scope of this discussion, although I am sure they are worthy of study for interested persons.

Finally, I appreciate the links to a syllabus and university course. The course and syllabus shows that one article from this journal is recommended for reading. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For interested parties, there is a very good article in the "Interpreter" authored by Mr. Peterson that gives insight into how the split away from the former "FARMS" journal, and the "Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship", and the BYU religious studies program, came about. Furthermore, Mr. Peterson intends to show, or at least discuss, how apologetics can work within the context of scholarship. I say intends to show because I have only gotten as far as page xxii and I have not finished reading the paper. I won't be able to finish just now as I am too tired. Hopefully later. However, this is very interesting. Here is the article: Peterson, Daniel C. "The Role of Apologetics in Mormon Studies". Volume 2 (2012). --- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine the following-linked journal piece (perhaps shorter than the interesting sounding one Peterson published ~~in his own rag~~in the Interpreter you link above?) was submitted to a book containing articles covering developments in the field of sociology of religion in 2007 and that provides a quick overview of the just-birthed sub-sub-field of M. Studies: Mauss, Armand L. (2007), Blasi, Anthony J. (ed.), "The Emergence of Mormon Studies in the Social Sciences", American Sociology of Religion: Histories, 13, Brill Publishers: 121–150. You're right, I don't have time to contribute to Wikipedia today. (I do so when I've a moment to get lost in researching and the give and take of ~~arguing~~discussion w other editors 'cos it helps me um relax (or so I claim to myself; sometimes I get rather agitated /'~)/<winks> ).) By the way, the Interpreter doesn't exactly have a surfeit of scholars on its board from outside BYU. In fact it is only "peer reviewed" in the very limited sense that those who do reviews of submissions must OK them... all of whom reviewers actually are the editors of the Interpreter themselves or else are intimately connected with this journal. That was one of the reasons BYU wanted to bring in outside voices and to install a true peer-review for a new review journal which would then almost entirely sidestep the apologetic aspects which previously had been FARMS Review's bread and butter. All this is in the Peggy Stack Trib piece: namely the two boards where there was previously one, two journals where there was prev. one, two groups of ed.s where there was prev. one, the names of the two respective journals, the firing of Peterson while he was in Israel for stuff related to his other career as an Islamic studies scholar and the hiring of Fluhman to publish the new regime's entity blah blah blah.

And the Deseret News is actually more National by far than the Tribune. Both newspapers have articles republished in other newspapers when they relate to Mormonism: the Trib's when they provide its in-depth "indie" coverage of um "the Church" and, less often, the D. News's (say: when the News, say, reports on researches w rgd some person's ancestries from folks over at the Mormons' huuuge geneological library). The News doesn't get into intramural LDS controversies. Peterson--and, I believe, Hamblin (who no longer edits at the Interpreter)--are also columnists for the Sunday D. News along w their being BYU profs, etc. The way the News deals with LDS apologetics is to turn their press over to Peterson or Hamblin rather than to risk some staff writer writing something that eventually would be considered controversial. Mormonism is a very conservative and, I dare say, anti-intellectual religion. (But than again, I'm Buddhist.) But, in any case, the Sunday News has a National edition that is mailed out to LDS diaspora and so shows up in mailboxes across the U.S. Again as many subscribers to the Sunday D. News are outside the Mormon corridor (UT/so. ID & so. WY/eastern CO/places in NV, AZ & NM) as are within, making it a national publication with a humungous readership among Mormonism. (My mom used to have it sent to my mailbox. I read a few of Orson Scott Card's now controverial columns in that venue, which have generated incredible heat in the few years since he wrote them, at the height of the Prop 8 controversies.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After reading half the above "Interpreter-Peterson" article that I previously linked, and reading what you wrote (Hodgdon), I agree there is definitely a connection to BYU. The editors and board members from both academic journals are BYU professors. This makes for an interesting situation.

I didn't realize that this now creates "two boards where there was previously one, two journals where there was prev. one, two groups of editors where there was prev. one, [and] the names of the two respective journals".

Actually, I think this is quite amazing. At least, Peterson, his editors, and board members have no problem taking up and running with the apologetics banner. At least they have managed to come out of the fray with a renewed purpose (even though I know nothing about LDS apologetics). Also, I see now that some or all the editors and board members did actually migrate from the former "FARMS" journal to the "Interpreter". I've been thinking that this is probably quite a notable topic if someone wanted to create a Wikipedia article about it.

The fact that the Desert News is widely circulated via mail and so on among Mormons and the Mormon diaspora is interesting; especially, when they count on Peterson, Hamblin and other BYU professors to report on, or discuss, LDS topics (including apologetics). To me, this indicates the D. News is counting on "experts" in their field. It makes sense. I am sure this "FARMS" controversy has caused quite an upset within the Mormon community. I'll try to get back to you about the other stuff. --Steve Quinn (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So just to be clear, last night I read somewhere that Peterson is actually a regular writer, or on staff, for the D.News. So, it is easy to see that he would write on LDS topics. And I did read one article written by him in the D, News pertaining to the "Interpreter". Steve Quinn (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too long of cooment (sorry!) - Hey! Quinn coincidentally is a big name in M. Studies; see D. Michael Quinn. I ~~haven't read~~ [have now read] Peterson's Interpreter piece ~~about its genesis~~ [Edited: giving the rationale for its existence; it is quite excellent! :~)] ~~but hope to do so now~~.

There is not a corollary piece w rgd the new regime's M.Studies Review (MSR), I'm sure. I guess they are still in the process of figuring out what the new MSR is gonna be about. Unlike at the Interpreter, of course. Which, more than a little ironically, is actually only a continuation of the mission/modus operandi of the old MSR! Um, which of course had just been renamed the MSR by the Maxwell Inst., its prev. monicker having been FARMS Review.

!..... Really the old name shows a lot about what the old FARMS Rev. was all about. As well as the Interpreter now is all about, for that matter. That is, few non-LDS of course dip as much as a pinkie into LDS apologetics so the misleading acronym caused zero problems. Then the world overtook 'em--what, with the emergence of objective M. Studies as a displine at non-LDS affil. educational institutions and all. IMO because the institutional Church just loves acronyms the acronym FARMS (it stands for the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies) was saying that yeah it was (or originally was) an independent foundation but that it nonetheless hoped to be as helpful to the institutional Church as possible.

But then after FARMS was brought onboard BYU/Maxwell, yet another foundation, one that would remain independent to the Church, was created to sponsor its various popular symposia(*) and the like. And its acrnym is the more straightforward FAIR (Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research).

When BYU (I should say CES: Church Educational System) scholars or Church History Dept. scholars try to engage in non-apologetic scholarship the greater academy looks askance at their efforts because of the presumed ~~insidious~~ influence of the Church on their output. To counteract this impression, every once in awhile the Church opens up and hires scholars who have established their scholarly bonefides elsewhere. Sometimes the Church eventually comes to push these same scholars out to some back water or else to purge them. See New Mormon History.
To save space I've posted the rest of my commetary here: Talk:Mormon Studies Review#New board's makeup.

____________
(*)The most popular "leftward", for lack of a better term, symposia are those sponsored by Sunstone. And, the Trib's Peggy Stack, who did post grad work at GTU Berkeley, at one time used to edit Sunstone magazine....

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)--[Re-signed]:--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to review of available sources per this discussion, and the reliable sources cited in the Wikipedia "Interpreter" article. Also, "keep" due to the level of scholarship the editors and board members bring to this journal (and who were compelled to migrate). These are highly credentialed and experienced people.

Additionally, "keep" due the fact that the controversy surrounding the closing of one journal while opening this one, along with Peterson's termination from the Maxwell Institute, has generated commentary and discussion that can be easily found on the web. If I get the chance, before this discussion closes, I will post some of the commentary and discussion that I found on the web in this thread. Also, this journal is directly related to the events surrounding this controversy and its aftermath; so any press or discussion related to this controversy seems to include the founding and purpose of this journal. It seems the controversy cannot be separated from this journal. Hence, as User: Arxiloxos mentioned above, this journal is fortunate to have generated press coverage in its early stages, which can give this article a place on Wikipedia.

Finally, I feel that I may have "ivoted" prematurely earlier in this thread. I did not take into account the nuances and distinctions that actually make this journal and its background story notable (as pointed out by DGG). I'm beginning to see there are gray areas pertaining to notability (as pointed out by DGG). As I said in another thread, it's not a perfect world. Also, in hindsight I did not see that DGG presented a very good rationale, and Hodgdon did a very good job of getting my notice so I could slow down, not judge so quickly, and enter into a discussion where I good conduct a deeper review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this topic. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are links to some of the commentary and discussion within the Mormon community, which I have found on the web. The first one I intend to add as a reference to this article [5]. If there is disagreement, we can discuss on the article's talk page and see if a "yea" or "nay" consensus can be developed.

Here are the other links: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], and some of us may be already familiar with this one: [11].

Here are more links:[12], [13], [14], [15], and [16].

Although most all of the the links do not lead to mainstream coverage, they do show there has been coverage in the Mormon community. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.