Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Forensic Accounting (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Forensic Accounting[edit]

Journal of Forensic Accounting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability except for having (mediocre) listings in two (equally non-notable) listings. Publisher seems to have gone out of business in 2008, so the journal existed for a mere 8 years. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 26 December 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Delete. Are you sure this doesn't meet WP:NJournals? Google Scholar turns up a few citations. Gm545 (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • After thinking about it a bit and giving the same criteria for a journal as other types of articles, I'd say this fails to meet the criteria for notability as there aren't many reliable secondary sources. Gm545 (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:19, 15 January 2014 (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.