Deletion of Journal of Forensic Accounting

Comment: The fact that the article is well-sourced (in the sense that every claim in the article is verified, rather than that the references themselves are ideal, which they are not) largely overrides any |COI concerns for me. That leaves the question of Wikipedia:Notability|notability. Unfortunately, the main notability criterion of 'significant coverage in independent, reliable sources' is not really suited to academic journals. For instance, even a prominent journal such as the ''Journal of Peace Research''–one of the top five journals in fields of political science and peace and conflict studies–would have some trouble meeting that criterion. The field of forensic accounting is significantly narrower than political science, so I think that the article is worth keeping in this case, per Bilby's analysis (the journal is peer-reviewed, relatively widely-cited, and relatively well-regarded
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: the citations are either listings and rankings or come from the publisher. So there is not enough independent in depth coverage by reliable sources to meet , still the basic notability guideline if there isn't anything more specific. This is a problem for many journals, so they can be included if reasonable rule of thumb criteria are met that indicate that we definitely should have an article on it (which is the general idea of secondary notability criteria that actually often arise from discussions like this). In this case, I don't see anything here that comes close. The journal is neither old, nor widely distributed nor widely cited nor ranked as top tier. It seems not even to be cited inside Wikipedia itself which should put the idea of having a separate article on what essentially is a source of information for this encyclopedia into perspective. Rather we now have the journal included in the 'See also' section of an uncited article forensic accounting which puts the cart before the horse
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I've been thinking about this one for a bit, so please forgive me if I'm not as succinct as I should be. My understanding is that academic journals do not specifically come under any of the current notability guidelines. The most likely place in the future is , but that's merely a proposal and doesn't currently cover journals. Given that, I'm forced to use  which is the only guideline that speaks to academic works. It is still a poor fit, though, and it mostly suggests relying on common sense. :) My major concerns, then, were whether or not the journal is peer reviewed (yes), whether or not it is widely cited (seems to be), the quality of the editorial board (they seem qualified, but this isn't my area of research), and how the journal is regarded in the field. For the last one, I noticed two things: the ranking provided by Australian Business Deans Council, which ranks it as a "B", and various mentions of the journal in lists of journals covering this area (occasionally, as in the case of the "Encyclopedia of White-collar & Corporate Crime", as the only journal in the subfield). The "B" ranking isn't great, (A and A* are above it) but does mean that it is regarded as a "well regarded journal in the field or subfield", which seems like a good sign. Overall, given that journal rankings are a somewhat subjective and difficult area in academia, the journal meets various academic requirements, and that the journal seems to be significant in its subfield, I think that it is worth keeping the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:SERIAL||WP:BK)