Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Journal of Investing


 * 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The result was withdrawn. Withdrawn by nom without any other "delete" !votes. Randykitty (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The Journal of Investing

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No sources are cited. Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Multi7001 (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: article is not very good, but indexing in Scopus is generally taken as satisfying WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Article seems to pass WP:NJOURNALS Criterion C1. WP:BEFOREweb search brings results indicative of journal status in its market. WP:BEFOREnews also brings a lot of results. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Without expressing an opinion on the merits of the nomination, I'm moving it from "Science" to "Society." PianoDan (talk) 16:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:NJOURNALS. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I see the overwhelming majority believe the page should remain the articlespace, despite no sources listed. If this is the case, then I am in agreement, if the databases it is listed in are reliable and proper grounds for inclusion are met. Multi7001 (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The important thing is whether sources exist, not whether they are listed. The article itself does not indicate anything that would indicate any notability, but that is reason for expansion, not deletion. Does your comment mean that you are withdrawing the nom? If yes, I'll close this AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Randykitty, well first off, the page lacks indication of notability like you said and does not appear to be useful within the articlespace at this time, in my opinion. The only external source in the page, which is the purported official website, shows a 404 error. And the ISSN indexing, the only functioning hyperlink, just lists the tile, genre and format of the journal, but it should not be the only evidence of notability. I still believe it requires possible deletion, and so the deletion nom. should remain to get input from more users. Multi7001 (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As you wish, but deletion is not going to happen. What counts is not the (sorry) state that the article is in, but what it could be. We can spend our time better on improving the article (because it can be improved) than on having this useless discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 10:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Randykitty, the page looks more appropriate, given that a user has added references. I agree that the page should remain and be improved further. Please close the AfD discussion, I have withdrawn the nom per the new edits. Multi7001 (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:HEY. --Randykitty (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.