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. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transaction Advisors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

If you check the article history, all content is pretty obviously written by employees of the organization that published this journal. It does not seem notable, it was self-published and every source listed is also self-published (their own website or press releases), except for Worldcat which just confirms the journal existed for one year and is archived in one library in the whole world. If you Google it's just unrelated things and self-promotion. Not seeing any legitimate third-party sources to meet Wikipedia inclusion standards. Here2rewrite (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Finance, Law, Business, Management, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neither the article nor web searching provides any evidence of passing WP:GNG (the controlling guideline) nor WP:NJOURNALS. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched Google for sources with "transaction advisors" and "journal" and excluding material on their own website and anything with the PR phrases "prestigious technical journal" and "prestigious new technical journal". It did yield three publications[1][2][3] that cite it as a reference (one, from the snippet displayed, might not have been, but the other two did include its ISSN and did clearly appear to be citing it). That's it. That doesn't seem sufficient to cross the notability threshold. Largoplazo (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep It has some financial importance but needs more reliable sources. Without any Improvement with better references will be better to delete it, so my opinion is to Keep it under terms for improvements. Yakov-kobi (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a journal it's indexed nowhere, thus fails WP:NJOURNALS. The rest are primary sources/industry puff pieces. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:36, 31 July 2024 (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.