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. Cirt (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Family Friendly Gaming[edit]

Family Friendly Gaming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A version of this article was previously deleted in 2006. Since it has been a while we should have a new AfD on this article. It makes an assertion of notability by claiming to be the first Christian video game magazine so it isn't speedy deletable. However, almost all google hits are about the general concept of "family friendly gaming" not the magazine and I am unable to find any independent reliable sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lots of claims but no evidence, suggest deletion or substantial rewrite with appropriate sources. --Oscarthecat (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above. JNW (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, not going to really look too much in to it other than to comment that there are now a lot more than the 54 google hits from last time and they have now this year been to E3. So small steps to be seen going in the right direction perhaps. Mathmo ^Talk 01:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately many of those are just people mentioning the word magazine in the context of "Family Friendly Gaming" the context. Less than half of those appear to be about the magazine. And none of them are reliable sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many claim this site is not reliable as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.170.85 (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And we're not. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source and you shouldn't treat it that way. But in order to be included in Wikipedia something needs to be backed up by reliable sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the United States Patent and Trademark Office reliable enough for you? I just added that to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.170.85 (talk • contribs)

It is a reliable source for the fact that the term is trademarked but that really isn't enough for a Wikipedia article. It might help to read WP:N and WP:RS which should give some idea what level of reliable sourcing would be good. Ideally we'd like someone independent of the magazine writing an article about the magazine or something like that. So if for example, a newspaper or another magazine wrote about the magazine that would be helpful. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:41, 21 November 2008 (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.