Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comics and Gaming Magazine

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comics and Gaming Magazine

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

I could not find any reliable sources covering this publication. Delete per WP:GNG. Odie5533 (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 19:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 19:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 19:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 19:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 19:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:V. Woodroar (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It didn't pass a search engine test (a high school magazine seemingly had more coverage) or have meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search (only hit was a press release, no hits on variants of name). Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 22:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see it in my local shops such as Chapters and indigo, it seems to be a Canadian publication. They do have some good writers. It also seems to be for sale in the same digital store edge is http://www.pocketmags.com/viewmagazine.aspx?catid=1039&category=Tech+%26+Gaming&subcatid=241&subcategory=Gaming&title=CGMagazine&titleid=404&issueid=76330

Hope this help your discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darksky47 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Woodroar and Czar pretty much sum up all of my concerns. Where are the third party sources that discuss it in detail? Sergecross73 msg me 03:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of verifiability (lack of significant coverage in reliable sources). Also appears to be attempting to promote itself on-wiki, which isn't strictly cause for deletion but seldom a sign of a good-faith article attempt. What little notability is claimed is vague and related to the supposedly "thriving" website, yet an Alexa search reveals the site's Alexa ranking to be a very poor 5,136,142(!!!)--for comparison's sake sites like Gamespot and Gamefaqs are both in the top 1000. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional/original research. Can't verify notability. Harsh (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and perhaps even salt due to lack coverage from reliable third-party sources. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - That's gonna sound a lot like nothing, but it is a commercially succesful Canadian magazine, and despite the lack of sources (I found this: [1], [2], [3], [4]), I am having a hard time finding a way to support deletion. Also: rename Comics Gaming Magazine per how it's officially being called. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of those links, links #1 and #3 only give brief coverage, and link#4 I'm not sure is reliable. link#2 would be the best ref to use, but one reliable third-party ref providing significant coverage isn't enough. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #2 looks questionable to me. Their About This Site page describes them as "a portal site connecting the leading vendors & consultants with the thousands of publishing professionals and entrepreneurs" along with details on how to get your new publication listed. I could be wrong, but it appears to be little more than Yahoo! Directory for magazines. Woodroar (talk) 21:25, 18 May 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.