See my talk on Wikipedia en:
Please explain why you think 1977's "Research on the effects of television advertising on children" published by the National Science Foundation is a self-published book. DTLHS (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I don't. The "Video Game Bible", however, unquestionably is. There is some weirdness with cacheing right now. JzG (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- FYI, I have removed pack-in from RFD; pack-in entry itself now has 5 attesting quotations. If you still doubt that the term exists and is attested (WT:ATTEST), you could place the term to RFV, but it would probably be better for you first to explain on this talk page what is wrong with these 5 attesting quotations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- It's fine, my issue was that the sole source was a self-published book spammed across multiple projects. JzG (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- FYI, I cited the book because it used the word correctly. That is not spam or advertising of any kind (I hate spam). We have no rule against using self-published books. Equinox ◑ 22:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Sure, but this self-published book was spammed across multiple projects. That's the only reason I came to that article. JzG (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- FYI, I cited the book because it used the word correctly. That is not spam or advertising of any kind (I hate spam). We have no rule against using self-published books. Equinox ◑ 22:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)