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 redirect to Fun School#Fun School 6. This is clearly not garnering any additional comments, so I'll close it with consensus to redirect Fun School 6 to Fun School#Fun School 6, but I don't find consensus (yet) to redirect all games to the series articles, nor all games + series to the developper Europress. Czar and Thibbs can keep discussing the possibility of merging to the series outside of this AfD. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 16:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Fun School 6 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Cant find anythig that establishes notability. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 19:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 19:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect all Fun School articles to Europress, the developer. If the subject is a valid search term, and it is, redirection to the series article is always preferred to deletion. Redirection is more useful than deletion. As it stands, all of the Fun School games appear to lack significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) FS6 had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. Probably could have just redirected the lot to the dev boldly with little fanfare. Might just want to withdraw the nom and do that, @ TheLongTone. Please {{ ping}} me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. –  czar 19:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep I think you'll find that the first four Fun School articles and Fun School Special have a number of reliable sources from magazines and related manuals. The latter two on the other hand has archived sources linking to their homepages. Some time ago, the main Fun School article was a mess with no sources at all. My idea is that all groups of games have their respective articles. It would be nice that Fun School 1 till 4 and Specials could be have French sources related to the Amstrad CPC versions. If the idea of individual articles for each game doesn't work, I propose a complete merge for the articles or partial merges for two articles: Fun School 1 till 4 and Fun School 5 till 7 and Fun Special as a standalone article. What the articles could really do with are sources indicating any awards won and number of copies sold (so far Fun School 2 has that kind of source). In the meantime, I'll see what magazine coverage I can dig up for this particular article. Deltasim ( talk) 20:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

I think you'll find—nope, didn't find. Let's see those sources. Unless there are several magazine reviews of each individual game, there is not enough reliable material with which to write an article, and each should be redirected to a list. Worldcat listings and primary source links to dev's website do not count towards significant external coverage. –  czar 22:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Tentative redirect of Fun School 6 to Fun School if Fun School can be improved (or to Europress per Czar). As Czar points out, only significant coverage in reliable third party sources can be used to demonstrate notability. So even though manuals and other self-published sources may be sufficiently reliable to cite in an article they still don't demonstrate that it meets the basic notability threshold. The existence of old paper-copy sources for the other Fun School games is the reason my !vote is tentative. If additional sourcing can be located sufficient to demonstrate notability then I'd change to "keep".

In the same vein, I disagree that all Fun School titles should be redirected. Appropriate WP:VG/RS-vetted RSes seem to exist for several of the prior titles (e.g. Amstrad Action, Your Sinclair, and Crash for Fun School 4; Amstrad Action and Your Sinclair for Fun School 2), and other sources may also plausibly qualify as reliable pending a discussion at WT:VG/RS (e.g. ST Format cited in Fun School 2 and Amiga Format cited in Fun School Specials are sister-publications to the RS-approved PC Format; CU Amiga cited in Fun School Specials is a sister-publication to the RS-approved Sinclair User). But with that said, it's clear that all of the articles need more work. WP:VG/GL suggests that video game articles have a minimum set of elements including coverage of development/history and reception. As they stand now the articles are more focused on the details of the games (lists of game elements) than on the circumstances surrounding the games (development history, reception, educational significance, etc.) and they may fall afoul of WP:GAMEGUIDE. - Thibbs ( talk) 17:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC) (Full disclosure: I was invited by Deltasim to comment here. - Thibbs ( talk) 17:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)) reply

@ Thibbs, video game trivia#2 says that similar articles should be merged unless there are sufficient sources for splitting it out. I don't think anyone would object if someone built up a "Fun School 4" section to the point where it needed to be split out, but is it realistically in the cards right now? –  czar 19:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply

I find VGSCOPE to be persuasive but not controlling in this case. Or at least not to the extent that I'd feel comfortable casting a group !vote within a AfD on a specific member of the series. In my view a good AfD-multi request should name the best article as the primary example rather than one of the least developed. But again, VGSCOPE is persuasive and I would personally have no problem with a more complete merge without prejudice regarding future splits. It's worth considering that split out material can and should re-use the RSes presented in the parent article and that in the meanwhile (in the time it takes a section to reach the point of splitting) a single article citing all appropriate RS-es would be much more stable and AfD-resistant. I could go either way at this point. Further development of the substance of the articles will ultimately be the deciding factor. - Thibbs ( talk) 19:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:51, 28 July 2015 (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.