Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K9.5: The Tail-Wag Tour

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. Michig (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

K9.5: The Tail-Wag Tour

K9.5: The Tail-Wag Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable video game. Didn't really have a release, no third-party sources. Wizardman 03:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. More like an A7. Unreferenced, but that is because there are almost no references to this. Fails NPRODUCT. Britishfinance (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: normally I would suggest a merge or redirect to the developer, Lightspan, except that article doesn't exist despite the company being more notable than any of their individual games. Notability for the company and their games as a whole from [1] and [2] and enough academic studies to warrant a metastudy [3] (which I sadly don't have access to, beyond seeing that it exists). If anyone feels like having a go at creating Lightspan then that would be great, especially if they have access to the academic literature. If not, then deletion is probably the best option here. Lowercaserho (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not A7 eligible, but nothing meeting the WP:GNG either. Willing to reconsider if more sourcing is unearthed, as it was released on the era where hypothetical coverage would likely only exist in paper magazines, but I’m not particularly convinced that would the case with a game like this either. Sergecross73 msg me 14:32, 6 March 2019 (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.