Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloons TD


 * 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   keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Bloons TD

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I can not find enough third-party source offering significant coverage of this browser and phone based game to establish its notability. Most of the references in the article point to the iTunes store, which helps with verifiability, but does nothing for notability.  ArcAngel    (talk) ) 15:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  MrKIA11 (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep You obviously haven't looked in the right place then. Just click the "RS" link in the tiny note above my post.   . Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not for articles about every kind of game. Plus this article does not cite good references and is not very notable.  Atterion (Talk |Contribs ) 18:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, not every kind of game, but every game that meets notability guidelines. This article does cite good sources. WikiProject Video Games has established IGN, GameZebo, GamePro, and Wired as reliable sources for video game articles. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm satisfied that the reviews cited above establish notability. Marasmusine (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Adequate coverage exists in reliable sources to show notability (though I do prefer my old version without all the fancruft. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. It just needs significant cleanup in the citations area. LiteralKa (talk) 01:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. It has adequate information, just needs cleaning up as stated. Mordecairule — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mordecairule (talk • contribs) 18:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. GNG satisfied -- Blake's sources above are multiple reliable, independent VG sources with non-trivial coverage. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.