Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CreepTD


 * 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. I'm sorry Dcvm but there's a clear consensus to delete here. However, I can restore this to your userspace if you wish. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

CreepTD

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Barely escapes CSD for advert. References offer no significant coverage, notability is not firmly established. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. A search brought up nothing that could be used as an independent and reliable source. There's nothing out there to show notability or to even back up the claims in the article. I didn't even really see that many forums talking about it either, which contradicts the article's claims of having a lot of popularity in the "tower game" niche.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * You are right, compared to other games in bigger niches CreepTD is not that well known. Tower defense is still a rather small sub-genre of strategy gaming commonly played solo (see Bloons, Flash Element TD etc.). However, this game is the broadest known and still played multiplayer tower defense game of these days and in my oppinion should be included besides of Bloons and others that clearly differenciate from this one in not being multiplayer nor providing an equally complete set of common game modes that also might be in interest for Wikipedia readers in general if they are interested in non-ancient implementations of these. These things may - or may not - make it a noteworthy candidate for people who like to take a deeper look into the tower defense genre itself. I'd of course extend the article with more detailed information if it does not get deleted. Didn't do this already because I have been unsure also if the game is a considerable candidate for other WP editors, too.Dcvm (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I just wish you had links to publications that are actually talking about the game itself, reviews, interviews, stuff like that. That is the only reason I brought it here, no independent coverage in any media.  To me, the best outcome of an AFD is if someone digs up a slew of good links that we just couldn't find before, adds them, then I withdraw.  I'm not "pro deletion", just "pro sourcing".  If you can find some actual coverage, by all means, tell us.  Dennis Brown (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment One of the problems with the links that you've provided is that none of the links are usable as reliable sources to show notability. They're mostly blogs or other things that cannot show notability. They do show that the game exists and that somewhere someone is talking about it, but it's not the type of coverage that is considered to be independent and reliable secondary sources. When you get down to it, only 1% of anything put out about a person, place, or thing will be usable to count towards notability. None of the links shown are usable per WP:RS. Even if the game was widely talked about and had millions of ghits, you still need independent secondary sources from trusted sources to show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * I see. To make this sure for me: This also means that it is not enough (for a tower defense game e.g. "the" multiplayer tower defense game of today) to be mentioned at the most popular (specialized) tower defense portals around and also be mentioned in general press (however, this is not a "huge" press site but it is an independent one)? Doesn't it count that, if you try to find a more popular mp td still played, there is none? Doesn't it count that it has been used for a long time as a prime example in the german WP's "Tower Defense" article? As far as I am concerned, these are exactly the independent / relevant sources / criteria you request. Please let me know if I got something wrong on this.Dcvm (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There has been a bunch of coverage in early days that I am aware of. Some recently. Maybe another point of interest: The game is better known in germany (thats why the coverage is mostly written in german) than in the US or similar because it used to be a project of german students and had been available in german solely for a while. Because of this it initialy spreaded in germany but is available in a variety of languages nowadays. Don't know if this is a valid point, but it has also been a prime example in the german Tower Defense article for a long time (previously named CreepSmash as noted).Dcvm (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no real enclyclopedic content to be lost if it were to be deleted. The article looks like just a self-description of the game by whoever made it or is selling it. North8000 (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, more detailed content on the points that have already been prepared would be the first thing to add. However I don't like the idea of the article being deleted for another reason than its contents (that's what I'm trying to make clear for myself) after I invested that much time into it. That's usually the way the german WP works: Someone invests much time and things will be quick-deleted without further notice. For me the article contains just enough information about the game to figure out if it'd be relevant enough for WP or not at this point. Btw: Just because someone, who is somewhat deeper into the topic, created the article, it should not be deleted in general. This is not an advertisement and I am fully aware of WP not being an advertising plattform. I just like the game and in my oppinion it should be included for the reasons noted above.Dcvm (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just added some more content, especially some that is quite unique for CreepTD and therefore defines the game's concept. Hope this helps to dissipate some doubts.Dcvm (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No basis for deletion proposed. Article appears to be sourced and cited, and not a stub. No reason to delete --ProfPolySci45 (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC) (see)
 * The basis for deletion is already given. That isn't how we do things.  If you can point to the criteria that it passes, or explain how it passes WP:GNG, then please do.  Being sourced isn't enough, they have to be reliable sources not just links to lists.  This isn't a vote, it is a discussion.  Dennis Brown (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding WP:GNG, I'll give it a try (however, you are of course deeper into this topic): "Significant coverage" is not super-extensive but passed, the subject is addressed by the given sources and no original research is needed to extract the content (if I got the OR point right). "Reliable sources" are passed (german WP, independant press, more than well ratings on independent td portals). "Secondary sources" are passed by the variety of tower defense portals and the "reliable sources" mentioned. "Independent of the subject" is passed by the coverage I provided earlier (on the page itself and here9, however not all of the mentioned sources on this discussion page are noteworthy inside the article itself because there is better and more recent information available on non-independent sources like the original website (current game modes for example). In my oppinion it wouldn't make much sense to put something else than the current state there, even it is not documented independently (most software manuals aren't) but can be easily confirmed by every player without an exception. Anything "Presumed" is of course up to you.Dcvm (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Any news on this? WDYT? Dennis? I also tried to extend the context around the game genre itself with an article about tower wars that was still missing. Dcvm (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply Coverage needs to be "significant coverage" and NOT just a passing mention. I think you misunderstood that point.  And you make it harder to check the sources when they have stuff like Facebook, primary sources (many times....), and other wikis.  NONE of those can be used to establish notability.  They *might* sometimes be useful to provide facts, but they don't show it is notable.  Dennis Brown (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, Dennis. The sources I provided are those that I am aware of as of today and in my oppinion they are only just enough to establish notability. In case of the game and the tower wars (which is basically tower defense multiplayer) genre itself I also think that a too restrictive view is not a best practice because it's just a irrefutable fact that CreepTD is an excelent, if not "the" example of multiplayer tower defense and furthermore nearly the only such game played as of today (someone can easily confirm this via a look at Youtube and as mentioned on Facebook), even if it's not sourced via CNN or Times but by other, less commonly known but independent sources. It's right that it's not a broadly known game and a WP entry will not change this, but its gameplay is quite unique among the genre and it is like I already said somewhat the only current example for this sub-type of games, so it should really be considered a notable addition in case of doubt. There is definitively something to learn from the article and I am, as I hope you have noticed, really trying to make it even more informative for someone who wants to get a deeper knowlege about tower defense, especially in a multiplayer environment. Dcvm (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not enough coverage in reliable sources. No coverage in any of the main video game type websites. (Gamespot, IGN, Eurogamer, or even more more obscure sites like Siliconera.) Sergecross73   msg me   17:34, 15 February 2012 (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.