Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tower defense


 * 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. Good to see an effort made, but it only demonstrated the original point that there are no reliable sources for this subject. Opabinia regalis 04:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Tower defense
Complete lack of sourcing. A google search doesn't readily reveal any reliable sources. Almost all links are to a flash game of the same name, or downloads pages for websites for maps with this title or the occasional forum. Any information derived from those is original research. Fails WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS. WP:ILIKEIT is not a good reason to keep this article. Crossmr 15:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR. The Rambling Man 15:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - fails core requirements. Trebor 16:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as unsourced original research. -- Whpq 18:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete gamecruft. /Blaxthos 00:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep useful: the term TD and the idea behind it is not obvious to non-native english speakers, and occasional gamers. The article requires clean-up, that's for sure, but it describes an existing term and game-genre even if it's as special as it is. --Shinjin 17:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a glossary. The article requires sources for which there is a total lack of. Just because its useful doesn't mean it can be kept in the face of non-negotiable policies like WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. Hence why I pointed to WP:ILIKEIT this is not a valid argument for keeping an article.--Crossmr 23:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Tower defense is a growing genre in gaming and needs an entry, even if it's not the most well done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 153.2.247.32 (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
 * If it can't be sourced, it doesn't get an article on wikipedia.--Crossmr 23:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I came to this article directly, looking for info. There's no reason to delete the whole article, it just needs to be improved.  Having a stubbed article is not grounds for deletion.  Ellisonch 01:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added a few citations Ellisonch 02:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * From the provided links I can see that a website has a map which bears the title of being tower defense and blizzard has released a map with that name. Beyond that the world eater website publishes tutorials submitted by users. Is there any evidence to support the fact that "SD_Ryoko" is any kind of authority on Tower defense or that world eater certifies the content of his tutorial to be correct and accurate with editorial oversight?--Crossmr 05:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Here are two more links to sources, including one on a Warcraft wiki. If this subgenre were limited to Warcraft exclusively, I could understand hesitation in documenting it due to its possible obscurity.  However, there have been custom maps in other games such as UT2004, and, as you noted yourself, a proliferation of flash games.  --Ellisonch 20:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Other wiki's cannot be used as sources on wikipedia. They're not reliable. There also hasn't been a proliferation of flash games, just one specifically named itself tower defense, so any search for it is flooded with flash sites mirroring that particular game. As far as I know there have only been 2 or 3 made.--Crossmr 22:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Going back to the original point: no, having a stubbed article is not grounds for deletion, but if there are no sources then it is. A wiki isn't a reliable source. Trebor 21:02, 6 February 2007 (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.