496:, 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.
415:
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.
246:
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.
648:
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.
207:. 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.
376:
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
260:
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
642:
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
627:
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.
414:
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
286:
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
245:
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
Knowledge readers in general if they are
647:
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
315:(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"
287:
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
310:
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
643:
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
222:
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
158:
119:
398:
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.
552:
429:
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.
152:
261:
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.
600:
291:. 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.
540:
319:? 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
466:
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
377:
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
354:
345:
17:
570:
52:. I'm sorry Dcvm but there's a clear consensus to delete here. However, I can restore this to your userspace if you wish.
514:
Any news on this? WDYT? Dennis? I also tried to extend the context around the game genre itself with an article about
173:
92:
87:
360:
312:
140:
96:
725:
40:
189:
Barely escapes CSD for advert. References offer no significant coverage, notability is not firmly established.
558:
546:
443:
No basis for deletion proposed. Article appears to be sourced and cited, and not a stub. No reason to delete --
357:
79:
230:
373:
224:
448:
242:
701:
633:
479:
470:, then please do. Being sourced isn't enough, they have to be reliable sources not just links to lists.
266:
194:
134:
721:
296:
212:
57:
36:
348:
233:
130:
405:
166:
706:
657:
637:
614:
592:
527:
505:
483:
456:
452:
438:
424:
409:
390:
332:
300:
270:
255:
216:
198:
83:
61:
444:
227:
180:
696:
629:
610:
588:
475:
262:
190:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
720:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
75:
67:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
292:
208:
53:
653:
644:
628:
They *might* sometimes be useful to provide facts, but they don't show it is notable.
523:
501:
471:
434:
420:
386:
366:
328:
251:
363:
564:
493:
467:
369:
146:
676:
606:
584:
320:
288:
239:
113:
692:
515:
688:
649:
519:
497:
430:
416:
382:
324:
247:
680:
351:
236:
714:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
684:
679:. No coverage in any of the main video game type websites. (
378:
316:
577:
381:
for a long time (previously named CreepSmash as noted).
109:
105:
101:
165:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
728:). No further edits should be made to this page.
541:list of video game-related deletion discussions
179:
8:
599:Note: This debate has been included in the
539:Note: This debate has been included in the
601:list of Games-related deletion discussions
598:
569:
691:, or even more more obscure sites like
7:
575:
24:
563:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
707:17:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
658:18:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
638:17:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
615:01:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
593:01:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
557:
528:15:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
506:19:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
484:13:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
453:01:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
439:23:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
425:22:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
410:21:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
391:21:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
333:19:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
301:18:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
271:21:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
256:21:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
217:19:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
199:18:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
62:00:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
551:
379:german Tower Defense article
545:
745:
675:- Not enough coverage in
717:Please do not modify it.
518:that was still missing.
32:Please do not modify it.
474:, it is a discussion.
372:that I am aware of.
48:The result was
617:
604:
595:
472:This isn't a vote
736:
719:
704:
699:
677:reliable sources
605:
582:
581:
580:
573:
567:
561:
555:
549:
538:
403:
184:
183:
169:
117:
99:
34:
744:
743:
739:
738:
737:
735:
734:
733:
732:
726:deletion review
715:
702:
697:
576:
544:
399:
126:
90:
74:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
742:
740:
731:
730:
710:
709:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
596:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
509:
508:
487:
486:
461:
460:
441:
427:
412:
393:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
305:
304:
276:
275:
274:
273:
220:
187:
186:
123:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
741:
729:
727:
723:
718:
712:
711:
708:
705:
700:
694:
690:
686:
682:
678:
674:
671:
670:
659:
655:
651:
646:
641:
640:
639:
635:
631:
626:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
616:
612:
608:
602:
597:
594:
590:
586:
579:
572:
566:
560:
554:
548:
542:
537:
529:
525:
521:
517:
513:
512:
511:
510:
507:
503:
499:
495:
491:
490:
489:
488:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
464:
463:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
445:ProfPolySci45
442:
440:
436:
432:
428:
426:
422:
418:
413:
411:
407:
402:
397:
394:
392:
388:
384:
380:
375:
371:
368:
365:
362:
359:
356:
353:
350:
347:
344:
343:
334:
330:
326:
322:
318:
314:
313:general press
309:
308:
307:
306:
302:
298:
294:
290:
285:
282:
281:
280:
279:
278:
277:
272:
268:
264:
259:
258:
257:
253:
249:
244:
241:
238:
235:
232:
229:
226:
221:
218:
214:
210:
206:
203:
202:
201:
200:
196:
192:
182:
178:
175:
172:
168:
164:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
132:
129:
128:Find sources:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
716:
713:
698:Sergecross73
672:
630:Dennis Brown
624:
476:Dennis Brown
400:
395:
283:
263:Dennis Brown
204:
191:Dennis Brown
188:
176:
170:
162:
155:
149:
143:
137:
127:
49:
47:
31:
28:
303:tokyogirl79
293:Tokyogirl79
240:multiplayer
219:tokyogirl79
209:Tokyogirl79
153:free images
54:Ron Ritzman
693:Siliconera
516:tower wars
492:Regarding
370:early days
722:talk page
689:Eurogamer
607:• Gene93k
585:• Gene93k
401:North8000
37:talk page
724:or in a
681:Gamespot
364:coverage
225:broadest
120:View log
39:or in a
645:Youtube
396:Comment
317:article
284:Comment
159:WP refs
147:scholar
93:protect
88:history
76:CreepTD
68:CreepTD
703:msg me
673:Delete
494:WP:GNG
468:WP:GNG
237:played
205:Delete
131:Google
97:delete
50:delete
625:Reply
358:bunch
346:There
289:WP:RS
243:tower
234:still
228:known
174:JSTOR
135:books
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
654:talk
650:Dcvm
634:talk
611:talk
589:talk
578:Talk
524:talk
520:Dcvm
502:talk
498:Dcvm
480:talk
449:talk
435:talk
431:Dcvm
421:talk
417:Dcvm
406:talk
387:talk
383:Dcvm
374:Some
352:been
329:talk
325:Dcvm
321:this
297:talk
267:talk
252:talk
248:Dcvm
213:talk
195:talk
167:FENS
141:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
695:.)
685:IGN
543:. (
457:see
349:has
231:and
181:TWL
118:– (
687:,
683:,
656:)
636:)
613:)
603:.
591:)
583:)
571:RS
526:)
504:)
482:)
451:)
437:)
423:)
408:)
389:)
367:in
361:of
331:)
299:)
269:)
254:)
215:)
197:)
161:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
652:(
632:(
609:(
587:(
574:·
568:·
565:S
562:·
559:B
556:·
553:N
550:·
547:G
522:(
500:(
478:(
459:)
455:(
447:(
433:(
419:(
404:(
385:(
355:a
327:(
323:.
295:(
265:(
250:(
211:(
193:(
185:)
177:·
171:·
163:·
156:·
150:·
144:·
138:·
133:(
125:(
122:)
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.