260:
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,
270:
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
250:
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
68:
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
154:
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.
164:
Knowledge (XXG) 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
232:
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.
290:
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.
197:
251:
authority on Tower defense or that world eater certifies the content of his tutorial to be correct and accurate with editorial oversight?--
201:
17:
307:
36:
306:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
294:
291:
275:
265:
255:
245:
236:
220:
209:
205:
184:
159:
146:
134:
122:
119:
110:
93:
56:
107:
53:
194:
Tower defense is a growing genre in gaming and needs an entry, even if it's not the most well done.
177:
86:
156:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
48:
Good to see an effort made, but it only demonstrated the original point that there are no
173:
169:
103:
82:
78:
70:
49:
262:
242:
233:
165:
74:
143:
62:
272:
252:
217:
181:
90:
131:
216:
If it can't be sourced, it doesn't get an article on wikipedia.--
300:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
180:
this is not a valid argument for keeping an article.--
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
310:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
89:is not a good reason to keep this article.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
261:a proliferation of flash games. --
130:as unsourced original research. --
118:per nom - fails core requirements.
24:
1:
241:I have added a few citations
295:21:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
276:22:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
266:20:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
256:05:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
246:02:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
237:01:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
221:23:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
210:20:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
185:23:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
160:17:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
147:00:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
135:18:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
123:16:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
111:15:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
94:15:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
57:04:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
327:
176:. Hence why I pointed to
303:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
200:comment was added by
52:for this subject.
213:
71:original research
318:
305:
195:
108:The Rambling Man
54:Opabinia regalis
50:reliable sources
34:
326:
325:
321:
320:
319:
317:
316:
315:
314:
308:deletion review
301:
196:—The preceding
66:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
324:
322:
313:
312:
297:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
281:
280:
279:
278:
226:
225:
224:
223:
189:
188:
187:
149:
137:
125:
113:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
323:
311:
309:
304:
298:
296:
293:
289:
288:
277:
274:
269:
268:
267:
264:
259:
258:
257:
254:
249:
248:
247:
244:
240:
239:
238:
235:
231:
228:
227:
222:
219:
215:
214:
211:
207:
203:
199:
193:
190:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
162:
161:
158:
153:
150:
148:
145:
141:
138:
136:
133:
129:
126:
124:
121:
117:
114:
112:
109:
105:
101:
98:
97:
96:
95:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
64:
63:Tower defense
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
302:
299:
271:or 3 made.--
229:
202:153.2.247.32
191:
151:
142:gamecruft. /
139:
127:
115:
99:
67:
45:
43:
31:
28:
178:WP:ILIKEIT
87:WP:ILIKEIT
263:Ellisonch
243:Ellisonch
234:Ellisonch
198:unsigned
144:Blaxthos
73:. Fails
273:Crossmr
253:Crossmr
218:Crossmr
182:Crossmr
157:Shinjin
91:Crossmr
46:delete.
292:Trebor
140:Delete
128:Delete
120:Trebor
116:Delete
100:Delete
174:WP:OR
170:WP:RS
104:WP:OR
83:WP:RS
79:WP:OR
16:<
230:Keep
206:talk
192:Keep
172:and
166:WP:V
152:Keep
132:Whpq
102:per
81:and
75:WP:V
106:.
208:)
168:,
155:--
85:.
77:,
212:.
204:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.