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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bloons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Cliff Smith 18:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no real indication of significance, and it exists as a purchasing guide to the franchise more than anything else. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Without too much digging, I see many hits on various VG sites [1] including more than trivial reviews. Is there any reason why this doesn't pass WP:GNG? Article quality is poor, promotional and gameguidey, but the topic seems notable. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Without prejudicing the discussion, if the subject isn't deemed notable, I'd suggest merging with Bloons TD, which has better references (PC Welt, Wired, IGN, GamePro, PocketGamer). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. --doncram 01:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• ’Keep'Plenty of sources. Stedrick (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Three more sources: Forbes, Joystiq, and Wired. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.