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. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Critter-Tek[edit]

Critter-Tek (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)

One "short and sweet" review (cf. the name of the section this review appeared in), a listing in what can be described as the Imdb of board games, and that's about it. 42 Google hits[1] don't reveal more useful stuff, just commercial sites and more wikis. Fram (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Possible Merge - A single, self-described as "short", review in Dragon is the only secondary source that is useful for establishing notability. The BGG entry is, of course, not a valid source for establishing notability. So, the product fails the WP:GNG. As the parody was an officially licensed spin-off of BattleTech, it could potentially be mentioned at List of BattleTech games, in which case this could be used as a Redirect there. Rorshacma (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2020 (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.