Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical Strike Portable

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. JohnCD (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Strike Portable

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

delete, non notable game. does not qualify for csd sadly

talk) 19:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - @
Hell in a Bucket: Why didn't you PROD it if you believe its deletion would've been uncontroversial enough for a CSD (if a criteria covered this)? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
- Inclusionists routinely revert any prods and redirects that they find. I don't blame people for skipping straight to AfD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - NinjaRobotPirate is completely correct, I find that PROD is a useless time wasting process that should be bypassed by all except BLP Prod, which even then is a gamble.
    talk) 22:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Delete. Does not seem to have significant coverage in reliable sources. Could be redirected somewhere, too.
List of open source video games, maybe. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete It's so obvious why it should be deleted, I don't even know where to start.AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 02:08, 3 February 2014 (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.