Deletion of CthulhuTech

Comment: Fails  and .  There are academic journals devoted to Games (namely Games and Culture) and there are plenty of journals, magazines, books and articles devoted to the roleplaying game industry.  A lack of sources found doesn't immediately mean that our search methods are too parochial.  The sources cited in the article and noted above are mainly non-RS.  I'm on the fence about RPGnet because they appear to have some clout but don't specify where the edited content ends and user-generated content begins.  Most of the rest don't count.  I don't find anything on Books, News or Scholar ('Scept the io9 post, and io9 isn't an RS
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:GNG)

Comment: fails our standards. Yes, there are RPG zines, etc.; there's no evidence that they have reviewed this game. We gamers have to hold our hobbies to the same standards as anybody else; and  is not a valid argument for inclusion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (:WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: per Chris Neville-Smith and good-faith efforts (and per ). Red-links are no reason to delete and we can always nuke this later if clean-up efforts fail to address notability concerns. Online gaming sources are notoriously more elusive to suss out and newbies shouldn't be penalized for not following the letter and spirit of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers (WP:BITE||WP:N)