Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Campaign Trail (Web Game)

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. This is an easy close. Although I'm very surprised to read that there are fanboys of Nelson Rockefeller. It must be nostalgia because I can't think of a less "cool" old-school politician. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Campaign Trail (Web Game)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Low notability and lack of reliable or real sources per WP:GNG. Tadpole2006 (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only a single RS cited for one sentence, the rest of the article cites the website itself or fan websites, obviously going against notability guidelines and WP:NOR. I'll also note that discussion about this article is taking place on the game's subreddit encouraging fans to edit this article, which has a danger of turning into WP:CANVASS. 148.252.145.173 (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly not notable. λ NegativeMP1 00:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Polygon source is the only one I can find about the game. One source isn't enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked for sources and found only the usual game/developer accounts, Fandom page, and some social media, but no reliable, secondary sources beside the single Polygon source. I also used the WikiProject Video games custom Google searches and found the same, plus many more about the board game with the same title, and general use of the phrase "[the] campaign trail". Woodroar (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Not notable per WP:GNG nor does one source make something notable enough for a page, per all the above. This is an encyclopedia, not a playground for 14 year old Redditor's who appear to be fanboys of George Wallace or Nelson Rockefeller to make a muck in. The subreddit post in question that the IP user above referred too makes this seem like an extra insidious attempt to violate WP:CANVASS. Wikipedia is not a toy. Planetberaure (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as soon as possible, genuinely really sorry for the way our community handled this. I admittedly tried to add some genuine information, and while I tried to utilize of WK:Canvas rules, admittedly did not know about WK:Notable rules and agree that the web game is most definetly, as of yet not known enough as of yet. I'm a moderator on it and if necessary could try to disavow the recommending of the editing on this article. 191.231.211.69 (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, be careful not to burst a vein. ApolloPhoebus (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletearooski As an admittedly big fan of both the New Campaign Trail and the Campaign Trail Showcase, I am afraid that I'm going to have to go with the majority opinion here and advise a delete of this page. While there is one (1) notable and reliable source (Polygon), the rest of the sources that could be added would either be direct links to the website itself OR links to years old Reddit threads with no actual additional notability to be added to the context of the article. Also note the discussion currently going on in the Reddit thread (violating WP:CANVASS), and how despite my love for this game, it really only fosters a community of alternate history obsessed nerds who spend way too much time on an internet web game and who idolize long dead and, even in their time, has been politicians (George Romney, Scoop Jackson, and the aforementioned Wallace come to mind). Really niche? Yes. Really fun? Yep. Really deserving of a Wikipedia article? Nah. Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 01:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Please do delete this. So sorry about this article-I'm from the game's community and we told people not to do crap like this and they still do. I am begging you for our sake please get rid of this it's not notable and it's just embarrassing people keep trying to make one because they want it to be a "real game." Not really sure if I'm breaking rules as I'm kinda connected to the game I guess (sorry I don't use wikipedia much I just have an account) but yeah it's obviously not notable. Crabpop83 (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This page was made by a fan account closely associated with the game's subreddit and there is literally a thread of them celebrating its creation as if it is a toy. [1] Also as mentioned above, this relies on primary sources and doesn't have much notability. Due to the potential violations of Wikipedia's policies and notability, this needs to go — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsaQuathern (talk • contribs) 01:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As is, the article isn't WP:Notable. The Polygon article simply isn't enough to warrant notability, and as Woodroar pointed out, there aren't any other sources that could be added to make it notable. ImperialSam27 (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Yep. Doesn't meet GNG. TheWikiToby (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lgndvykk Creator of the article page here, I have read all of your comments and I do infact see everyone's point. I would like to apologize to everyone for this. There is infact, as Woodroar stated, no notable articles that can be added to make it notable.Lgndvykk - User Talk 04:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to also add that my friend had canvassed the article not knowing it was against the rules. This was falsely also marked as a conflict of interest, as it was my friend who first pitched the idea. Again, I do apologize and wish that we resolve this as swift as possible. Lgndvykk (talk) 05:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lgndvykk If this article definitively does not meet notability, do you, as the significant author of and biggest contributor to the article, agree to have it speedy deleted? If so, we can have it deleted as soon as possible rather than wait. TheWikiToby (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Their friend who made the reddit post now says they'll be "working with Wikipedia to get it deleted" FWIW. – Stuart98 ( Talk • Contribs) 07:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Websites, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable sources. @Planetberaure and Crabpop83: note that an article needs to satisfy one of the criteria in order to be speedily deleted. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My input to this page was written under the impression of this article as falling under WP:G11 and/or WP:A7 but as per the above this now is also a case of WP:G7 so the point is a bit moot. Planetberaure (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, though I've dabbled in TCT it clearly lacks notability and the page's creator has admitted as much. Even if they haven't explicitly asked for it to be deleted, might as well WP:SNOWBALL it. – Stuart98 ( Talk • Contribs) 07:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Delete, as completely failing WP:GNG Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. This game looks like it's a derivative game of Campaign Trail: The Game of Presidential Elections, so it could be mentioned there. This derivative doesn't seem to qualify for a separate article (and we also don't need articles about HTTP 500 error sites). – By the way, this article does not qualify for speedy deletion, because none of the criteria for speedy deletion are met, not even G7 as far as I can see. Killarnee (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would think WP:A7 would be the applicable CSD here. Certainly when 2/3 of your "sources" are screenshots there seems to be some substantial failure to indicate why its subject is important or significant. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G11 is for unambiguous advertisement, in other words, spam. Failing NPOV only, like here, is not a valid reason for G11. A7 is for articles where there is not even an indication of importance; however, that indication does not have to be based on references. In fact, there are many articles without any references that did not pass A7. There is a notable article about the original game and a community, so that it indeed is debatable. Killarnee (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, The game is openly declared by the creator to be derivative of Campaign Trail: The Game of Presidential Elections, so possibly building there? It isn't quite at the criteria for speedy deletion, though deletion would be reasonable. Besides, as a contributor to the community, it honestly doesn't quite reach notability on its own, and overly drawing attention to the community is frankly last thing they need. ListMan38 (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is also mentioned in one sentence of the polygon article: The Campaign Trail began in 2012 as a simple, lo-fi browser game designed by Dan Bryan, inspired by a board game of the same name, so that is at least something that could be included there. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although I should note that with only one sentence in one reliable source not even about the board game the multiple paragraphs currently being added to that article seem very WP:UNDUE Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also a fan of the game but clearly fails GNG. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One source does not notability make. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
notability make... TheWikiToby (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:one swallow does not a summer make ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there is not enough significant coverage to meet notibility standards. 1keyhole (talk) 12:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Echo the concerns of the above editors. I'm a big fan of the web game, but a single article is not enough to support the game's notability. ApolloPhoebus (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was only able to find significant coverage of this game by one independent reliable source (Polygon). And while it's a ~2000-word feature article principally about this game (and is quite detailed/useful for building an article), WP:GNG asks that there be multiple such sources. If there is additional significant coverage in the future, then this could be restored to the draftspace and worked on. But, right now, I don't see a reason to keep this. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:23, 20 December 2024 (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.