Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Contender: The Game of Political Debate


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  08:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The Contender: The Game of Political Debate

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Apparently there is no CsD category for non-notable produsts. Like this. Promotional to boot.TheLongTone (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Its a new card game and, based on its successful crowd funded campaign so far, it will be published. The contents of the article do not strike me as blatant advertising just informational. Its starting to make the rounds on blogs that follow new and notable crowd funded projects. [Example 1 ] [Example 2 ] [Example 3 ] I would propose keeping it for at least a month and see if gathers any press. A single news story on this game would make any discussion of deletion of this article mute. Given the political climate right now the odds of that are pretty good. This article doesn't directly violate any listed deletion conditions that I could read so I believe deletion is premature. A similar game Cards_Against_Humanity that also started with a kickstarter campaign had an article when it started its campaign as well Link to 2010 December version of Cards Against Humanity Article --Stillatwork (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC) — Stillatwork (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮  JAaron95  Talk   15:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources are admittedly weak but seem to pass WP:GNG. However, the article is heavily POV and needs a through clean-up. -- Non-Dropframe   talk   18:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, Not sure if I get to vote, but I am continuing to gather sources as coverage continues to pickup, I knew that it was early on and a little weak but did think as [User:Non-dropframe]] already said that it looks to pass WP:GNG, as it looked that Cards Against Humanity passed that point as pointed out by User:Stillatwork. I thought I had kept it NPOV but I will work to try and improve the POV which it looks like Cards Against Humanity also suffers, I am new and trying to follow all the polices and rules but just want to try and give back to the community by adding content after consuming so much great content WP:IAR. --BS4Free (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC) User:BS4Free is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.  — BS4Free (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Nonsense. Ther are no real sources, merely the result of PR. Is anybody actually buying or playing this game.TheLongTone (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kraxler (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete (for now) - considering the current lack of coverage in reliable sources and the article's blatant promotional tone throughout. Other similarly flawed articles should be cleaned up too, but are irrelevant for this discussion - see WP:Other stuff exists. If the game gets some independent coverage in a few months, I suggest to create a new neutral non-promotional draft version and to ask for an AfC review. The entire article needs to be rewritten anyway to meet WP:NPOV, as mentioned above. GermanJoe (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - The references appear to be effectively press releases, which are not reliable sources. The fact that two out of three entities above !voting to keep are SPAs under sockpuppetry investigation further casts doubt.--Rpclod (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Userfy or send to Drafts. While I agree that this game could be worthy of inclusion, I note that there are many independent card games out there that could become worthy. I think putting this into Drafts for 6 months or a year might be worthwhile until the product actually ships and someone like BoardGameGeek reviews it and provides a reasonably outside view.  Disclosure: I have backed this project Hasteur (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The source provides a detailed review of the game and why it is successful: "The deck looks beautifully designed, the sample cards shown in promotional imagery promise hours of uproarious fun, and the timing—released right before the first Republican presidential debate of the 2016 election—couldn't have been better. Perhaps that's why The Contender soared past its $15,000 Kickstarter goal and is currently sitting at more than $35,000 with 24 days of fundraising remaining." It provides a detailed description of the game's history: "The Contender, created by John Teasdale and Justin Robert Young and designed by Meg Paradise and Faun Chapin of Guts & Glory, follows the same basic premise as CAH. Everyone gets a set of cards and picks one to pair with each round's prompt card. But unlike Cards Against Humanity, which asks players to construct the funniest response to a prompt, The Contender asks you to construct the best or funniest argument as part of a series of debate rounds."  This article provides a detailed description of the game: "The game is structured so that one player acts as a moderator and the others are all candidates on a panel. The moderator deals five argument cards to each candidate then throws down a topic card, like gun control, corporate handouts, terrorism, education. The candidates then respond, using the argument cards the moderator dealt. The strategy comes with trying to form the strongest response. The twist is that the argument cards are snarky summaries of actual statements from smattering of presidential hopefuls like Al Gore, Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, and Ross Perot, among others. They're categorized into facts, distractions, and attacks—strategies good debaters keep in their back pocket."  This article provides detailed coverage about the game's history and fundraising history: "Creators Justin Robert Young and John Teasdale explain in their promotional video that you don’t need to know anything about elections in order to participate. The goal of the game is to win the debate, not to outsmart people with actual government knowledge. Young and Teasdale, along with designers Meg Paradise and Faun Chapin, asked the crowdfunding site for $15,000 to turn The Contender into the real deal. To say they shattered their goal is an understatement. Over 1,000 backers have donated nearly $50,0000 so far." The "delete" editors' assertions that "The references appear to be effectively press releases", that the game lacks "independent coverage", and that there is currently no "reasonably outside view" are unsupported. None of these sources are press releases. All of these sources come from reputable publications: The Daily Dot, Co.Design (published by Fast Company), and MTV. These sources provided detailed information about the game's history, description, and fundraising history. The sources review the game and explain why the fundraising efforts have been successful in "soar[ing] past its $15,000 Kickstarter goal". Per Notability and Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, the article's deficiencies are not valid reasons for deletion. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Contender: The Game of Political Debate to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)</li></ul>


 * 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.