Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Political Machine 2024

The Political Machine 2024

The Political Machine 2024 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This article currently has no sources. It was draftified in 2024 (Draft:The Political Machine 2024) then submitted several times and rejected. The draft has many sources, but previous reviewers have determined they do not provided WP:SIGCOV or are not WP:RS. I have had a look for sources and not found enough to pass WP:GNG, though I recognise that for a computer game this can be easy to miss. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:24, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Politics. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
• Weak keep I'm the culprit for the draft not progressing, so it's only fair I do the work to try and see if there's more sourcing to keep this. Fortunately, I think I can find a little more to get it across the line: For WP:RS per WP:VG/S there's a review and interview source from Games Beat , a review from Vandal , an authored and dated few paragraphs describing the game from GRY-Online and a WP:ROUTINE update from 4Gamer . For situational sources, there's a review from Softpedia and Gaming Age . For sources external to WP:VG/S such as WP:PERENNIAL, there's also a few miscellaneous regional sources: a light-touch review from The Toledo Blade , and an interview from Fox News Detroit . Combined as a whole, all sources provide just enough review coverage and background to satisfy WP:THREE so I'm not splitting hairs over any one situational source, and they cover all the main elements of the article. If other views prevail, I think there's easy space for a WP:MERGE with The Political Machine (series), given that it's an iterative one where not a lot changes from game to game. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:45, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Sources show it passes WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:02, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect: After looking over the sources provided by @Vrxces, I am not convinced much of individual notability setting this iteration apart from other entries (which are poorly sourced, such as in this article's case). The Games Beat sources are WP:PRIMARY, being interviews. I'm unfamiliar with Vandal, but alone it's not enough. WP:FOXNEWS is pretty much unreliable and politically biased, meaning its use would violate WP:NPOV (also an interview, so it's primary regardless). The GRY Online page is not substantial and offers two brief sentences that don't go beyond gameplay. Softpedia to my knowledge is fine. The article, were it to be expanded, would likely remain a WP:PERMASTUB, and offers little in the way of differentiation from previous editions. Redirecting and merging content to The Political Machine (series) would be fine. 11WB (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  I realise I didn't cover all the sources. The Toledo Blade has the same issue as FOX in that it is pro-Trump, as is made clear at WP:NPPSG. Being a political game obviously means certain news outlets may review it, such as is the case here. Wikipedia is clear that articles need to remain neutral, so I can't count those two reviews due to this. The review from Softpedia is acceptable, Vandal possibly. This falls short of WP:THREE however, which is why I've opted for a redirect. 11WB (talk) 05:21, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  There was no evidence found that Toledo Blade put their biases in factual reporting, and from a read of the review, it does not appear to be manipulating any facts to push a pro-Trump bias. I have a hard time believing that it should be excluded from the sourcing due to that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:21, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  Softpedia is marginal according to Unseen, whilst Vandal and GamesBeat are reliable. This falls short of THREE, which is a low bar for video games. I'm not seeing notability that sets it apart from other versions of the game. It's on a quadrennial release cycle. I don't see a need for an individual article for every edition when the series article can serve that purpose much better per WP:PAGEDECIDE#2. 11WB (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Two reliable reviews from Vandal and GamesBeat have been provided. Kelob2678 (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

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.