Talk:Loser.com

History section needs attention
There are a number of unsourced claims, and others that are sourced to archive snapshots of the site's redirect. The history of the site should not consist of an exhaustive log of every change the domain owner makes, only of those targets that have received attention in independent sources. Objections? Schazjmd  (talk)  00:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Since there's been no feedback, I'm going to prune the history section to remove entries not supported by independent sources. Schazjmd   (talk)  15:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Objection here. I believe that most should be kept, as most entries seemed NPOV to me. On top of that, I've seen that a few entries that were removed, had been sourced. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove any entries that had an independent source. If no independent sources have taken note of loser.com's target, it isn't significant enough to include in the article. Schazjmd   (talk)  16:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, whoops. Looks like the sources were only from the website itself. I should've been aware of that. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they're kind of misleading at first glance because they were archive links.  Schazjmd   (talk)  17:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

History.
Should we re-add parts of history where the domain redirected to India’s prime minister and video of Lindsey graham endorsing Biden? Or the sources to it have died since? Kantoguy321 (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If there are independent sources that mention it, it can be added. But if it's only sourced to archived snapshots of loser.com itself, it isn't significant. Schazjmd   (talk)  14:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Current content of loser.com
As of right now, loser.com appears to be a Hover website. Possibly it was sold to a different company. Urban Versis 32 (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the article isn't to provide an up-to-date status of the website. It's to summarize what independent reliable sources have said about it. Schazjmd   (talk)  23:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling me. I see what you mean now. Urban Versis 32 (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * While I understand not including redirections that were not reported by reliable sources, I think there is a case to be made for including where the site most currently redirects to as encyclopedically relevant. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If no independent sources cover it, then its redirection isn't significant. People can see where it's pointing on any given day by visiting the site. Schazjmd   (talk)  16:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not all encyclopedic content must be significant- I dare say our encyclopedia would be a lot smaller if that I was the question we asked- there is some wiggle room between being an indiscriminate collection of information and including information that a reader would reasonably look for when reading an encyclopedia page (in this case the current status). It’s been established that media publications do consider redirections of this website significant and I think it’s reasonable to extend that to offering up-to-date information without having to wait for some publication to pick up on it. While verifiability doesn’t guarantee inclusion it also doesn’t mean that ‘insignificance’ guarantees dis-inclusion. I think the question we should fundamentally always be asking is how can we best serve the reader of an encyclopedia. In this case, in my opinion, including the current status of the website is part of that best service. Were I reading the article, that is a question I would reasonably ask (and expect to see answered) YMMV, but I don’t think any number of PAGs can provide a better justification than that. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We're obviously not going to agree on this, so I'll remove the article from my watchlist. Schazjmd   (talk)  17:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)