Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faceball


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Faceball

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability has not been established after nine years of the Notability template being on the page. CPColin (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 16:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 16:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete – Total Google News references found here, . Need more be said. ShoesssS Talk 18:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * But the article itself has sources. What Google News chooses to reference isn't a notability criteria. Hobit (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NFT.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Setting aside the absurdity of the subject, the subject of this article did not receive significant coverage from the news sources cited in the article. Newslinger (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources seem fine. Could you explain your issue with the sources? Hobit (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed 3 references that pointed to dead links. The remaining 5 have issues:
 * KPIX-TV (CBS): Not significant coverage. Linked video is no longer available.
 * Metro: Not a reliable source, since Metro is a tabloid published by Daily Mail and General Trust.
 * Valleywag: Not significant coverage.
 * Wired: OK.
 * Daily Mail: Not a reliable source. Not independent, since a third of the article is a quote from the game's inventor.
 * Additionally, this fad fails WP:EVENT since it had no lasting effects, was limited in geographical scope, and didn't receive continued coverage. Newslinger (talk) 02:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's go one at a time.
 * That a link is dead is no reason to remove the reference nor to discount it from WP:N. See WP:DEADLINK.  Secondly, it's not an event, it's a game.  Third, the coverage you sited 1/3 of the way around the earth (California to England), not sure how GEOSCOPE plays a role.  Fourth, Daily Mail and related things were counted as reliable sources at that time and AFAICT are considered reliable unless the claims are extraordinary .  So yes, we have a ton of sources.  Hobit (talk) 03:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed the dead links because there are three more citations for the same sentence that aren't dead. Regarding the dead links:
 * Faceball: This is the game's website, which is now defunct. Not reliable or independent.
 * Yodel Andectodal: According to TechCrunch, this was Yahoo's corporate blog. Note that Yahoo was the parent company of Flickr, which is where this game originated. Not reliable or independent.
 * CBS Sports: The citation says that this was from Clay Travis's defunct "ClayNation" sports column, and the "face-ball" in the article's title is hyphenated, which adds doubt to whether this source was even about the same topic. The Wayback Machine has no archive of this source, and I'm unable to find this source published online elsewhere. Also, a sports column is a questionable source.
 * I cited WP:EVENT because this was a fad (classified under "viral phenomena"). None of the sources describe the game being played outside of Yahoo offices. I stand by my delete vote. Newslinger (talk) 05:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Wired and Daily Mail both have articles solely on the topic (yes, DM from 2007 was a reliable source). That, plus other sources in the article meet WP:N.  It's silly, but it documents a real thing that had real coverage in real sources. Hobit (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2018 (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.