Talk:Deadspin/Archives/2023/December

Sportshuman of the Year

Rather than just putting up the bracket from SHOTY, perhaps a recap of what the contest meant, and how Barbaro came to be the victor is in order. Someone unfamiliar with the concept would not gain much from an unaccompanied bracket. Slurms MacKenzie 08:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS A JOKE AWARD and an insult, keep references to it off of the Barbaro page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peakdetector (talk • contribs)

There is no evolution or intellect in Deadspin. That's just the way jocks/sports nuts are, no creativity and easily intimdated. Struggle with no true victory. Catherine Huebscher 11:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Not everything has to have intellectual content, somethings can just be fun. If you want creativity visit Deadspin with an open mind and see the way sports has expanded beyond the box scores. As far as easily intimidated, I do not see any Deadspinner back down yet, and won't. "Struggle with no true victory"? I'm not exactly sure what that is supposed to mean but I think I won that article for deletion thing, didn't we? Zzz345zzZ 08:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

From a cursory glance, the award seems to have been a satire, judging from talk of an image of Barbaro ascending to heaven surrounded by winged tubes of glue. We shouldn't be using satire at Wikipedia; please don't feign mock seriousness at Wikipedia. --Kjoonlee 09:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide a link to the rule that says no satire? Or is this your own personal interpretation of things? And perhaps if you took the time to, oh, you know, actually understand what you're talking about as opposed to just taking a cursory glance at things, well, that might help as well. Dweeze 22:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT and WP:MOS probably include it. --Kjoonlee 23:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Probably include it"? That's really not provided a source. It also tends to back up Dweeze's notion that you don't understand what you are talking about and just take a cursory glance at things. Zzz345zzZ 23:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't satire WP:POV? --Kjoonlee 10:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't best actor, most impotant scientific breakthrough, MVP POV? Think before you talk.Zzz345zzZ 18:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Reporting POV is different from using POV in reporting. --Kjoonlee 22:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, thank you for proving my point. Although the award itself is most definitely POV, but by mentioning it in an article is reporting it, and is in no way POV on Wikipedia's part. Zzz345zzZ 22:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but reporting only one POV is also NPOV. --Kjoonlee 23:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

And POV reporting of POV is also possible. --Kjoonlee 23:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It is, that is why I took the quotes out from around win. Zzz345zzZ 23:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I hope nobody disagrees with the fact that the use of satirical prose at Wikipedia is against policy. --Kjoonlee 01:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"Win" should not be surrounded by quotes, it is vague and implies that the horse did not actually win it, which he did. Zzz345zzZ 06:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call being-depicted-as-ascending-to-heaven-surrounded-by-glue winning, IMHO. --Kjoonlee 00:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, that is your point of view (POV). Haven't we been over this before? You may continue to think whatever you like, but when you use phrases such as "IMHO" as your main argument, you are going to continue to lose. Zzz345zzZ 01:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless if he were the head of Bostik, which he isn't. --Kjoonlee 00:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

His head may have been made into Bostik Zzz345zzZ 01:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, the point of writing on talk pages is not to win or lose, but to cooperate on making articles better. Please listen to other people's opinions on how the article is good or bad. --Kjoonlee 01:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I listen to how other people would like to improve the article by following the Wikipedia guidelines. You, however, are determined to make your own rules and have decided to make both the Deadspin and Barbaro articles your personal soapbox. Zzz345zzZ 01:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. Except for the "winning" bit, I don't see how you can accuse me of that. --Kjoonlee 02:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Anway, if nobody disagrees that being-depicted-as-ascending-to-heaven-surrounded-by-glue does not count as winning, I suggest someone come up with a better wording to describe the same event. --Kjoonlee 02:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want people to undertstand what you are saying try not to use double negatives and unnecessary hyphenation. Zzz345zzZ 02:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

“Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.” I agree with the first bit, but not with the second. Anyway, I think my point still stands. --Kjoonlee 03:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Quoting a line from a children's story does not make you correct in your argument. The award was won. The horse did not lose the award, and was not runner-up. It came in first place, thereby making it the winner. You would not say Tom Hanks was given the Oscar, you would not say that Albeter Pujols "won" the MVP award. This is no different. Try to take a step back and remove your own personal POV for a moment. Once again you are trying to insert your own feelings into an article where it does not belong. Zzz345zzZ 04:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

All the best actors do not have a contest to see who wins the actor. Chemists don't run a series of experiments to see who wins the Nobel Prize. They do not have a punt, pass, and kick for NFL MVP. These awards are won through the course of their normal work. Barbaro is no different. He did not directly compete for the award, but none of these awards are directly competed for, but they are all still won. Zzz345zzZ 18:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

From "mainstream recognition" section

am anonymous IP offered this:

Also the ongoing battle between "Carl Monday" and Mike Cooper have became a running gag among Deadspin readers.

This has nothing to do with the section where it was posted. I place it hre in case anyone would like to collect a definitive list of "running gags"

It definitely belongs in a list of running gags on Deadspin. I don't think I've seen one day go by in the last 2 months without a Carl Monday reference.--Freepablo 05:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete This

Dude below has a massive chip on his shoulder. Sounds like personal issues. Although the merits of a page for Will Letch is questionable, deadspin is one of the most popular sites on the web and needs to stay on here. Yes, it could be edited somewhat, but so can most of the articles about websites.

This is a waste of wikipedia space and an example of poor online journalism. I move to delete this page; it's pointless and reads like an advert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peakdetector (talk • contribs)

Fair enough. You should submit a WP:AFD for this article and explain how it fails to meet WP:WEB. Ytny 02:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a website known only to a select group of online subscibers and it's an insult to wikipedia. The editors are racist, sexist and lowbrow at least shorten the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Peakdetector (talk • contribs)

Time to delete or cut this way back, they have no relevancy to the sports world and are an example of internet site's seeking credence. The chart of their award winners is pointless-online and print magazines of far greater importance have much smaller or no articles. Deadspin staff have showed rabid contempt for the Barbaro article and are vandalizing it hourly. They need to take their own medicine.Peakdetector 07:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you are having a discussion with yourself. Try signing your remarks and not hiding behind the faceless internet. As far as your complaints, lets run down them:

1) It's pointless - Just because you don't read the site, does not make it pointless.

2) Only known to a select few - I will point you to the statistics released by Gawker Media. It shows over 5 million page visits in the month of January.

3) No relevancy to the sports world - The most prominent running gag on the blog, and one that can undoubtedly be sourced directly from Deadspin is the "You're With Me, Leather" joke, which has been used on Sportscenter, and both Tony Kornheiser and Keith Olberman's radio shows. For other references to the joke, both in sports related media, and pop culure in general, please see the article You're with me, leather.

4) Online and print magazines of "far greater importance" have smaller articles - Then edit articles for other news outlets you deem more worthy, as long as the subject is deemed noteworthy, which Deadspin most assuredly is, the article length is not regulated in length relative to similar articles.

5) Deadspin staff hate Barbaro.... - No Deadspin staff have ever edited either the Barbaro or Deadspin Wikipedia articles, nor have they ever had anything but kind words for the horse. Those who say otherwise fail to see that the butt of all jokes coming from the website are aimed squarely at those people obsessed with a horse and who send it letters and or messages via internet.

6) They need to take their own medicine. - Is that threat? You seem to be taking things personally because you don't agree with those who have differing opinions than yourself.

Zzz345zzZ 03:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I could make so many references to take you down but you lack the pop cultural literacy to comprehend them.Peakdetector 07:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how any pop culture reference you come up with "will take me down".Zzz345zzZ 03:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This will end the discussion on whether or not the article should be deleted. The above cited examples along with the section of the article entitled "Mainstream Recognition" will be ample evidence of the noteworthiness of Deadspin.com. Any vandalism you attempt to commit on either this, or Will Leitch's article will be reverted, so save your time. Zzz345zzZ 03:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Its a top 10000 website where (according to this chart) accounts for up to 425 of every 1 million page views on the internet.

Deadspin is not made for a "select few." Commenting on any of Gawker Media's sites require an invite. However, anyone can access Deadspin.THE evil fluffyface 02:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

While I don't think it should be deleted, there definetly needs to be a controversy section. Deadspin has a tendancy to sacrifice Journalism Ethics and Due Proccess in order to get the story out quicker/get more attention. The Brett Farve and ESPN sex thing should definetly be on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.23.213 (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Massive-ish cleanup

While I don't agree with Peakdetector's edits that are clear vandalism, reading the above coments, I actually think his heart's in the right place. This article does read like a promo for the site, much of the information is unsourced and amount to fancruft.

I've taken the liberty of removing parts that I thought were POV, and I think we can improve the material greatly. Following sections should probably go:

• Sportshuman of the Year: Pure fancruft. The bracket is completely useless out of context. At most, it should be mentioned with other contents with a better explanation.
• Deadspin Hall of Fame - Also merge with other contents. It's not a widely recognized hall of fame, and it's essentially a glorified reader poll - Chris Berman and the Carolina Panthers cheerleaders making the Deadspin HOF aren't particularly significant moments in their lives and careers.

Despite what User:Peakdetector thinks, Deadspin is a notable website that has received non-trivial coverage from major media outlets, so sourcing should *not* be a problem. Ytny 19:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are some starter links if anyone wants to dig out there TimesSelect and

• • Mallozzi, Vincent M. (January 29, 2006). "BOX SEATS: CHEERING SECTION; Leaving the Press Box for a Room With a View". The New York Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • "The Year in the Web: Blogged On". Sports Illustrated. December 13, 2005. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

And a couple of free ones:

• • Buechner, Maryanne Murray (August 3, 2006). "50 Coolest Websites 2006". Time. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Hoffarth, Tom (November 27, 2006). "The dubious dozen". LA Daily News. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

-- Ytny 04:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the awards part could definitely be consolidated. Listing who the SHOTY and the Hall of Famers are seems fine to me, including entire brackets and percentages of votes is pushing it. Bolt Vanderhuge 04:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with taking out the entire SHOTY Bracket (leaving the final 4), but the HOF should stay. It may not be a widely recognized HOF, but it is very good at showing what the website is all about and the general content of it from a day to day basis. I am restoring the HOF section now, and will cleanup the SHOTY bracket later.Zzz345zzZ 23:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it. They're just glorified web polls, and web opinion polls are inherently untrustworthy and trivial. There's nothing notable about either SHOTY or DHOF that they require more than a mention in the 'Contents' section, if at all. Rather than try to apply your own interpretation into the significance of the results, wouldn't it be more effective and encyclopedic to find an independent source saying, "This is what goes on at Deadspin and these are the kind of stories they cover"? Ytny 00:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Please don't put it back in, and please don't do it with a misleading edit summary. --Kjoonlee 00:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

So if, say, Sports Illustrated had a Hall of Fame? Or ESPN? No, I'm not suggesting that Deadspin is at that same level. But, considering the growth of the site and the extent to which it is read, it's not hard to see it in a few years as the Web equivalent of either one of them. The HOF and the SHOTY are examples of what Deadspin is, as well as being subjects of interest to anyone likely to be looking up Deadspin, and isn't that the ultimate point? Dweeze 22:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Dweeze, a good example is Sports Illustrated's Sportsman of the Year. It's an award that deserves mention and description because it's widely recognized by other media outlets to be a notable honor. When they pick the SMOTY, it's a media story.

With SHOTY and DHOF, as popular as they may be, they are still a pisstake on actual sports honors. And they don't even have the same level of media and cultural recognition as even other satirical awards like the Razzies and Esquire's Dubious Achievements. As it is, they are just part of the site's overall content - the overall content is notable, the individual features and specials aren't. talk to Ytny 17:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hall of Fame

After reviewing the Wikipedia:Fancruft policies, I have decided that this section deserves to stay. My reasons are as follows:

1) "...things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and non-neutral - all valid reasons for deletion."

- This section is extremely well referenced and wikified, so does not qualify for deletion under either of those arguments. It is also well formatted and well written as it pertains to each member of the HOF. The descriptions themselves of the enshrinees come directly from Deadspin and pertain as to why they were enshrined, so it does no qualify as non-neutral, as we are just reporting.

2) "It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles."

- This line directly backs up the claim that just by being fancruft, does not make sections to be deleted, and these sections can, in fact, add to the over quality of the article.

3) "Of course, as Wikipedia is a wiki, its materials reflect readers' priorities, since anyone may add more information about their preferred subjects, but the issue of systemic bias is a real one, as is the issue of bias with deletion of verifiable material under the vague notion of it being "unencylopedic."

- and finally this line attempts to stop this section from being deleted for being the vague "unecyclopedic" without solid reasoning behind it. The fact remains that because of the accessibility and ever changing nature of Wikipedia, it contains much more information on a wider variety of subjects than a standard encyclopedia you will find at the library. A great example of this are TV shows and movies (and pop culture in general). Some very notable TV shows or films will get a small mention in a hard copy encyclopedia, but on Wikipedia even lesser known shows can have sprawling articles for each episode and become featured articles (ie Arrested Development).

- Zzz345zzZ 18:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As to claims of Original Research, Self Published sources, and NPOV:

• Original research: Everything is cited with link directly backing up the information provided in article.
• Self Published Research: Please see WP:RS#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves. It states that

Self-published material, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about the author, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote the material, and so long as it is:

   * relevant to the self-publisher's notability;
   * not contentious;
   * not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing;
   * about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject;

The reputation of the self-publisher is a guide to whether the material rises to the level of notability at all.

The publisher in this case would be Deadspin. It is relevant to the publisher because it shows what is actually being written about on the site. It is not contentious. It is not self-serving, nor self-aggrandizing. Deadspin has nothing to gain from having this information on Wikipedia, besides educating those curious about it. And the information is all directly about Deadspin and its Hall of Fame. While this does include information about other parties, there are sufficent links both with Wikipedia and to outside sources beyond Deadspin to keep the information.

• NPOV: This is not my point of view and we are just reporting on the POV of the subject in question, no different from reporting on the political views of a politician. All material is sourced to back this up.

Zzz345zzZ 23:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to write this, but the biggest problems are that:

1. No claim or assertion of notability of the particular section is made.
2. The sources for the HOF and SHOTY sections are irrelevant to the self-publisher's notability.

HOF and SHOTY are merely interesting. As I said before, the notability of Deadspin is unquestioned and well sourced. The two "awards" are hardly notable, and nowhere does Deadspin seriously claim they are.

Finally, POV refers to the section of the intro, "Many still consider Deadspin to be the single most trafficked blog, however, since AOL Fanhouse is more of a collection of various blogs". The use of "many still consider" and AOL Fanhouse's setup, as true as they may be, are WP:WEASEL and WP:OR.

So yeah, it's okay to refer to Deadspin to talk about SHOTY and DHOF. But only if you can find sources that support their notability. Otherwise, they don't deserve any more than a mention or a short description. Again, I think a good example is SI Sportsman of the Year - its notability is well established, so there's no problem with referring to SI's description of the award or its assertion of notability. That first step is missing for Deadspin "awards". Ytny (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed the intro paragraph so take out any perception of POV. Fanhouse itself mentioned that Deadspin is basically 1 guy while Fanhouse is a bunch. Sorry if there was any complaints there, I should have been more clear.

The reason why I think the HOF should be included is because this is the type of information that does make Deadspin notable. Every member of the HOF is not really true sports, but things found outside the boxscores and pertaining to sports off the field. This is what Deadspin does and why it has become so notable. Therefore I believe that the HOF and SHOTY a great way of showing why Deadspin is so notable. I appreciate you working with me on this, it has been frustrating arguing with other editors who will not have a civil discussion and keep reverting to their POV edits. Zzz345zzZ 00:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop reverting the enitire article. You are also reverting lots of other info that is well sourced and not being debated here.Zzz345zzZ 00:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough on other edits - though "glog" needs to go (see WP:NEO), and "Deadspin may still be considered..." is still WP:WEASEL, but I can work on that later.

I'm afraid I'm not with you on DHOF and SHOTY showing Deadspin's notability. I think I understand your point - they reflect Deadspin's tone and breadth of topics, which are reasons for Deadspin's popularity, and the popularity in turn begets Deadspin's notability. But that's a really roundabout path to get to the point, and getting there involves original research or your personal interpretation. It seems unnecessary, especially when the section about a glorified internet poll is bloated and we have enough sources directly supporting the site's notability. So I'm going to revert the "Features" section to the way it was. Ytny (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

So would you prefer to see an additional section in Contents at is an overview of the most popular/longest running stories with background info? Currently there is very little in the way of describing what the site is about outside of "You're with me, Leather".Zzz345zzZ 00:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need a new section. You could add something like,

The site covers sports, as well as other subjects surrounding sports and sports personalities, such as the "You're with me, leather" anecdote involving Chris Berman of ESPN.

. I don't think we need much more than that. Ytny (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not really being fair to the subject. Why even have an article on Deadspin if you do not mention beyond a line or two of what is actually occuring on the site? Zzz345zzZ 01:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that's being unfair, or why we're worried about fairness on Wikipedia. The idea is not to be a bottomless pit of information, but to give an overview of what Deadspin is and what makes Deadspin notable. If we can do that with as few words as possible, then that's fantastic. Ytny (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps fair isn't the correct word. Having this article without mention of its ongoing stories and general content would be doing an injustice to the site (or any site) as a whole. That would be like writing an article for a novel, including basic overview of the characters, author, setting, etc, but completely leaving out any mention of the plot. These stories are what makes the site what it is. While references to it in pop culture and listing some of the contributers is nice, this information should be on the periphery of the article, not the body of it. Zzz345zzZ 01:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

But isn't the site's essence its irrelevant attitude towards sports culture and personality, not the Carl Mondays or the Barbaros? Even if there was no YWML or Mike Cooper, Deadspin will still be Deadspin. I think there are decent example of the site's big stories in cited articles, and in the end, I think the individual stories take a back seat to what the sources recognize - the tone and the attitude. Ytny (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The irrelevant attitude and the Carl Monday's and Barbaros of the world go hand in hand. Without the irrelevant attitude there would be no Deadspin, agreed. But how could you have this type of tone without these stories? You cannot seperate the tone from the story, without one, you cannot have the other. Zzz345zzZ 02:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Awards section discussion, again

Having an expanded awards section is no different than the "running gags" section of TV shows such as Seinfeld (which even has its own page devoted to this), 30 Rock, and Arrested Development (a featured article). This proves that items such as this not only is relevant to the subject, but important for understanding it. None of these other articles have outside sources referencing these "running gags". It is not necessary to have them, as the proof of is the subject itself. Zzz345zzZ 06:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There are few things at work here;

1. You're employing a variation of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. "Other articles are doing it" isn't a very good argument. What's acceptable in one article in one subject isn't always acceptable in another. And it's worth noting that the Seinfeld gags article has a cleanup tag slapped on it.
2. A section about a TV show's underlining themes is "no different" from a section listing details of a non-notable goofy feature on a blog? Um, no.
3. Maybe Deadspin's running gags themselves are notable. Notability doesn't transfer from one to another, and the notability of the running gags means nothing for SHOTY or DHOF. To say that either of these features are a reflection on the site's themes is purely your opinion and essentially WP:OR. Ytny (talk) 05:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm not saying that it is crap in other articles, but merely modeling this one after current featured articles (Arrested Development). If such articles are supposed to show the best that wikipedia has to offer, then their content should not include "crap" and would instead have material that should be included by policy. As far as the Seinfeld article, a cleanup tag is VERY different from a deletion tag. The cleanup tag implying that the info should be kept, but reorganized and sourced.
2. I never mentioned themes from a show, only the running gags. Gags from Deadspin such as "You're with me, Leather", Carl Monday, and Barbaro are more notable than most of the running gags mentioned on Arrested Development pages such as the family's love of ice cream, etc.
3. In case you missed it the sole purpose of both the deadspin HOF and SHOTY was to pick the most notable and longest running gags. I did not select them, and did not agree with some of the selections, but they most certainly do reflect the site's themes, not as selected by me, but instead by the site's readership and over 13,000 votes cast. Zzz345zzz

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deadspin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116044933/http://advertising.gawker.com:80/deadspin/ to http://advertising.gawker.com/deadspin/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Ted Cruz

Why does it say Deadspin is owned by Ted Cruz at the top, but Univision Communications at the bottom? This can't be right. Given the feud between Cruz and Deadspin, I'd say the bottom one is correct. Someone please update the page. Tatlayoko (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Update to Deadspin Articles re Cruz & bball photo interchange

Following Marchman's crude cussing post, he posted a challenge to beat anyone who sided with Cruz to a MMA fight, then disappeared from Twitter world. Since his challenge post, Tim Kennedy, MMA fighter and former Special Ops in the US Military has accepted. On the Glen Beck Radio Program 1/27/17, Kennedy repeated his offer via phone interview with Beck. Beck has since offered a $50,000 prize to go a charity chosen by the winner of the Marchman-Kennedy match. Kennedy matched Beck's offer with an additional $50,000 of his own. Marchman has not yet responded to being called out on his challenge. 174.130.16.22 (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Update to Deadspin Articles re Cruz & bball photo interchange

Following Marchman's crude cussing post, he posted a challenge to beat anyone who sided with Cruz to a MMA fight, then disappeared from Twitter world. Since his challenge post, Tim Kennedy, MMA fighter and former Special Ops in the US Military has accepted. On the Glen Beck Radio Program 1/27/17, Kennedy repeated his offer via phone interview with Beck. Beck has since offered a $50,000 prize to go a charity chosen by the winner of the Marchman-Kennedy match. Kennedy matched Beck's offer with an additional $50,000 of his own. Marchman has not yet responded to being called out on his challenge. 174.130.16.22 (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Requesting Sam Walton Samwalton9 attention

Can you please expand upon HBO and Vice being minor coverage? you have significant opinion here, as the retractor of fact, so please do explain. I've tried to engage you in talk for weeks but you just revert but don't engage in talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.49.200.42 (talk • contribs) 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't see you attempting to engage here, just updating the timeline above. Anyway, the pop culture section you added has a single citation to Vice. While it's true that's reliable coverage, it doesn't mention the content you're citing it for - namely that Deadspin was covered on Last Week Tonight. We shouldn't include this information (let alone giving it its own entire section) unless there's a citation covering the LWT inclusion. Please don't re-add the information unless such a source is also added. Sam Walton (talk) 10:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Source on Dead spins 2019 problems

Here. --1.152.111.171 (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

is/was

I keep reverting changes to this article which modify "Deadspin is..." to "Deadspin was...". Such edits keep being made so I feel the need to explain myself. While Deadspin has lost all of its editorial staff, it is still a live website containing readable news articles. As such I think it should still be referred to as "is" until such a time that it is taken offline. I haven't protected the page against these edits because I would consider myself involved. Sam Walton (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It hasn't disappeared from the masthead the way Splinter has. Aresef (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)