Talk:Fantasy Congress

Speedy Deletion

Hey, author here.

Admittedly, I'm new to wikipedia, so if I'm wrong, just fill me in. I'm not finished writing this entry, so I don't understand why it qualifies for a "speedy deletion." If that is the problem, than is there a certain {{}} thingy I need to add that says "not done yet" or something similar? Or is there an inherent problem within the article idea itself? I guess I wanted to create the article to highlight the uniqueness of the website/game... I don't see how that qualifies for deletion. Then again, I'm a newbie here, so please fill me in on the correct policy if I am in error. Thanks, --Spufum 02:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for handling the situation in a clam manner, it is quite rare and I am always happy to see that. However, the speedy deletion tag was placed because articles on Wikipedia must show WP:Notability, in particular for websites the WP:WEB policy applies. I will give you an opportunity on this talk page to attempt to show the notability of this website (try and find third party links from reliable sources which show that this site is notable). Otherwise I will have to delete it (or it make undergo articles for deletion) for lack of notability. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 04:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. In an effort to quickly get some sources to prove notability, I enlisted the aid of a friend of mine and jumped to it. First, the New York Times had a piece on Fantasy Congress in October of 2006, explaining the premise of the activity and the appeal of it to people tired of fantasy football, etc. and looking to keep up on the political process. [1] Next, we found an article from Newsday.com, which, although less prestigious than the New York Times, still explains the idea behind Fantasy Congress and has some excerpts from an interview with the creator(s).[2]The site even recieved a quick mention in CNN's "The Situation Room" blog.[3] Finally, failing those sources, the Alexa rankings for Fantasy Congress show that the site at the very least is popular. [4] I hope that helps the article fulfill the notability requirement -- I don't have time to integrate all of this information (and the rest of the entry) tonight, but I'll complete it as soon as I can. Thanks for your help. --Spufum 04:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, those sources fit the assertion of notability criteria which is required to avoid speedy deletion. Thank you, I will remove the tag.--Jersey Devil 05:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

To other user's viewing this page whom still believe it should be removed from Wikipedia, please list it for articles for deletion. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 05:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My two cents' worth: it is really great to see such a reasonable discussion of notability! By the way, I'm adding an orphan tag, because the only link is from the list of fantasy sports (not even in the main descriptive content of that page).

Uncategorized

Where'd the tag go? I don't know how to categorize things... I'll look it up/finish the article soon. --Spufum 22:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Verifiable Sources

There are lots of verifiable news articles on fantasy congress now. So, it should be pretty easy to clean up this article.Punters (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not online anymore

This website appears to be defunct and is not online anymore. Should that be noted. More information is needed about this if it shouldn't be deleted. Hjghassell (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that, too, and have wondered what to do here, as well. I know it's not working, but I'm having a hard time finding anything on the internet discussing it's demise in order to reference any changes. I'm sure something will pop up that will suffice. Regarding keep/delete... I think the policy is once notable, always notable, and there are a good number of past news articles that discussed the uniqueness of the site. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 01:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead

Lead seems a little long when compared to the content of the article. Maybe it can be broken up and there can be another section or content should be added. Leefkrust22 (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

References that can be used

I don't really what to put in this article. It does interest me, though, so here are two articles that can be used to help this article.

• Clough, Richard (November 1, 2006). "Players accrue political points in online 'Fantasy Congress' game". The Seattle Times. The Seattle Times Company. Retrieved February 16, 2012.
• "Fantasy league tracks Congress". St. Petersburg Times. July 14, 2007. p. 4A.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fantasy Congress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070206075510/http://www.fantasycongress.com:80/fc/ to http://www.fantasycongress.com/fc/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Site has been revived Asebold (talk) 04:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, as of 2018 this website has been revived under new ownership. Full disclosure, I am the one spearheading the new project. Today, I’m removing some blatant spam from the article then adding additional sources. Here are all the working sources I’ve found regarding the original project, with the more reputable ones towards the top:

• http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/23/washington/23fantasy.html
• https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-jul-11-me-fantasy11-story.html
• http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6486526
• https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2602470&page=1
• https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/players-accrue-political-points-in-online-fantasy-congress-game/
• https://www.politico.com/story/2007/12/get-ready-for-january-madness-007527
• http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-03-15/features/0703130261_1_new-fantasy-league-tony-soprano-trend
• https://www.zdnet.com/article/dont-like-washington-live-in-the-world-of-the-fantasy-congress/
• https://www.twincities.com/2007/07/13/fantasy-football-meet-fantasy-congress/
• https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/issues/issue_121/2572-Fantasy-Congress

Aside from the website itself, I haven’t found much information about the revived project at this time. I plan on reaching out to publications closer to fantasy football season in hopes it will be more likely to get picked up. There was this article in 2018, though much of it does not reflect how the site operates currently: https://conatusnews.com/fantasy-congress-midterm-congressional-elections/

Also, another editor mentioned they weren’t sure why the original was discontinued. I’ve spoke with one of the original founders (Andrew Lee), and he said Fantasy Congress was eventually discontinued because they weren’t making any money and decided to pursue a different start-up idea called “Jam Legend”. That I’m aware of, there aren’t any resources that state this explicitly. Not sure how or if we would want to add this to the article. Asebold (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

5/16/2020 - I have cleaned up the citations to the best of my ability (I am new and still learning the markup). The article is looking a little bare now. Several of the articles listed above detail the number of users/players/leagues the original site had through the course of it's life, and I think it would helpful to add that information to the article. Helps explain the significance of the site. Some of the above articles also feature interviews from players. I think it'd be helpful to add information about their feedback, perhaps something like "players of the game said they were more aware of what has happening in congress and learned new information about politics" then provide a citation to one of the articles with an interview.

5/8/2021 - Removed vandalism from the page. Rearranged some of the content to make the page more up to date. Added a couple of new references.