8

There is a recent close-vote review for a question that had a YouTube video in the post as the artifact for the game(s) needed to be identified. However, the post is nearing 4 years of age, and it seems the YouTube video is no longer available. A user commented on the post saying:

Flagging as "needs details or clarity" because the video link is no longer available.

Should posts like this be flagged as so? Should they be flagged with the standard Game Identification close reason of...

Game identification questions that rely solely on memory are off topic here. If you find a game in a video, advertisement, news article, movie and so on, and you have a picture, video/audio file, or other medium to point to, we can answer that. See our Game Identification Wiki for more info and for help with your search.

...instead? Should they be left alone if that are answered (which this one is and accepted)...?

  • 5
    Personally, I'm going to close as needs detail or clarity as the asker did attempt to follow the rules initially. – MBraedley Jan 11 at 16:26
5

When the linked resource is no longer available, and we cannot easily locate an archive, mirror, or reupload, closing as 'Needs Details or Clarity' makes the most sense.

In this case, we don't even have anywhere to start looking for mirrors or reuploads - the video or channel was never mentioned by name.

There's also a question of usefulness for broken-link - if the source has been taken down entirely and no such backup exists - it's not really worth keeping on the site - it won't be useful to future readers. It'd be a bit different if it were a notable source like "What is the videogame shown in the movie Lorem Ipsum - [dead video link]" - because that could be useful in the future (and we could probably find that scene elsewhere).

So yes, 'Needs Details or Clarity' is the correct close reason in this case.

  • 3
    If the OP is around, remembers what the video was, and can provide an alternate link, then we can look at reopening the question, but otherwise, as far as I can tell it's lost to the sands of time – Robotnik♦ Jan 11 at 23:00
7

Well, I updated the link. I checked whether the video was snapshotted in the wayback machine and it appears to be working from there. Albeit quite slowly and no more embed possible.

It was a video I watched, because the topic of the video sounded intriguing. It's from a youtuber I never watched again. Just was interested in Night in the woods as it looked interesting and I couldn't recognize it, I linked the video and asked about it.

It looks like the Youtuber in question deleted his entire channel in late 2019 due to mental health issues.

Though, I'm absolutely puzzled how people find dead links in ancient questions, which aren't popular to begin with. :D

  • 2
    I didn't know archive.org took on YouTube too - that's a gargantuan task. In any case, thanks for updating your question! – Robotnik♦ Jan 12 at 10:43
  • Wow, didn't think Wayback machine would work for youtube. I suppose your post is valid once again! Going to leave the other answer as correct, since its about the handling of these types of questions, but thanks for the update. – Timmy Jim Jan 12 at 12:57
  • Yes, don't. Otherwise G will try and kill this too. Keep it secret. Keep it safe. – Mazura Jan 13 at 0:55
  • @Mazura I doubt Google cares about the video. It was deleted, because the creator deleted his entire channel. Nothing to do with copyright strikes or whatever from Youtube itself. – Dulkan Jan 13 at 7:07

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .