From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

Just wondering, why is this site considered a reliable source to be cited on Wikipedia when it seems to be a blog at best? Killhamster ( talk) 20:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply

American?

Presumably, this is an American online newspaper? Also, only English language? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Controversy section is utter garbage

I've deleted the controversy section because it was not sourced whatsoever and had a very unencyclopedic tone to it. TheJJ chat? 05:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

This is a notable RS

@ Jone Rohne Nester:, I think this tag was a mistake, this is a notable RS. Valoem talk contrib 02:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Valoem: Hi, no it wasn't a mistake. I can't find any reasons why spammy websites like The Daily Dot should be on Wikipedia. Secondly, there are no reliable sources. This article will be tagged with afd , so we can discuss it further. Thanks Jone Rohne Nester ( talk) 09:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply

I have to agree, there isn't really any notoriety for this, and similar, online only "news sources" The content is 75% opinion based and bias, even by 2019 msm norms. PeaceKeeper1234 01:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacekeeper 1234 ( talkcontribs)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

Just wondering, why is this site considered a reliable source to be cited on Wikipedia when it seems to be a blog at best? Killhamster ( talk) 20:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply

American?

Presumably, this is an American online newspaper? Also, only English language? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Controversy section is utter garbage

I've deleted the controversy section because it was not sourced whatsoever and had a very unencyclopedic tone to it. TheJJ chat? 05:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

This is a notable RS

@ Jone Rohne Nester:, I think this tag was a mistake, this is a notable RS. Valoem talk contrib 02:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Valoem: Hi, no it wasn't a mistake. I can't find any reasons why spammy websites like The Daily Dot should be on Wikipedia. Secondly, there are no reliable sources. This article will be tagged with afd , so we can discuss it further. Thanks Jone Rohne Nester ( talk) 09:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply

I have to agree, there isn't really any notoriety for this, and similar, online only "news sources" The content is 75% opinion based and bias, even by 2019 msm norms. PeaceKeeper1234 01:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacekeeper 1234 ( talkcontribs)


Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook