![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 13 March 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
Presumably, this is an American online newspaper? Also, only English language? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
@ Jone Rohne Nester:, I think this tag was a mistake, this is a notable RS. Valoem talk contrib 02:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@ 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)
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 ( talk • contribs)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 13 March 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
Presumably, this is an American online newspaper? Also, only English language? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
@ Jone Rohne Nester:, I think this tag was a mistake, this is a notable RS. Valoem talk contrib 02:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@ 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)
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 ( talk • contribs)