Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in source reliability discussions

"Just a vote"

• Deprecate IDontTrustAnything (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
• Generally reliable EverythingIsTrue (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Again, polling is not a substitute for discsusion. Consensus is weighted based off of arguments grounded in policy, not based on votes.

Trusted by X

• Generally unreliable because the browser extension NewsGuard says so. MythDebunker (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
• Generally reliable because it is neutral according to Media Bias/Fact Check. TruthSeeker (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
• Additional considerations apply as it was rated poor by Ad Fontes Media NuancedReader (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

News monitoring organizations are unable to assess whether a source complies with all of Wikipedia's policies. A source being rated poorly by multiple organizations is indicative that it is potentially unsuitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, but not always.

Citations on Wikipedia

• Generally reliable: It's cited over 1,000 times on Wikipedia. Mainstreamer (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable: It's not cited anywhere on Wikipedia. WhatEvenIsThis (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Popularity

• Generally reliable: The website's Facebook page has over 1 million likes. You'reFamous (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
• Generally reliable: The author has over 20 million Instagram followers. CelebrityWatcher (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable: The book sold less than 100 copies. IDon'tKnowYou (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Notability/having a Wikipedia article

• Generally reliable since it's notable with its own Wikipedia article. GNG Fan (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Opinions about content

• Generally unreliable: That site mostly spews trivial information. WhatAMess (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2026 (UTC)