Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
- Is a "____sucks.com" blog a notable or reliable source?
I would say it depends on its content and readership. It might be, but you have to take a look at it. In this case there seems to be substantial readership and contents could probably be used in the context. "Hostile critics, writing on ...sucks point out blah blah." In some cases sites like this may engage in serious research which can lead you to reliable verifiable material. (For example Xenu.net, an anti-Scientology site).
I assume you want to inject some "ignore all rules here", as [[WP:V]] quite clearly states:
Self-published sources
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so.
We all like [[Space opera in Scientology doctrine]], but if its only source would be xenu.net, it would have been deleted.
Regards, Peter Jacobi [[User:Pjacobi]]