Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in source reliability discussions

This is an essay on the reliability of sources.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

This page in a nutshell: When discussing source reliability at the reliable sources noticeboard, article talk pages, and elsewhere, arguments should be grounded in the reliable sources guideline; this page highlights some arguments to avoid.

Shortcut

WP:ATARSWP:ATARS

"Just a vote"

Deprecate IDontTrustAnything (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally reliable EverythingIsTrue (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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) 10:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally reliable because it is neutral according to Media Bias/Fact Check. TruthSeeker (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional considerations apply as it was rated poor by Ad Fontes Media NuancedReader (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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) 10:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally unreliable: It's not cited anywhere on Wikipedia. WhatEvenIsThis (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity

Generally reliable: The website's Facebook page has over 1 million likes. You'reFamous (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally reliable: The author has over 20 million Instagram followers. CelebrityWatcher (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally unreliable: The book sold less than 100 copies. IDon'tKnowYou (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability/having a Wikipedia article

Generally reliable since it's notable with its own Wikipedia article. GNG Fan (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions about content

Generally unreliable: That site mostly spews trivial information. WhatAMess (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Arguments to avoid
Arguments to avoid	On discussion pages in adminship discussions in source reliability discussions in edit wars in feature discussions in deletion discussions in deletion reviews in file deletion discussions in place and transportation related deletion discussions
Good arguments	List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates Arguments to make in deletion discussions How to save an article nominated for deletion