F
Fundgy
Guest
Cult Following - exercise caution: new section
[td][/td] [td]Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the [[Wikipedia
roposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Templateroposed deletion notify --> [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 21:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td]Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the [[Wikipediaroposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Templateroposed deletion notify --> [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 21:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]== Cult Following - exercise caution ==[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]A.k.a. https://cultfollowing.co.uk/[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Months ago, when I was quite new to Wikipedia, I added an article from this source to a page, but I've since removed it because I noticed something quite glaring in hindsight. I can't find a '''single''' article that's not written by its "chief editor". Is this site essentially a glorified blog, subject to [[WP:BLOGS]]? I'd like to hear some of your thoughts on whether this should be listed under "generally unreliable", which is what I'm currently leaning towards. Around a few dozen articles on Wikipedia seem to use this source, so it's not unmanageable to deal with this if y'all view this as a problem. Thanks! [[User:Fundgy|Fundgy]] ([[User talk:Fundgy|talk]]) 22:50, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
Continue reading...
| Line 142: | Line 142: |
[td]
β Previous revision
[/td][td]
[td][/td]Revision as of 22:50, 2 September 2025
[/td][td][/td] [td]Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the [[Wikipedia
roposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Templateroposed deletion notify --> [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 21:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[/td][td]Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the [[Wikipedia
roposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Templateroposed deletion notify --> [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 21:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]== Cult Following - exercise caution ==[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]A.k.a. https://cultfollowing.co.uk/[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Months ago, when I was quite new to Wikipedia, I added an article from this source to a page, but I've since removed it because I noticed something quite glaring in hindsight. I can't find a '''single''' article that's not written by its "chief editor". Is this site essentially a glorified blog, subject to [[WP:BLOGS]]? I'd like to hear some of your thoughts on whether this should be listed under "generally unreliable", which is what I'm currently leaning towards. Around a few dozen articles on Wikipedia seem to use this source, so it's not unmanageable to deal with this if y'all view this as a problem. Thanks! [[User:Fundgy|Fundgy]] ([[User talk:Fundgy|talk]]) 22:50, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]Continue reading...
