Talk:The Daily Dot

Untitled
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)
 * Hi! There have been some Reliable source noticeboard posts related to The Daily Dot:
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_102
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_105
 * I'm not really sure if there has been a firm decision made on it.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

American?
Presumably, this is an American online newspaper? Also, only English language? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Controversy section is utter garbage
I've deleted the controversy section because it was not sourced whatsoever and had a very unencyclopedic tone to it. The JJ  chat?  05:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a notable RS
, I think this tag was a mistake, this is a notable RS. Valoem  talk   contrib  02:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

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)