User:Daytona2/Unreliable sources

There seems to me to be an increase in the number of statements in articles being based on information from unreliable sources, particulary so in biographies, in contravention of the Reliable sources requirement. So in the spirit of -

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

as quoted in Biographies of living persons here's a list of some that I have noticed -

www.dlisted.com

"Dlisted.com contains published rumors, speculation, assumptions, opinions as well as factual information. Information on this site may or may not be true and not meant to be taken as fact. Dlisted.com makes no warranty as to the validity of any claims."

www.unrealitytv.co.uk