Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror/Sources
This is an overview of sources that can be used for horror-related articles.
A source does not need to have its own article to be deemed reliable and having an article is not always an indication of reliability.
Search all online reliable secondary sources for horror.
Resources
[edit]Archive websites help prevent link rot.
- Archive.org, the Wayback Machine
- Webcitation.org WebCitation
- Ghostarchive.org Ghost Archive
Reliable sources
[edit]Reliable independent sources support claims and establish notability per W:GNG. Reliable sources must be verifiable. Most print media from credible publishing houses have editors and are thus considered reliable in general. Expert self-published sources can be used to establish notability; be careful to follow BLP guidelines. For an overview of mainstream online sources considered reliable on Wikipedia see Wikipedia:Reliable sources and its derivative pages.
Horror or pop culture sites
[edit]| Name | Owner |
|---|---|
| JoBlo.com (link) | Janvik Holdings |
| Bloody Disgusting (link) | Cineverse |
| Cinema Blend (link) | Future US |
| Den of Geek (link) | DoG Tech LLC |
| Dread Central (link) | Be Afraid Media |
| Cinefantastique (link) | Spherewerx |
| Fangoria (link) | Fangoria Publishing, LLC |
| SFReviews.net/SFF180[a] (SFF180 link, SFReviews.net archive) | Thomas M. Wagner |
| PopHorror (link) | Jamil Ventures |
| Rue Morgue (link) | Marrs Media Inc |
| This is Horror (link) | Michael David Wilson |
| Shock Till You Drop (link) | Evolve Media |
- Reliable authors who may self-publish (print or online)
Situational sources
[edit]- Film Threat (link): The site started charging for reviews in 2011. Their current format does offer a free review option, but there is a heavy emphasis on purchasing a promotional package. Because of this, only reviews and articles dated to 2010 or earlier can be used to establish notability. Only people who have purchased a marketing package can receive a nomination for Film Threat's Award This! review. Because of that, and the overall lack of coverage in independent, secondary reliable sources, the award is also not usable for establishing notability.
- HorrorNews.net link: HorrorNews.net began offering marketing/PR services in 2018. Anything published on the site before 2018 is usable for establishing notability; anything published after this date is not.
- Horror Society link: Per this discussion, some journalists for the site use IMDb for information such as dates of birth and so on. The site is usable for reviews, but not for news stories that require fact checking.
- iHorror link: iHorror began offering advertising by way of sponsored content in mid to late 2020. Wayback versions of their site as of June 2020 show an absence of an advertising page, so only reviews or coverage from this date or earlier should be considered reliable. The site does offer an award, however it does not appear to be notable enough to count towards notability due to the overall lack of coverage in independent, secondary reliable sources.
Questionable sources
[edit]- Daily Dead (link): The site does offer sponsored content, which they appear to have done since the site was launched. This content appears to be clearly marked. Anything marked as sponsored content cannot be used to establish notability. This will need to be run through WP:RS/N.
Unproven sources
[edit]Unproven sources are those which have not yet been examined by the project. They can not be used to establish notability.
- Crypt Teaze, has editorial oversight
- CineGore, Hungarian site, can't make out exactly what is said but seems to be split off from a magazine
Official websites
[edit]Many films, TV series, or other works have their own official websites, these can be reliable for claims about production and release dates, etc, but do not help establish notability.
- Examples for works
- Examples for persons
- Stephenking.com for author Stephen King
Databases
[edit]Databases are collections of information from other places, databases can be reliable in cases like Box Office Mojo and The Numbers or they can be unreliable like IMDb. Databases in general are insufficient for establishing notability. Databases are often fit to be external links on articles.
Unreliable sources
[edit]These sources have been deemed unreliable per the project, they should rarely if ever be used. They can not establish notability.
- Online
- Vanity awards. These are festivals and competitions where users are effectively purchasing an award. This is often masked as an entrance fee, however some may also charge to receive a trophy, plaque, or other signs that a work has won. An entrance fee is not always an indication of a vanity award. Sundance is a reputable festival that charges submission fees. When judging an award of this nature you should examine if the fee seems exorbitant or if there are other hidden fees. You should also see how frequently the festival runs and how many people are awarded each time. A sure sign of a vanity award is a festival or award that runs quarterly and has dozens upon dozens of winners for each category (ie, everyone gets a trophy). These festivals may also have an extremely large amount of categories that go beyond topics such as "best actor/actress, best film, etc". Of note, keep in mind that while all vanity awards are non-notable for purposes of establishing notability, not all non-notable awards are vanity awards. Some may just be non-notable.
Examples of awards deemed vanity awards by Wikipedia editors or outside people include:
- Indie Fest (film)
- Red Movie Awards (film)
- National "Best Books" Awards (book)
- Creative Spirit Awards (book)
- Reader's Favorite (book)
- IndieReader Discovery Awards (book)[b]
See also
[edit]- ↑ SFF180 appears to have been abandoned as of 2024 and is marked as still under construction.
- ↑ On the Writer Beware blog Victoria Strauss does not explicitly call it a scam or vanity award but does question the high entry fees.