Talk:The Daily Dot

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 March 2017. The result of the discussion was keep.

Journalism Mid‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Internet culture Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Untitled

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

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

American?

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Presumably, this is an American online newspaper? Also, only English language? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Controversy section is utter garbage

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

This is a notable RS

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@Jone Rohne Nester:, I think this tag was a mistake, this is a notable RS. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 02:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Valoem: 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)Reply

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)

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Untitled

American?

Controversy section is utter garbage

This is a notable RS