Editing Eurovision Wiki:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (section)

=== Survey (The Points Guy) ===
* '''Option 3 or 4'''. The Points Guy (TPG) is a travel blog consisting of [[WP:SPONSORED|sponsored content]] that primarily focuses on the [[loyalty programs]] of credit cards, airlines, hotels, and other travel companies. As an [[affiliate marketing]] company, TPG is paid when a reader signs up for a credit card or other product that TPG promotes on the website. TPG is a [[WP:QS|questionable source]] because it has an {{xt|"[[WP:QS|apparent conflict of interest]]"}} with the financial institutions that offer those products, and with the companies whose [[co-branded]] credit cards are marketed through TPG. The topics covered in TPG's content almost entirely overlaps with the companies and products associated with TPG's affiliate relationships.{{pb}}The 2007 contract [https://contracts.justia.com/companies/creditcardscom-inc-41356/contract/997246/ "Chase Bank USA, N.A. Affiliate Program Agreement with Affiliate"] that was publicly released in an [[SEC filing]] by <ins>a web property of</ins> [[Bankrate]] (which [https://skift.com/2014/12/01/the-blurring-lines-between-banks-and-travel-writers/ acquired TPG in 2012]) includes the following clauses:
** {{xt|"Affiliate will only use credit card descriptions provided or approved in writing by Chase."}}
** {{xt|"Prior to using any of the Licensed Materials, Affiliate will submit to Chase for approval a draft of all proposed material that incorporates the Licensed Materials, together with a brief statement setting forth the proposed use of such materials and any other background or supporting material reasonably requested by Chase to allow Chase to make an informed judgment. All such materials shall be submitted to Chase at least seven (7) days prior to the date of first intended use. Chase will notify Affiliate of its approval or disapproval of such materials within five (5) business days of its receipt of all information required to be submitted. The approval or disapproval of such materials will be in Chase’s sole discretion."}}
** {{xt|"Affiliate agrees not to use the Licensed Materials in any manner that is disparaging or that otherwise portrays Chase in a negative light. Chase may revoke Affiliate’s license at any time."}}
** Specifies a long list of {{xt|"Restricted Trademark Terms"}}, including airlines (e.g. [[British Airways|British Air]], [[United Airlines|United]]), hotel chains (e.g. [[Holiday Inn]], [[InterContinental]], [[Marriott International|Marriott]]), retailers (e.g. [[Amazon.com]], [[Toys "R" Us]]), and other businesses (e.g. [[Disney]], [[Starbucks]]) that have released co-branded products with Chase Bank
* Two years after Bankrate acquired TPG and took over the management of {{xt|"some affiliate links"}}, [[Skift]] published [https://skift.com/2014/12/01/the-blurring-lines-between-banks-and-travel-writers/ "The Blurring Ethical Lines Between Credit Card Companies and Travel Writers"], which stated: {{xt|"As highlighted in this Mr. Money Moustache post, advertisers like Chase aren’t above nudging the editorial in a direction of their choice — and when bloggers don’t step in line they risk losing their revenue stream."}} That sentence linked to another sponsored credit card blog which reported that Chase Bank revoked their affiliate contract, with one of the reasons being the blog's use of the text {{xt|"WTF!?"}} to describe one of Chase's rewards cards. As of today, TPG continues to advertise credit cards from Chase Bank and other financial institutions (which also require such affiliate contracts) on just about every one of its pages, which indicates that TPG is apparently complying with the content-related terms set in these affiliate contracts.{{pb}}In 2019, {{rspe|Red Ventures|[[Red Ventures]]}} acquired Bankrate, which [https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1518222/000151822217000021/rate-20170703xex99_1.htm included TPG in the purchase deal]. {{rsnl|430|RfC: Red Ventures|A 2024 request for comment (RfC)}} on this noticeboard designated Red Ventures properties as [[WP:GUNREL|generally unreliable]], because {{xt|"Red Ventures, as a matter of policy, uses AI-authored content on its properties in a non-transparent and unreliable manner"}} and {{xt|"The case was made that this policy was followed across all of Red Ventures online properties to such an extent that it was reasonable to presume their content is problematic."}} However, TPG was excluded from that RfC because TPG had already been placed on the [[WP:SPB|spam blacklist]] at that time. I see absolutely no reason to consider TPG more reliable than other Red Ventures properties, including sponsored blogs (other than TPG) owned by Bankrate as well as [[CNET]] (2020–2024) and [[ZDNet]] (2020–2024), all of which are considered generally unreliable during their Red Ventures eras. —&nbsp;'''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 17:52, 4 February 2026 (UTC); edited to clarify attribution of contract 12:11, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' A travel blog reliant on sponsors should definately be considered non-RS. I don't think its that bad to need full depreciation as its not published false information. But since it is likely to be reliant on opinion related to sponsorship then just a straight option 3 would be best in my view. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> '''[[User:The C of E|<span style="color:red;">The C of E </span><span style="color:blue;"> God Save the King!</span>]]''' ([[User talk:The C of E|<span style="color:darkblue;">talk</span>]])</span> 18:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' Editors need to be on the lookout for sponsored content or CoI, and it's generally not notable material anyway. That being said, in the few instances where the blog actually provides information useful for an encyclopedia, I don't see why not. [[User:NotBartEhrman|NotBartEhrman]] ([[User talk:NotBartEhrman|talk]]) 19:11, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
* '''Option 3''' <s>4 and Blacklist</s>: From [ https://thepointsguy.com/about/ ]: 
::''"Our site may earn compensation when a customer clicks on a link, when an application is approved, or when an account is opened with our partners, and this may impact how or where these products appear."''
:We know that thepointsguy can't be trusted on credit card rewards programs, because they're partners with the credit card companies, not an independent reviewer.
:How do we know that they are not also partners with airline rewards programs and hotel rewards programs? 
:Looking at a recent article ''"I left my laptop on a flight. Here's how I got it back within 24 hours"''[https://thepointsguy.com/airline/airplane-airport-lost-and-found/] thepointsguy says some really nice things about Delta.
:Right in the middle of the article is this ad:
::''"Earn up to 80,000 miles with our favorite Delta cards. To help you decide which Delta card is best for you, take a look at the details of the most popular Delta Amex cards from our partners"'' (they use the word "partner", but I am pretty sure that the money and the control only flows one way).
:That ad leads me to ''"Best Delta credit cards of February 2026"'' which in turn says ''"Most of the cards we feature here are from partners who compensate us when you approve through our site",''
:So imagine if the author of that article (Clint Henderson / The Points Guy) had said something bad about Delta. Or even pointed out that even if Delta does everything right there is a high probability that someone will steal the laptop instead of turning it in to Delta lost and found. Do you think Clint's "partners" would be happy? Even if Delta had nothing to say, which kind of article would result in the most people clicking on that link, getting a Delta card, and putting money in Cliff's pocket? The Conflict of Interest cannot be surmounted give their current business model. 
:In my considered opinion, thepointsguy.com should go back on the spam blacklist. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 19:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
::For the record, {{u|Guy Macon}}, the blacklist "is intended as a last resort for persistent spamming on the project, by multiple individuals or IP addresses". It's not for blocking unreliable sources absent other concerns. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 21:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': I'd be curious for people's opinions on this site's non-sponsored content. I don't really think there's any question that the sponsored material/really anything relating to loyalty programs is unreliable, but we should be looking at the entire site. When you do that, you can find a host of articles about things like [https://thepointsguy.com/news/avianca-new-route-san-francisco-central-america/ altered airline routes], [https://thepointsguy.com/news/lufthansa-airbus-a380-new-business-class/ improved aircraft interiors], [https://thepointsguy.com/news/delta-air-lines-airbus-a350-a330-order-premium-seats/ airline orders for new aircraft] and [https://thepointsguy.com/news/southwest-airlines-assigned-seating-boarding-process-launch/ airline policy changes]. These pieces could, subject to editorial discretion, have encyclopedic information and are factual/reliable in the colloquial sense (Wikipedia reliability very much TBD).{{pb}}I'm personally leaning option 3 because that Red Ventures ownership is a flashing red warning light and {{u|Liam at TPG}} did not respond to [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_501#c-The_ed17-20251218211700-Newslinger-20251218204200|my questions about their editorial practices]]. Still, there's more nuance to this question than the comments above have considered. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 21:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' It's not much better than a press release. But press releases do have their uses, so I don't see the need to deprecate or blacklist. [[User:Jumpytoo|Jumpytoo]] <small>[[User_talk:Jumpytoo|Talk]]</small> 02:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
*'''Option 4'''. No case has been made why this site should no longer be blacklisted. The user who requested it is here to promote their business, not to build an encyclopedia. [[User:Cortador|Cortador]] ([[User talk:Cortador|talk]]) 07:07, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' per above. [[User:The Kip|<span style="color:#333f42;">'''The'''</span>]] [[User talk:The Kip|<span style="color:#b4975a;">'''Kip'''</span>]] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Kip|contribs]])</sup></small></span> 19:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
*'''Option 4''' TPG is only marginally better than [[WP:Simple Flying]] which was depreciated in terms of accuracy, but much worse in terms of the amount of promotional content they publish. Anything important would have been covered by others, we should depreciate them. [[User:Avgeekamfot|Avgeekamfot]] ([[User talk:Avgeekamfot|talk]]) 20:18, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
*'''Option 4''' The site's promotional and advertising is an excessive part of the content. There is zero (negative?) evidence of even an intent to maintain a solid editorial/revenue wall. I'm sure there's some journalistic effort and truth in there but the end product is tainted. The site barely rates a page in the encyclopedia. It's unfortunate that the revenue model is so tightly founded on the editorial subject. If they want to be considered a reliable source, they need to find advertisers that they don't need to write about and get on, and stay on, a neutral, non-transactional footing with the credit card companies and the travel venues. (invited randomly by a bot) [[User:Jojalozzo|Jojalozzo]] ([[User talk:Jojalozzo|talk]]) 00:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
*'''Option 4'''. Grossly promotional. And blacklist again if there is the slightest effort to cite it anywhere by anyone who should know better. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 00:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
*'''Option 4''' [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] excludes any content that is either an aggregator, not verifiable, or produces sponsored content. It may barely meet [[Wikipedia:Acceptable sources]] guidelines, where articles list individual authors, but I would state that it is generally unreliable and should never be used. I don't recommend blacklist. [[User:Abs145|Abs145]] ([[User talk:Abs145|talk]]) 19:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
*'''Option 4''' and blacklist again.  This is sponsored content, the owner gets paid for landing on his site.  It is utterly unreliable and the fact that the site owner (who is not here to contribute) to request unlinking is single proof that that request was made to (enable) spam again.  This should first have been decided through a RSN RfC to be reliable and of significant use, and then delisted, not the other way around. [[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 10:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' For non-spon content I think there are certainly more reliable sources that go in-depth vs what TPG puts out. [[User:netstars22|<span style="color:DarkSeaGreen;">'''netstars22'''</span>]] ([[User talk: netstars22|talk]]) 05:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
* '''Option 3 or 4'''. Per [[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]] [[User:Coffeeurbanite|Coffeeurbanite]] ([[User talk:Coffeeurbanite|talk]]) 02:14, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
* '''Option 4''' and blacklist again per Beetstra. [[User:DOUGDOUGFOOD|the Doug hole]] [[User talk:DOUGDOUGFOOD|(a crew 4 life)]] 19:29, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
* '''Option 4''' I was going to say option 3 but Beetstra provides compelling additional reasoning. I think thread participants that voted before their response should reconsider.[[User:Czarking0|Czarking0]] ([[User talk:Czarking0|talk]]) 01:37, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
**{{ping|Czarking0}} Dirk's comment is not strictly speaking accurate.
**#The only reason that this is a question in the first place is that the site is ''not'' all sponsored content, and that's why there are people who have opted for option 3. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_501#c-The_ed17-20260204210600-Survey_(The_Points_Guy) my comment above].
**#We don't blacklist sites based only on their reliability, and [[MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Request_for_removal_of_thepointsguy.com_from_blacklist|''I'' was the one to request it be removed from the blacklist]] after a discussion here.
**#I haven't seen any diffs that demonstrate spamming since the site was removed from the blacklist, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_501#c-Newslinger-20251218204200-The_ed17-20251218191900 we're not even sure that there was actual spamming back in 2018]. I can very easily see a world where the original request was motivated by a PR concern vs. the spamming hypotheticals being spun here. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 03:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
*:@[[User:The ed17|The ed17]] We do not blacklist on reliability, but we do by consensus or even by bold editing.  This is one of the very few sites that are spam by nature (native advertising and such), and the very fact that the site owner is here is enough evidence that they want Wikipedia to be redirecting traffic to them, another reason to (covert) spam.  And site owners come here knowing their site is blacklisted, knowing that they can't get traffic from here, which (likely) hurts their business.<br>We blacklist sites that we do not want to be linked, it is the low-weight option to keep them out and either we blacklist them by community consensus (what we can do here) or by bold editing.  We are not a bureaucracy, our policies are not set in stone.  We revert bold edits soon, not long standing edits and not because of some bureaucratic reason, and especially not when you are unsure if the native advertising / spam website was spammed or not.  What is not sponsored content and desperately needed can be whitelisted, something that does not seem very often for this site.  There is no (or very little) loss in not being able to link, and a big gain in keeping it out. [[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 06:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
*::{{ping|Beetstra}} Dirk, you are assuming an ''awful'' lot about the motivations of this website without any evidence. It's not fair to assume that wanting off of a blacklist = intention to spam. In this case, I can absolutely see it being an exercise in PR and/or a hopeful, if doomed, attempt at being ranked as a reliable source on Wikipedia.
*::You're also not characterizing its content accurately; this is not one of a "very few sites that are spam by nature". First, I'm a little surprised at "very few sites" and assume you misspoke, as there are at minimum sixty metric tons of spam websites on the internet that should never be linked on Wikipedia. Second, when it comes to this particular website, I've shown above that it has a newsworthy non-spammy side. That editors agree that it's nevertheless not reliable for our purposes (I'm in option 3 myself!) is not the same thing as "spam by nature". To take that argument to its logical extreme, is ''The New York Times'' spamming because it is increasingly trying to supplement its revenue by steering people into its [[The New York Times Games|paid-for games]] and [[Wirecutter (website)#Approach and business model|''Wirecutter'' for kickbacks]]? (No.) 
*::Finally, we do indeed ignore policies/guidelines/bureaucracy when there is good reasoning, but we're still searching for good reasoning here. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 18:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::Most sites are not native advertising by nature, most websites exist to sell a product, to make a revenue.  There is a distinct difference.  These native advertising sites are a distinct problem, they appear 'good' information, but are not, it is paid content, 'hell no' type for referencing.  That has not changed.  A good part of the website is native advertising, we should never us it.  If there is a relatively small part that can be used, then that part could be whitelisted wholesale, or through specific whitelisting.  The same tactics as we apply with other material that is blacklisted and where we do have occasional need.<br>And the comparison to The New York Times is not the same, a total red herring.  We deem that a reliable source for most of the information, and the paid-for-games are not something that people would typically use for referencing (and if they do, that little part should be cut out).  Nor was this often badly used material, let alone spammed.<br>We are not looking for good reasoning, this site is native advertising, paid for content, utterly unreliable.  Unlike most of the material on the blacklist, this (the native advertising material ''is'' spam), whereas other websites were spammed (and generally useless for Wikipedia) or badly abused. [[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 10:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
::::And if nytimes.com/wirecutter is deemed depreciated on RSN and still gets added while every single addition needs to be cleaned up as it is just 'supporting' bad info on Wikipedia, then I would suggest to put a hard stop to that and stop wasting editors' time, as we do with a lot of material that is currently on the blacklist.  --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 10:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::I suppose we're stuck on your definition of "native advertising" and/or where the line is between that vs. a website that both sells products and produces news. We're talking here about a website that does want kickbacks, but also has a significant news-reporting element. I've already linked to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#c-The_ed17-20260204210600-Survey_(The_Points_Guy) several articles that demonstrate their news reporting], and contrary to your "{{green|this site is native advertising, paid for content}}", their advertising policy says that [https://thepointsguy.com/advertising-policy/ any paid-for articles are clearly delineated]. Whether or not it's Wikipedia-reliable (as I said, looking not), it simply does not fit a definition of being purely native advertising. As I believe I've said elsewhere, it may be more effective to instead seek consensus to expand the definition of the blacklist. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 18:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::No, we're not.  We are stuck on the 'significant part' of it, and bureaucratic reading.  By the looks of it, it is a specific section that is not native advertising (as you say, clearly delineated, all the examples you give could have been excluded on the blacklist or blanket whitelisted - if wanted in the first place).  That part seems to have changed since original blacklisting, but then we are now also allowing to link ''all'' the crappy stuff just because some part is not native advertising.  And the part that is not native advertising is not needed (it is still deemed unreliable), was never wanted, and is still unwanted.  This RfC is just a discussion because someone, bureaucratically, decided that it should not be blacklisted because it wasn't strictly spammed, resulting in people who do not know that it is unreliable adding it, making our encyclopedia ''worse'' and necessitating constant cleanup.  <br>We do not need to do that (i.e., discuss expansion of the definition of the blacklist) , because we have [[WP:BOLD]], [[WP:CONSENSUS]], and [[WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY]].  If a community consensus states that a website is unreliable and that we should not link to it, then we ''can'' add it to BED/blacklist/edit filter (and those discussions exist, also here specifically agreed to by several editors, where we deem by consensus a website so [[unreliable that the consensus states that we should take steps to not be able to link to it at all, or even specifically states that there is [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_281#RfC:_Deprecation_of_fake_news_/_disinformation_sites.|consensus to add it to the blacklist]]).  Or we can boldly add it if someone evaluates a website as something that is causing way more work to clean up and there is no advantage to link to it.  The blacklist has many rules that is not strictly spamMED (actually, many of them are on meta), and the fast majority of that is not even 'spam' beyond having an operating model alike The New York Times.  Their inclusion by consensus or boldness is already mentioned in [[WP:SBL]] as that has been a long standing practice.<br>(so in response to your points: 1) you are right, it is not ''all'' sponsored content, but that is not a reason to also being able to link to the material that is, nor that he non-sponsored content is wanted; 2) it was not blacklisted based on reliability, it was blacklisted based on (ab/misuse of links to) native advertising; 3) it wasn't wanted, never demonstrated it was needed, and is demonstratable still not wanted.  Saying that it isn't or wasn't spammed as not being a reason for having it blacklisted has never been a reason for hard exclusion of being blacklisted historically nor practically nor actually and is just a bureaucratic interpretation (and actually, a rather ironic one). [[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 10:25, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::I think a big part of the problem is the name. We call it "Spam-blacklist" but clearly use it to blacklist for other reasons. My preferred solution would be to have two lists; one for spam only and one for all other reasons. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 15:49, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::: If you don't want to use the term "spam-blacklist" there is also the more neutrally-named [[Special:BlockedExternalDomains]]. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 16:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::That's just another list of mostly spam sites, with a few things like "Hosts copyright violations" and "hijacking attempts" mixed in. I think we should have one place for spam and nothing else, and another for everything else. That way when we block a domain for hosting malware, nobody will comment about it not being spammed. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 18:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::One of the problems is that BED cannot be whitelisted, which is something you need for all different cases for which you would (or could) enforce exclusion of external links (spam, spamming, malware, utter abuse doxing, by established consensus, you name it).  For the current state, the blacklist is the most lightweight ànd flexible of them. [[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 17:58, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Just as a note, one of the very first edits after deployment of the local blacklist blacklisted a link for reasons that was not spam or spamming, but likely after a community consensus. [[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 18:00, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::1) this RfC exists because someone thought that there was a chance that this site's news articles could be reliable. 2) a brief misuse of linking from paid accounts in 2018 is all I've found. As far as I've seen, no one has been able to demonstrate actual spamming. 3) {{u|Guy Macon}}'s point above is cogent, but I would still maintain that someone should work to expand the page definition. For example, the page currently [[Wikipedia:Spam blacklist#Introduction|says]] "{{green|blacklisting a URL should be used as a last resort against spammers.}}" Frankly, I'm not a fan of unwritten rules. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 16:25, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::The operating word being 'should', by boldness and consensus (in its different forms) in a lot of cases used for other things.  You're not a fan of written rules and you keep saying that the list is for spam only while historically it has never been only that.  <br>I know this RfC is for reliability.. and the blacklist/BED for stuff that we don't want to link to, not necessarily separate topics.  A brief misuse is all you found, not that the site owner is here because he wants his links / the traffic from Wikipedia or that a good part of the site is native advertising (spam).  I don't disagree to expand on the guideline to better describe the historic use, it may be a bit too cryptic or even incomplete for describing current use, but that is not a reason for  (bureaucratic) removal of spam(med) material. [[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 11:34, 14 March 2026 (UTC)