# Talk:You're the Reason (Victorious song)

Just after the Good article review, i've examined the article that seems to fail some items Per WP:RSP/VALNET. The article in question is from MovieWeb (here), which is past the ValNet purchase of the site. The ruling in question specifically states that since its purchase, ValNet sites feature " click-bait pages such as numbered lists, poorly-written opinion pieces, and articles that regurgitate information from higher-quality sources. These should be avoided In terms of the article as it stands, it cites a listicle which is against the standard here. While an editor has expressed it was used as a review, this is clearly not a formal review of the song, and part of a listicle. The source is also used for a critical interpretation of genre, which should also not be included. 
While an editor has asked me to ask other editors to get their opinion, I'm reminded of WP:ONUS, which states "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." In short, this edit here does not indicate why this source is valid or should be included. But so far it seems very clearly not a valid source per the above issue. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Feeling moderately for keeping it, I'll explain. I read the guideline and read the January discussion on this topic you brought up (too lazy to link it). And I agree on all the points you and other contributors made! These sources good for interviews AND for case-by-case basis, depending on their qualities and the complexity of the subject it covers (how scientific and through the research should be). In this case "You're the Reason" isn't that complicated and it is used three times: TV series episode summary, reception, and genre characterization. I'm slightly bothered by genre, but looking into the source text it's just says "You're the Reason" is a pop song, which isn't that far fetched. LastJabberwocky (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Also as a side note, there is another source that, according to this WP:RSSM, needs a case-by-case consideration, a student website Her Campus (a link to the source in question). Again, I would leave it. If there are cases when this source can be used, probably these cases would be music-related, not theology or paleontology.LastJabberwocky (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Hi LasJabberwocky, thanks for chiming in. My main issue is that its used in reception, but exactly how the rule states we should not be using it as a reception (i.e: this is a listicle, not an article that's a review of the song directly). Because of this, to remain strong on on using high quality sources, I'm not sure it satisfies it. Similar for how its used for genres. If most sources are calling it a pop song, why are we giving equal weight to a site the editors have consensus on as not particularly reliable? Good call on the campus article. This is why sources need more scrutiny in the contemporary dead internet landscape. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Agree to partially remove Well, if I were the author, I would compromise by removing the two instances you described: genre (already has four sources, not a big loss) and reception. LastJabberwocky (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)