Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horror/Sources

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

This talk page is for discussing the reliability of sources for use in horror articles. If you are wondering if a horror source is reliable enough to use on Wikipedia, this is the place to ask.

When posting a new topic, please add a link to the topic on Horror Sources after the entry for the site. If an entry for the site does not exist, create one for it and include the link to the topic afterward.

Click here to start a new discussion thread

Gruesome Magazine

I have a new source for consideration: Gruesome Magazine.

Gruesome Magazine (and by extension their podcast Horror News Radio) were first launched around 2013, when they released their first podcast episode. They are horror specific and have a set list of both staff and contributors. I recognize a few of the names, specifically Doc Rotten, but they don't have anyone on staff that is super notable. They've been listed as a source in a couple of academic/scholarly sources like this book from Rutgers University Press and this one from McFarland. As far as I can tell they aren't pay to play. They do have a Patreon, but there's no mention of receiving reviews or coverage if you donate.

What makes me hesitate is that there isn't a lot out there to show them as reliable and I found a grammatical error on their "about us" page. Other than that they seem fine enough. They don't seem to do any muckraking and although their reviews are a teensy bit on the light side, they seem fine. It would be great if they could be seen as a RS, as they do cover some of the more obscure stuff out there and they also do book reviews - something that is often not covered (or if it is, not as regularly) on other genre websites. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:54, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@ReaderofthePack: I have used this source in the past and I havn't come across anything that would indicate to me that they are unreliable. I would lean towards accepting them for reviews and such.★Trekker (talk) 06:01, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Sweet. I'll add them to the list later if there are no objections! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:56, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Older Film Threat

I know Film Threat is unusable for notability post-2011, and so was presumably reliable some time before that from the discussions I'm reading. Were they reliable in their print magazine era? I'm not much of an editor on horror topics but sometimes my interests verge into the world of "weird film" from that era, and I've seen some reviews from their print magazine that look good.

@ReaderofthePack You seem to have commented in previous discussions on that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I would say that their print magazine is probably usable. It looks like it ran from 1985 to 1997, so well before the 2011 period. My main concern is that their early stuff (1985 through at least 1988) was heavy on the satire and humor. In the college era the creators used it as part of their on-campus pranks. Offhand it looks like there may be decent stuff there, but we can't 100% guarantee that they weren't being tongue in cheek. I would say that you could potentially quote someone from the 80s stuff or do a review, but be very cautious. The above link also has an issue from 1990 that looks to be generally OK offhand. I think that's when they were in their glossy magazine phase, so there was far less emphasis on satire. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:46, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense. (Though, the joke you mention does have a pretty obvious disclaimer on the bottom, so I'm not too worried about that...) PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

True, but the hijinks could make it more dodgy to some. I think the early zines are good for common sense use and the magazines are probably generally good. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:54, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Agree with that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Severed Cinema

I've seen this source a few times and it came up at AfD recently. Doesn't look great to me but I am not especially experienced at evaluating this kind of source. Bad: no clear editorial policy I can see, Good: a few cases of academic use. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I've heard of the site, but it's not super heavily mentioned in other places. I'm uncertain, honestly.

The pros are: the site doesn't do advertising/marketing as far as I can tell. It doesn't allow people to post random stuff, which implies some sort of vetting process. The site has been mentioned in PR from Severin Films - not a sign of reliability, but it's a sign that they're not completely unknown. They were mentioned in this SyFy post as having interviewed Charles Band - something that's a good sign. They've also been referenced in academic/scholarly books put out by McFarland, and Bloomsbury.

The cons here are: there's no info about the staff or editorial process. The only info we get is the author bio on each article. The ones that do have it don't really have much info about their bonafides offhand. Their news section looks to be fairly PR heavy.

It's kind of squiffy in my opinion and would definitely benefit from maybe a RS/N post in case someone may be able to find more info. I will say that their actual opinion and review posts look to be pretty good. They also have quite a few interviews with notable people. I'm aware that marketing teams will set up interviews with almost everyone who asks, but they have a nicely varied assortment and not all of them are of the "buy my book/movie/etc" sort. At some level the notable ones aren't going to be doing interviews with everyone and will be selective, particularly if they aren't promoting anything. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:15, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Hm, yeah, I agree pretty much. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Modern Horrors

What's everyone's take on Modern Horrors? It will occasionally pop up in results. I can't find much about when it launched, just that Luke Rodriguez is one of the co-founders.

Arguments for usability would be that the site is well laid out, has no glaring HTML, spelling, or grammatical errors, and so on. There's no "advertise with us" page. It also looks to be used as a source in two books published through Taylor & Francis and McFarland. Screamfest also thought well enough of them to include them in their compilation of 2016 news about the festival.

The main arguments against would be that the site has zero information about its editorial oversight and the contact page does give off the impression that they accept user content. People can't just log in and write a review, but it would be good to have some sort of information about the editorial oversight.

I'm undecided on this. It's been brought up before at AfD and I've never really been comfortable seeing it as a RS because of the lack of information. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:35, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with them at all so I have no idea, I'm not able to find anything relevant online sadly.★Trekker (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I remembered to check Google Scholar and found them as a citation for this journal article, but not much else. They're listed on Rotten Tomatoes, however they only counted reviews from Rodriguez himself.

Overall it's still stuck at the same thing: there's enough to where people might not question it if the site was used but not enough to really hold up under strong scrutiny. Maybe I'm being too strict, but I just feel like we have to be. I mean, I've had people try to say that industry mainstays like Bloody Disgusting were no names and couldn't count towards notability. (Can't remember if it was them or Dread Central, but it was one of the two.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:15, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

As it is now I don't think we can put it up as a reliable source, but I also don't think we have reason to ban them or anything like that. As of right now they're unproven, probably can't be relied on for establishing general notability.★Trekker (talk) 07:17, 23 October 2026 (UTC)