Requests for Comment/Requiring every page to include reception and/or reviews

So one of the biggest problems of Qualitipedia is bias and opinionated edits and pages, and has been one of the longest lasting issues present on the wikis (especially on the show wikis). I know it's impossible to stop the bias altogether, but it can be limited by stopping the creation of biased pages and prevent them from running rampant. There are three types of pages I've noticed that fall into this problem: My idea is requiring every page to include a proper reception section or a good number of reviews to back up the page's claims and add credibility to the page. Now I know that there was a fiasco earlier this month about the cleanup template getting slapped on pages for having "lost of unsourced claims", but this RfC is not about requiring a source for every single little thing, just requiring pages to include a reception section and reviews to add credibility to a page. Just a reminder on how that works, here's examples on how to add credibility to a page: A lot of the time, these pages with no content to add credibility do end up deleted because of being opinionated, but that doesn't apply to all pages, especially the vaguely sourced ones. If this RfC passes, then all of them will be deleted or moved to a sandbox or blog page, and restored if someone decides to add credibility to the unsourced page. A lot of users seem to forget this: we were once called the Reception Wikis, meaning that we add pages based on their reception and not because of one user's opinion.
 * 1) Completely unsourced: Pretty much self-explanatory; these pages come across as completely opinionated and without any credibility.
 * 2) Vaguely sourced: These pages do have a reception section or videos listed, but either the reception is incredibly vague and provides no evidence (I.E.: "X received negative reviews" and adding nothing else), or the videos aren't actual reviews in any way, shape, or form.
 * 3) Insufficiently sourced: While these pages do include legitimate sources, it only contains one or two legitimate sources and that's it. That's obviously not enough and can lead to the page looking biased.
 * 1) The reception section must include reviews, critic and audience scores, and should provide links/references to these reviews and scores. Adding how something performed commercially is optional, but still encouraged to add since the critical reception more often than not plays a huge role in commercial performances.
 * 2) When adding videos, stick to ones that are actual reviews, or ones that criticize or praise the work in some way or another, and not include meme videos or videos that only state trivial facts. Videos about the commercial performance (or post-launch handling in a game's case) are fine as mentioned above.
 * 3) Movie wikis only: External links are heavily encouraged, as the four main websites we use provide critic and audience reviews and average scores to back the page up.
 * 4) Use multiple sources, as the more sources are included, the more credibility the page has. While a lot of links/references are fine, the same can't be said for videos as too much of them will cause pages to crash on slower devices. Around 25-30 videos is a good maximum number.
 * 5) This blog lists tons of sources and if they're reliable or not.

Support

 * 1) One of the biggest problems with pages is the lack of research into the reception to justify their placement. This RfC ought to prevent opinionated pages from taking over. Marxo Grouch  (talk) 03:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) The creation of opinion biased pages has made various good users to lose faith on the wikis, specially the Show ones. This can help us go on with them.  12:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) per above    12:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) I like this. I think those opinion-based pages are one of the main reasons why we started to have fights in some wikis. I get that not everyone is gonna like/hate certain media but if we add sources as to why media is that way, we would give some good context behind the said media. Plus, if they really want to talk about their opinions, why not a blog that explains why they don't like the said media. PlantyB0i (talk) 7:56 AM, 18 May 2022 (CDT)
 * 5) Without a doubt. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 23:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) If this succeeds, I can say the show wikis will change for the better with no reverts this time. I hope this can motivate major improvements in the way the articles there are written, and hopefully this qualifies for the movie wikis too.  03:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) I feel like this could work at enforcing some quality of pages. Not only giving some proof of why its good or bad, but maybe we can actually ensure content that is known is there. One problem the show wikis is there are too obscure content without proper reception to make them reliable enough to be there. Examples (Objects at war, MarkAngelComedy). Though 30 videos for a page feels way too enough. - Equal One. 19 May 2022.
 * 25-30 is only the maximum number of videos and not the suggested amount for each page, a page could still do well even with no videos at all as long as the reception section is well-sourced.--Blazikeye535 (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) It may be hard to find reviews for some things, especially more niche topics, though in general this is a good policy. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)