Even a random blogger's individual - and shallow - thought or opinion can sometimes be presented as a fact in a Wikipedia article

Example of this are the following two statements in Wikipedia article on Predator 2 [permanent link]:

• " It has since become a cult film among fans."
• "Although it had negative reviews, Predator 2 is seen as a cult classic among fans."

The source of this significant information is a blog post titled "Danny Glover: Action Movie Star Opportunity Missed?", dated 29-Apr-2015 by some random guy named Tambay A. Obenson. He says this:

• "I rewatched "Predator 2," after stumbling upon it while flipping through cable TV channels a couple of days ago... But I'm inclined to believe that it's had a much more successful life on the home video market (DVD/VOD) than it did in theaters, even becoming something of a cult favorite with some."

And the words cult film make it to an encyclopedia article on Predator 2. This is surely not right, and exposes a major weakness in the way Wikipedia content is created. A movie is a cult film if many people think of it that way [and at least some of those many people should be noteworthy]. A random's dude personal blog entry entering Predator 2 into the coveted club of cult films shows that Wikipedia's content addition/creation methods need major revision.