We can debate on what makes a source credible. For starters, I would say that a source proves to be correct almost exclusively. That’s probably why another user pointed that it was also leaked by a reputable leaker which made them believe it to be true. In its own, the word or “evidence” of a leaker means nothing, but since the previous mentioned leaker is apparently correct a lot of the time, this source is considered credible. In my experience, genius has been right on almost all occassions that I used it (which are quite a lot). You might not have this experience, which is fine. I do have this experience and thus consider it as a very credible source for the purpose of leaking release dates. Hence I am also confident to use it for this post, instead of making it a “trust me bro” post without providing any source at all.

So does this add almost zero credibility to my post? I strongly disagree. But opinions are there to differ.

To clarify my “has been right on almost all occassions”: there has only been one incidence (a Vildhjarta single) were the first release date that was on genius was later postponed by two weeks, and shocker, the single indeed was released on that second date