Jump to content

Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:NPPRS)

The purpose of this page is to centralize information about reliable sources for use by new page reviewers when reviewing new articles. It is intended as a supplement to the reliable sources noticeboard and perennial sources list, to help page reviewers unfamiliar with a given subject assess notability and neutrality of an article––entries should focus on whether a specific publication is sufficiently reliable for significant coverage in the publication to count toward notability for a subject. Disagreements with assessments here should be escalated to the reliable sources noticeboard, with a notice also placed on the talk page of this article to notify editors about the discussion.

This page is organized into sections corresponding to specific topics and regions that share sources in common. Sources may be included in more than one section if they are relevant to more than one section.

Instructions

[edit]

How to use and improve this page

[edit]

The reliability of a source depends on context. This page is only a quick reference to previous discussions and cannot tell you whether a particular source is reliable in a specific context.

Claims about a source's reliability should be cited either to the perennial sources list or to discussions that demonstrate a consensus that the claim is true. Note that this is a considerably weaker standard than the one employed at the perennial sources list. This is because the purpose of this list is to provide at-a-glance reliability judgments for editors working on unfamiliar subjects, not to be a final arbiter on matters of reliability. While the discussions cited in this page may be useful resources when discussing a given source's reliability, a source's inclusion in any given category on this page should not be used as an argument in any protracted discussion over a source's reliability.

If you would like to expand this page with the contents of a WikiProject source guide, either format a link to the relevant guide as a citation, or include it using a {{main}} or {{see also}} template. Entries should ideally mention when and where the cited discussion was held, and the level of participation. When listing a date, simply mention the month that the discussion was closed in, as this is sufficient context while also being easy to note when listing a new entry.

If you disagree with any assessment listed on this page, either provide citations to Wikipedia discussions justifying a change in the listing, or start a new discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard in order to establish a more holistic and up to date consensus. However, be mindful of the level of support for the claim that you intend to challenge: for instance, challenging sources listed at the perennial sources list is much less likely to result in a new consensus than challenging sources supported by a single discussion.

Contextual information about sources' affiliations, biases, and other information beyond a reliability judgment is intended to provide information to help contextualize sources, primarily to assess if an article is likely to be missing additional viewpoints.

Newspapers of record are generally considered to be reliable for purposes of notability and uncontroversial topics. However, more care may need to be taken when evaluating an article's neutrality.

Adding entries

[edit]
  • All information in this page should be written to reflect existing consensus elsewhere on Wikipedia (usually WP:RSN, but Wikiprojects and other places are also acceptable).
  • Please include a reference with every entry.
  • This list should mostly be secondary sources, but a few important primary sources are acceptable. Just make sure to mention in its entry that it is a primary source.
  • Entries based on discussions where only one editor assessed the source, should always be listed as "no consensus", although it may be appropriate to mention briefly what the editor said about the source, even if categorical.

Formatting

[edit]

Sub-headings should be titled "Reliable", "Unreliable", or "No consensus". Entries should use the following format.

Write the common name first, and wikilink it if it has an article. Then include a compact external link to the source's website. These external links are important, as they allow the listing to be processed by external tools, and help decisively disambiguate it from similarly-named publlications. Then include a description of the source's reliability, and any concerns or caveats that were mentioned during the original source discussion. Finally, include a reference to the original source or source discussion whether at WP:RSN, WP:RSP, or a WikiProject resource page.

By region

[edit]

International reporting

[edit]

These sources have extensive coverage of many different countries and regions

Reliable
No consensus
  • Antifascist Europe [39], no consensus in a May 2023 RSN discussion.[14]
  • Asharq Al-Awsat [40], Arabic, no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[15]
  • Genocide Watch [41], English, advocacy group, should be attributed. Broad consensus in an October RSN discussion that the outlet is influential, but several editors raised concerns about its reliability.[16]
  • Global Voices [42], no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion.[17]
  • Middle East Eye [43], English, no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion.[18]
  • Middle East Monitor, [44] no consensus in an April 2024 RSN discussion.[19] Previously consensus in a June 2021 RSN discussion that it is a partisan think tank, with opinions ranging from "sometimes usable with attribution" to "unreliable".[20]
  • Mondoweiss [45], English, largely reports on issues related to Israel/Palestine. Opinionated source backed by an advocacy group, statements should be attributed.[5]
  • Newsweek (2013–present) [46], many languages, changes in editorial leadership have led to a decline in the magazine's reliability, evaluate on a case-by-case basis.[5]
  • Radio Free Europe [47], no consensus in a May 2024 RfC.[21]
  • Resumen Latinoamericano, [48] English and Spanish, no clear consensus in a September 2021 RSN discussion.[22]
  • RIA Novosti [49], many languages, official news agency of the Russian government. It is generally considered a usable source for official government statements and positions. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for other topics, though opinions generally lean towards unreliability.[5]
  • TRT World [50], English, an RfC closed in June 2019 reached a consensus that it is not reliable for anything with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest, but that it is likely reliable for unrelated reporting and statements about the official positions of the Turkish government.[23]
  • Vice Media (Garage Magazine, i-D, Motherboard, Vice (magazine), Vice News) [51], There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice (magazine) or Vice Media websites, including Motherboard and Vice News. It is generally regarded as more reliable for arts and entertainment than for politics.[5]
  • Worldcrunch [52], primarily an aggregator, no consensus in a February 2024 RSN discussion.[24]
  • World Christian Database, World Christian Encyclopedia, and World Religion Database (WCD, WCE, WRD) [53][54], additional considerations apply, see RSP listing.[5]
  • World Socialist Website [55], no consensus in a September 2021 RSN discussion.[25] Previously considererd unreliable, although individuals writing pieces for it or stories that it republishes may be usable.[26]
Unreliable
  • Anadolu Agency [56][5]
  • Asia Harvest [57], generally unreliable per a February 2024 RSN discussion.[27]
  • BNN Breaking, blacklisted by request following a February 2024 RSN discussion that found it generally unreliable.[28]
  • Centre for Research on Globalization, generally unreliable. The CRG is considered generally unreliable due to its propagation of conspiracy theories and lack of editorial oversight. It is a biased or opinionated source, and its content is likely to constitute undue weight. As it often covers fringe material, parity of sources should be considered.[5]
  • Consortium News [58], described as an unreliable and fringe outlet in a September 2019 discussion.[29]
  • The Cradle [59], deprecated in a Decembeer 2023 RfC.[30]
  • The Grayzone Report [60], English, deprecated in a 2020 RfC.[5]
  • HispanTV [61], deprecated, Spanish language, republishes conspiracy theories and Iranian propaganda.[5]
  • Independent Media Center (IndyMedia) [62], many languages, insufficient fact checking and effectively self-published.[5]
  • International Business Times [63], many languages, quality is inconsistent, significant amounts of content are syndicated and not clearly marked.[5]
  • Joshua Project [64], generally unreliable per a February 2024 RSN discussion.[27]
  • Meaww [65], tabloid with no positive reputation to speak of per an April 2020 RSN discussion.[5][31]
  • Middle East Forum [66], specifically its website meforum.org, most editors in a September 2019 discussion argued that it was some shade of unreliable, although there is no consensus on the exact degree.[29]
  • Modern Diplomacy [67], unreliable per a November 2022 RSN discussion.[32]
  • Newsreports.com [68], rough consensus for unreliability in an August 2024 RSN discussion.[33]
  • Operation World [69], generally unreliable per a February 2024 RSN discussion.[27]
  • Press TV [70], English and French, owned by the government of Iran. Usable as a primary source for opinions and official lines from the Iranian government.[5]
  • RT (TV network) (Russia Today, ANO TV-Novosti, Ruptly, Redfish, Maffick) [71], unreliable and deprecated for publishing fabricated information.[5]
  • Sputnik (news agency) [72], many languages, Sputnik is considered a Russian propaganda outlet that engages in bias and disinformation, some editors consider Sputnik to be a reliable source for official Russian government statements and positions.[5]
  • Stalkerzone [73], described as marginal and unreliable in a July 2020 RSN discussion that specifically focused on its coverage of bellingcat.[34]
  • TakeToNews [74], consists of machine translations of other non-English sources that may violate copyright. Unreliable per October 2022 RSN discussion.[35]
  • Telesur (TV channel) [75][76], deprecated. Useful only for statements of opinion from the government of Venezuela.[5]
  • Today News Africa [77], small consensus for unreliability in a July 2023 RSN discussion.[36]
  • WikiLeaks [78], a repository of primary source documents leaked by anonymous sources. Most editors believe that documents from WikiLeaks fail the verifiability policy, because WikiLeaks does not adequately authenticate them, and there are concerns regarding whether the documents are genuine or tampered. It may be appropriate to cite a document from WikiLeaks as a primary source, but only if it is discussed by a reliable source. However, linking to material that violates copyright is prohibited by the external links guideline.[5]
  • Wikinews [79], insufficient editorial oversight.[5]

Africa

[edit]
See also: WP:WikiProject Arab world § Notability, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Africa Sources List

Cameroon

[edit]
No consensus

Ethiopia

[edit]
Unreliable
  • Tghat, [81] reliable only for its own perspectives per a January 2022 RSN discussion,[38] previously no consensus in an August 2021 RSN discussion as to whether they provide sufficient editorial oversight for their publications.

Ghana

[edit]
No consensus
  • Graphic Ghana [82], a 2019 discussion on reliability was closed as no consensus due to insufficient participation. Most participants seemed to think it was reliable for most news coverage, although some concerns remain due to its unclear relationship to the Ghanaian government.[39]
  • Who's Who in Ghana, reliable for statements of fact but not an indicator of notability due to pay-to-play nature of Who's Who publications per a June 2023 RSN discussion.[40]
  • Yen.com.gh [83], one editor described it as generally unreliable in a November 2023 RSN discussion.[41]

Nigeria

[edit]
For an up-to-date list, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources.
Reliable
No consensus
  • Pulse.ng [95], mostly gossip; sometimes serious reporting; known corporate headquarters and other publications/broadcast[42]
Unreliable
  • African Prints in Fashion [96][42]
  • Austine Media [97], gossip blog[42]
  • Bella Naija [98], gossip blog[42], reaffirmed in a June 2021 RSN discussion.[47]
  • Buzz Nigeria [99], gossip[42]
  • Chioma Jesus [100], one man blog. May be defunct.[42]
  • G Music Plus [101], unreliable blog[42]
  • Gospel Music Naija [102], fan blog. May be defunct.[42]
  • Information Nigeria [103], gossip blog[42]
  • Linda Ikeji's Blog [104][42]
  • Loudest Gist [105], gossip, nonsense compilation blog. May be defunct.[42]
  • Nairaland Forum https://www.nairaland.com/, forum[48]
  • Ono Bello [106], one man blog[42]
  • Stargist [107], celeb gossip blog. May be defunct.[42]
  • STARS [108], unreliable blog[42]
  • Youth Village [109], a "youth magazine", unreliable blog[42]

Namibia

[edit]
No consensus

Somalia

[edit]
Reliable
No consensus
Unreliable
  • Somali Dispatch [116], no indication of reliability per a January 2021 RSN discussion.[51]

South Africa

[edit]
Reliable
  • African Independent [117], deemed to likely be reliable in a May 2020 RfC.[52]
  • Cape Times [118], implicitly treated as reliable in a May 2020 RfC about African Independent.[52]
  • Mail & Guardian [119], unanimous consensus that it is a reliable newsorg in an abbreviated September 2021 RfC.[53]
  • TimesLIVE [120], reliable NEWSORG per an October 2023 RSN discussion.[54]
No consensus
  • The South African [121], no consensus in a June 2024 RSN discussion that identified examples of AI use, possible circular referencing and possible promotional content without proper disclosure.[55] Previously considered reliable NEWSORG per an October 2023 RSN discussion.[54]

Uganda

[edit]
Reliable
  • New Vision (newspaper) [122], large national newspaper, cited frequently by scholarly sources. Unclear if it has a conflict of interest with the government of Uganda.[56]
No consensus
  • PML Daily [123], raised for discussion in June 2019, no editors made any claims to its reliability or lack thereof.[56]

Zambia

[edit]
No consensus

Asia

[edit]
See also: WP:WikiProject Arab world § Notability

Afghanistan

[edit]
No consensus
  • Hasht e Subh [125], no consensus in an April 2023 RSN discussion.[58]

Armenia

[edit]
No consensus
  • Panarmenian.net [126], no consensus in a July 2024 RSN discussion.[59] Previously disparaged as overly biased on topics related to Armenia in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[60]

Azerbaijan

[edit]
No consensus
  • APA [127], consensus in a February 2022 RFC that it should not be used for controversial claims relating to Nagorno-Karabakh, no discussion of reliability in other contexts.[61]
  • GunazTV, [128] no consensus in a 2022 RSN discussion.[62]

Bangladesh

[edit]
No consensus
  • Banglar Alo [129], no consensus in an August 2024 RSN discussion.[63]
  • OurTimeBD [130], no consensus in an April 2023 RSN discussion.[64]
  • Sylnewsbd.com [131], no consensus in an August 2024 RSN discussion.[63]
  • Quick News BD [132], no consensus in an August 2024 RSN discussion.[63]
Unreliable

China

[edit]
Reliable
No consensus
  • Apple Daily [139], a June 2020 RfC did not reach any sort of consensus on this source's reliability.[69]
  • Bamboo Works [140], promotional site per one editor in a March 2024 RSN discussion.[70]
  • Central Tibetan Administration [141], no consensus in a September 2020 RSN discussion.[71]
  • China Central Television [142], may be usable in certain contexts with attribution.[72]
  • China Daily [143][144][145], may be usable in certain contexts with attribution.[72] No consensus in a March 2021 RfC.[73]
  • Guancha.cn [146], a 2020 RfC was split between editors saying that it varied from case to case and editors saying that it was generally unreliable.[74]
  • People's Daily [147], may be usable in certain contexts with attribution.[72][75]
  • Qiushi [148], no consensus in a 2019 discussion. Some editors argued that the source is reliable despite its bias and widely used in academic research, others insisted that its bias is too significant for the publication to be reliable.[75]
  • Sixth Tone [149], English, not reliable for politics but usable for general non-political topics, such as Chinese society or culture.[5]
  • What's on Weibo [150], likely reliable for claims related to Chinese social media and pop culture, but not generally reliable, per a 2020 RfC.[76]
  • Xinhua News Agency [151], may be usable in certain contexts with attribution. Prefer over other Chinese state media sources, comparable to TASS.[72][77]
Unreliable
  • Baidu Baike, crowd-sourced with minimal fact checking.[5]
  • Bitter Winter [152], English, based in Italy. Generally unreliable but might sometimes be relevant with attribution per a June 2022 RfC. Editors raised concerns that it is published by the advocacy group CESNUR, whose publications are considered an unreliable source.[78]
  • China Global Television Network [153], while it may be usable in certain uncontroversial contexts with attribution,[72] a majority of editors in a May 2020 RSN discussion felt that it is generally not reliable and serves primarily as a propaganda outlet.[79]
  • Douban [154], user generated source per an October 2020 RSN discussion.[80]
  • Epoch Times [155], English, published in US, bias toward Falun Gong, may not give appropriate weight to controversial issues.[5]
  • faluninfo.net [156], usable for ABOUTSELF claims about Falun Gong but otherwise unreliable per a July 2020 RSN discussion.[81]
  • Global Times [157], less reliable than other Chinese state media and includes hyperbolic editorials and unreliable editorials reporting on news outside of China.[5]
  • New Tang Dynasty Television [158][159], deemed to be equivalent to other Falun Gong publications such as Epoch Times in a May 2020 RSN discussion.[82]
  • Wen Wei Po [160], all participants in an August 2020 RFC considered it unreliable in most contexts, with many advocating deprecation.[83]

Georgia

[edit]
No consensus
  • Georgia Today [161], one editor argued that it is reliable per WP:NEWSORG in a small January 2023 discussion.[84]

India

[edit]

Editors have argued that the state of Indian English-language journalism as a whole is quite poor. There have been significant paid news scandals in major newspapers, and the industry as a whole has been criticized as lacking in journalistic ethics.[85] Sources listed here in the reliable section also run questionable content from time to time; caution is advised when evaluating Indian news sources.

Reliable
  • Altnews.in [162], has reputation for fake news-busting backed by RS such as the BBC. May be biased or cherrypick in which articles it chooses to run, but nevertheless reliable for the information that it reports.[86]
  • Boom! [163], small consensus for reliability in a September 2020 RSN discussion, citing an IFCN certification.[87]
  • Business Line [164], English, described favorably in a broad discussion of Indian sources.[86]
  • Business Standard [165], English, described favorably in a broad discussion of Indian sources.[86]
  • The Caravan [166], English, one of the most premier magazines in India[88]
  • Cinestaan, [167], usable for uncontroversial claims and media coverage, no consensus on its usage for contentious BLP claims per a November 2022 RSN discussion.[89]
  • Deepika, [168], Malayalam, oldest Malayalam newspaper now in circulation. Generally considered reliable.
  • Dina Thanthi [169], Tamil, paper of record?
  • Feminism In India [170], rough consensus for reliability in a September 2021 RSN discussion.[90]
  • The Financial Express (India) [171], English, described favorably in a broad discussion of Indian sources.[86]
  • The Hindu [172], English, liberal secular, described by editors as one of the only truly reliable English language sources in India. An August 2020 RfC was closed with a consensus that it is generally reliable.[91][92]
  • Hindustan Times [173], English, not much discussion but generally considered reliable by editors,[93]
  • The Indian Express [174][175], English, described by editors as one of the only truly reliable English language sources in India. Not to be confused with the New Indian Express below.[94] Reaffirmed in a May 2020 RfC.[95]
  • Kerala Kaumudi, [176], Malayalam paper of record?
  • LiveMint [177], reliable per an August 2020 RSN discussion, although it also republishes a lot of content including clearly-marked press releases.[96]
  • Madhyamam [178], Malayalam, generally considered reliable, but has some Muslim pro slant.
  • Malayala Manorama [179], Malayalam, paper of record.
  • Mangalam Publications [180] Malayalam, generally considered reliable
  • Mathrubhumi [181], Malayalam, paper of record.
  • The Milli Gazette [182], suggested in an RSN discussion as reliable for Indian Muslim news.[97]
  • Newslaundry [183], a May 2020 RSN discussion was closed with a consensus for general reliability, although in some cases it may need attribution.[98]
  • ThePrint [184], rough consensus that it is reliable, while noting a left wing editorial slant.[86]
  • Rajasthan Patrika [185], described by one editor in an October 2020 RSN discussion as one of the more reliable Hindi papers.[99]
  • Sahapedia [186], consensus in a November 2022 RSN discussion that the clearly-marked, non-crowdsourced articles are reliable and more akin to an academic journal than a wiki.[100]
  • The Statesman (India) [187], English, generally reliable
  • SheThePeople, [188], generally reliable per a September 2021 RSN discussion.[101]
  • The Telegraph (India) [189], English, casually endorsed by an editor in a January 2021 RSN discussion.[102]
  • The Wire (India) [190], generally reliable per a March 2023 RfC.[103] Previously asserted by editors to meet NEWSORG, while others were concerned that it should not be used for notability.[86]


No consensus
  • 123Telugu [191], no consensus in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[104]
  • ABP News [192], some editors consider it to be NEWSORG RS, others consider them to be biased to the point of unreliability.[86]
  • Asian News International [193], no consensus in a March 2021 RfC, with many editors !voting for either 1 or 4 in the poll.[105]
  • Bollywood Hungama [194], one editor described them as sometimes reliable in a July 2020 RSN discussion.[106]
  • East India Story [195], editors raised neutrality and reliability concerns in a June 2024 RSN discussion.[107]
  • The Economic Times [196], English, no consensus in a September 2021 RSN discussion.[108]
  • FirstPost [197], no consensus in a January 2024 RSN discussion.[109]
  • FullHyderabad [198], no consensus in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[104]
  • Heritage Times ,[199] no consensus in an April 2023 RSN discussion.[110]
  • Idlebrain [200], no consensus in a small July 2024 RSN discussion.[111] Previously no consensus in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[104]
  • Indiaglitz [201] described by one editor in a September 2021 RSN discussion as usable for coverage of films.[112]
  • Jant Ka Reporter [202], two participants in a December 2020 RSN discussion describe it as a borderline source, with one leaning towards reliable and the other leaning towards unreliable.[113]
  • National Herald (India) [203], may be WP:NEWSORG but is also effectively a mouthpiece of the Indian National Congress.[86][114]
  • NDTV [204], no consensus in an August 2021 RSN discussion that noted that it is a major Indian news publication.[115]
  • New Indian Express [205], briefly described by one editor as unreliable in a broad discussion of Indian sources.[86]
  • Newsclick [206], no consensus in an August 2024 RSN discussion.[116]
  • Orissapost.com [207], ok for non-controversial news reporting[117]
  • Oneindia [208], no consensus in a February 2023 RSN discussion where one editor gave a detailed argument for unreliability.[118]
  • The Pioneer (India), [209], no consensus in a November 2022 RSN discussion.[119]
  • The Quint [210], some editors assert that it is unreliable, others that it is usable for verifiability but not notability, and yet others with a more favorable impression of the source.[86]
  • Radiance Weekly [211], published by Jamaat-e-Islami, likely not independent for most subjects where it would be relevant to cite it.[97]
  • Scroll.in [212], fails to distinguish news reporting and opinion, a poor source for controversial topics.[86]
  • Sify.com, [213] described by one editor in a September 2021 RSN discussion as usable for coverage of scifi/fantasy films.[112]
  • The Sunday Guardian [214], English, no consensus in a September 2020 RSN discussion.[120]
  • Times of Assam, [215] a February 2022 RSN discussion noted a few reasons to be wary of the source but did not come to a firm consensus.[121]
  • Times of India [216], English, major Indian news publication with a pro-government slant, frequently includes rather promotional articles and interviews for individuals in the film industry.[122] Most participants in a 2020 RfC considered its reliability to be unclear.[123][5]
  • Times Now [217], compared by one editor to Fox News, denounced as unreliable by others.[86]
  • Zee News [218], some editors consider it to be NEWSORG RS, others consider them to be biased to the point of unreliability.[86]
Unreliable
  • Connexionblog [219], consensus that it is an unreliable group blog in a small December 2023 RSN discussion.[124]
  • DailyO.in [220], primarily opinion pieces.[86]
  • e-pao.net [221], reliant on user-generated content per a small April 2023 RSN discussion.[125]
  • EastMojo [222], small consensus for unreliability in a December 2023 RSN discussion.[126]
  • The Frustrated Indian, TFIpost https://tfipost.com/, Rightlog.in, described by one editor as a fringe source with no editorial policies.[86][127]
  • Hindi 2News [223], an April 2020 RSN discussion concluded that it is unusable per WP:COPYLINK.[128]
  • HinduPost [224], generally unreliable per a small February 2022 RSN discussion.[129]
  • Indiafacts [225], small consensus for unreliability as an essentially fringe source in a December 2022 RSN discussion.[130]
  • Insistposthindi.in [226], possibly defunct, self-described marketing website.[86]
  • Live History India [227], small consensus for unreliability in a September 2020 RSN discussion.[131]
  • The Logical Indian [228], news aggregator, consider citing the original piece if originally published in a reliable outlet.[132]
  • Masala! [229], small consensus for unreliability in a September 2020 RSN discussion.[133]
  • Moneylife [230], an August 2021 RSN discussion, two editors raised concerns about the degree of editorial oversight, noting both factual and copyediting errors.[134]
  • onefivenine.com considered a hobbyist site with numerous issues per January 2016 discussion.[135]
  • OpIndia described by an editor as a right-wing propaganda mill.[86] They also doxx people, including Wikipedia editors.[136] It is currently blacklisted.[5]
  • Postcard News [231], possibly defunct, regarded as completely unreliable by several editors.[86][127]
  • Republic TV [232], deprecated in an October 2021 RfC.[5]
  • Sarup & Sons publishing house, a September 2020 RSN discussion had a consensus that the source has published copyright-violating material and thus cannot be trusted to generally practice appropriate editorial oversight.[137]
  • Swarajya (magazine), vast majority of editors in a 2020 discussion voted to deprecate it.[136] It is currently blacklisted.[5]
  • TimesNext, [233], described as overwhelmingly trading in sponsored content in a November 2022 RSN discussion.[138]
  • WION [234], unreliable per a May 2024 RfC.[139] Previously no consensus in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[140]
  • Youth Ki Awaaz [235], user generated content.[141]
  • Yuva TV, a BJP internet TV channel and generally unreliable per a December 2020 RSN discussion.[142]

Indonesia

[edit]
No consensus
  • Tapol Bulletin [236], small consensus for reliability in a January 2021 RSN discussion, although some concerns of bias and advocacy were noted.[143]

Iran

[edit]
Reliable
No consensus
  • Fars News Agency [238], state-backed, weak consensus that it can be used for statements of fact but unreliable for political affairs, according to a July 2014 discussion.[146]
  • Iran International [239], no consensus in an August 2024 RSN discussion.[147] Previously no consensus in a 2020 RSN discussion that identified it as a Saudi-aligned publication. [148]
  • Iranwire [240], reliable according to one editor in a small June 2024 RSN discussion.[149]
  • Islamic Republic News Agency [241], small consensus in a March 2021 RSN discussion that it is usable for non-controversial claims and claims of the official views of the Iranian government as a major state-run news outlet in a country with low press freedom.[150]
  • Tasnim News Agency [242], no consensus in a March 2024 RfC.[151]
  • Tehran Times, [243] an April 2021 RSN discussion raised concerns about citogenesis related to this source.[152]
Unreliable
  • Press TV [244], owned by the government of Iran. Usable as a primary source for opinions and official lines from the Iranian government.[5]
  • HispanTV [245], deprecated, Spanish language, republishes conspiracy theories and Iranian propaganda.[5]

Iraq

[edit]
No consensus
  • Kurdistan Human Rights Network [246], may be usable with attribution[153]

Israel/Palestine

[edit]
Reliable
  • B'Tselem [247], weak consensus for general reliability for their reporting, with several editors suggesting that they should be cited with attribution.[154]
  • Haaretz [248], reliable for news reporting.[5]
  • Ynet [249], rough consensus that it is a reliable WP:NEWSORG per an April 2024 RSN discussion.[155]
No consensus
  • +972 Magazine [250], generally reliable per a July 2024 RfC.[156] Previously no consensus in a March 2024 RSN discussion.[157]
  • Debka [251], no consensus in a small April 2021 RSN discussion.[158]
  • Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) [252], no consensus in a July 2020 RfC, with many editors voting either Option 1 or Option 4. The crux of the discussion was over whether the source's translations of Arabic sources were reliably accurate, with editors broadly acknowledging that MEMRI's coverage is generally primary in nature and that the institute has a clear political agenda when it comes to its decisions of which content to translate.[159]
  • i24NEWS [253], no consensus in an August 2024 RSN discussion.[160]
  • The Jerusalem Post [254], no consensus in an April 2024 RSN discussion.[155] a September 2023 discussion implicitly considered it generally reliable for news reporting, but focused on determining a consensus that the publications' "Special Content" section is paid advertising and generally unreliable.[161]
  • Mondoweiss [255], English, largely reports on issues related to Israel/Palestine. Opinionated source backed by an advocacy group, statements should be attributed.[5]
  • NRG360 [256], closed in 2018, no consensus on its reliability for I/P topics in a May 2020 RSN discussion.[162]
  • The Times of Israel [257], rough consensus in a June 2024 RSN discussion that it is among the best English-language Israeli news sources, but with editors noting caveats about coverage credited to "TOI staff", its opinion section, the degree to which it just aggregates and translates material from Hebrew-language publications, and its ability to accurately translate material on specialized topics.[163] Previously no consensus in an April 2024 RSN discussion that described it as a reliable WP:NEWSORG with a patriotic bias,[155] previously no consensus in a large 2015 RSN discussion. Concerned editors pointed out that the Times of Israel is strongly biased on Arab-Israeli relations and colonization, and mis-quoted someone.[164]
  • Wafa [258], no consensus in an October 2020 RSN discussion, although there was a bit more agreement that it's likely reliable for the perspectives and statements .of the Palestinian Authority.[165]


Unreliable
  • The Electronic Intifada [259], there is a consensus that EI does insufficient fact checking and error correction.[5]
  • Israelunwired.com [260], unreputable and possibly self-published per a 2020 RSN discussion.[166]
  • NGO Monitor [261], There is a consensus that NGO Monitor is not reliable for facts. Editors agree that, despite attempts to portray itself otherwise, it is an advocacy organization whose primary goal is to attack organizations that disagree with it regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict. Some editors also express concern about past attempts by NGO Monitor staff to manipulate coverage of itself on Wikipedia.[5]

Japan

[edit]
Reliable
  • The Asahi Shimbun [262], major Japanese newspaper per a June 2021 RSN discussion.[167]
  • Japan Times [263], English and Japanese, NEWSORG per a July 2024 RSN discussion.[168] In a prior discussion, while editors raised some concerns over the English language edition's fact checking, ultimately editors agreed that it is comparable to other reliable newspapers.[169]
  • NHK World-Japan, [264] reliable as a major news organization per a March 2021 RSN discussion.[170] Discussion reaffirmed in a November 2022 RSN discussion.[171]
  • Nikkei [265], reliable but shy of controversial stories per an August 2020 RSN discussion.[172]
No consensus
  • Chara Biz [266], editors in a November 2022 RSN discussion agreed that it is a major industry publication, and produces both reliable analysis and republished press releases.[173]

Kazakhstan

[edit]
No consensus
  • The Astana Times [267], described as not independent of the Kazakhstan government in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[174]
  • Edge.kz [268], possibly defunct, described as not independent of the Kazakhstan government in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[174]
  • EU Reporter [269], described as not independent of the Kazakhstan government in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[174]


Lebanon

[edit]
No consensus
Unreliable

Malaysia

[edit]
No consensus
  • newsarawaktribune.com.my [274], no consensus in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[177]

The Sun, [275], no consensus in a small January 2023 discussion. Previously consensus leaned towards generally unreliable in a June 2021 RSN discussion.[178]

Unreliable

Mongolia

[edit]
Reliable
  • Монголын Туухын Тайлбар Толь Dictionary of Mongolian History [276], small consensus for reliability for noncontroversial historical details in a November 2023 RSN discussion.[179]
No consensus
  • Mongoltoli.mn [277], described by one editor as a reliable, Mongolian government-endorsed source for Mongolian history in a February 2024 RSN discussion.[180]

Myanmar

[edit]
No consensus

Nepal

[edit]
No consensus
  • Kathmandu Tribune [279], no consensus, editors raised concerns about paid content and syndicated content from Xinhua.[182]

North Korea

[edit]
No consensus
  • Daily NK, [280] no consensus in a February 2022 RfC.[183]

Pakistan

[edit]
Reliable
No consensus
  • The Express Tribune [282], a December 2023 RSN discussion noted that it is a major WP:NEWSORG, but also apparently runs sponsored content without proper disclosure.[187]
  • FactFocus [283], no consensus in an April 2024 RSN discussion.[188]
  • Geo TV, [284] no firm consensus but leaning towards reliable in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[189]
  • Global Village Space [285], no consensus in an April 2024 RSN discussion.[190]
  • Hipinpakistan [286], no consensus in a November 2022 RSN discussion.[191]
  • MM News, [287] cautiously positively appraised by one editor in a July 2022 RSN discussion.[192]
  • Propakistani.pk [288], a small June 2024 RSN discussion discussion leaned towards unreliability,[193] no consensus in a March 2024 RSN discussion.[194]
Unreliable
  • BOL News [289], rough consensus for unreliability in a May 2024 RSN discussion.[195]
  • Dispatch News Desk (DND) [290], a few editors expressed doubts that DND is reliable in an August 2020 RSN discussion.[196]
  • Pakistan Frontier [291], unreliable per a June 2024 RSN discussion. [197]
  • Pakmag.net [292], one-man blog per a small July 2024 RSN discussion.[198]

The Philippines

[edit]
Reliable
  • Tempo, [293], described as one of the better tabloids in the Philippines in an October 2022 RSN discussion.[199]
No consensus
Unreliable
  • Hataw!, [297] disparaged in an October 2022 RSN discussion that did not reach firm consensus. Editors noted libel cases and dubious advertising practices.[199]
  • PinoyParazzi, [298] described as unreliable in an October 2022 RSN discussion.[202]

Saudi Arabia

[edit]
Reliable
  • Asharq News [299], small consensus that it is a generally reliable WP:NEWSORG, with a caveat about its connections to the Saudi government in an April 2023 RSN discussion.[203]
No consensus
  • Al Arabiya [300], no consensus in a February 2024 RSN discussion.[204] Previously no consensus in an October 2023 RSN discussion.[205]
  • Arab News [301], an April 2020 RfC was closed as "maybe reliable" with concerns raised about its connections to the Saudi government.[206]

Singapore

[edit]
No consensus
  • Straits Times [302], major newspaper in Singapore but further concerns persist regarding its ability to cover Singaporean news topics.[5]
Unreliable
  • Vulcan Post [303], promotional outlet per a February 2024 RSN discussion. May be reliable for uncontroversial factual information.[207]

South Korea

[edit]
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources
Reliable
No consensus
  • The Chosun Ilbo [306], major newsorg but has had reliability controversies. No consensus in a small December 2023 discussion about its North Korea coverage.[208]

Sri Lanka

[edit]
No consensus
  • Colombo Page [307], largely reprints material from other sources per a September 2020 RSN discussion.[209]
Unreliable
  • amazinglanka.com [308], unreliable per a small December 2023 RSN discussion.[210]

Syria

[edit]
Reliable
  • Al-Masdar News [309], reliable for statements of fact despite its pro-Syrian government bias. Editors have raised concerns about whether claims supported by this source should be cited without attribution, see the cited discussion for more information.[211]
No consensus
  • ARA News [310][311], defunct, accused of unreliability and having a bias, insufficient discussion for consensus.[212]
  • ANF News [312][313], accused of unreliability having a bias, insufficient discussion for consensus.[212]
  • Hawar News [314], accused of unreliability and having a bias, insufficient discussion for consensus.[212]
  • Kurdistan24 [315], no consensus in a July 2021 RSN discussion.[213] Previously no consensus in a discussion where it was accused of unreliability and having a bias, insufficient discussion for consensus.[212]
  • Kurdistan Human Rights Network [316], insufficient discussion for consensus[153]
  • KurdWatch [317], no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion, editors suggested that it has an anti-YPG bias.[214]
  • New Compass [318], accused of unreliability having a bias, insufficient discussion for consensus.[212]

Taiwan

[edit]
Reliable
Unreliable
  • Peopo.org [322], may be defunct, a May 2020 RfC considered this to be a self-published citizen journalism source.[219]

Thailand

[edit]
Unreliable

Turkey

[edit]
No consensus
  • A Haber, [324] no consensus in a June 2021 RSN discussion which raised concerns about disinformation.[221]
  • Ahval [325], editors in a December 2020 RSN discussion described it as an opposition outlet with ties to the UAE, but did not make any firm statements about its reliability.[222]
  • Aydınlık [326], disparaged as tabloidy in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[223]
  • Demokrat Haber [327], no consensus in an August 2023 RSN discussion.[224]
  • Hürseda Haber [328], no consensus in a February 2023 RSN discussion where one editor claimed the publication is propaganda outlet for Free Cause Party.[225]
  • Kurdistan Human Rights Network [329], may be usable with attribution[153]
  • İnternethaber [330], disparaged as tabloidy in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[223]
  • TRT World [331], an RfC closed in June 2019 reached a consensus that it is not reliable for anything with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest, but that it is likely reliable for unrelated reporting and statements about the official positions of the Turkish government.[226]
  • Yeniçağ [332], disparaged as tabloidy in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[223]
Unreliable

United Arab Emirates

[edit]
No consensus
  • Gulf News [336], no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion. Editors suggested that it is probably usable for uncontroversial claims but may lack impartiality for sensitive topics.[229]
  • The National News [337], no consensus in a September 2023 RSN discussion.[230] Previously no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion. Editors suggested that it is probably usable for uncontroversial claims but may lack impartiality for sensitive topics.[229]
Unreliable
  • The Arabian Post [338], AI-driven content farm per a small May 2024 RSN discussion.[231]

Vietnam

[edit]
No consensus
  • Thanh Nien, [339] no consensus in a January 2022 RSN discussion.[232]
  • VietnamNet.vn [340], government outlet in a low press freedom country per a December 2020 RSN discussion.[233]

Europe

[edit]

Albania

[edit]
Unreliable
  • Works by Edwin E Jacques, particularly The Albanians: An Ethnic History from Prehistoric Times to the Present. Despite its popularity in the Albanian diaspora, it has been heavily criticized by historians and is not reliable for historical statements.[234]

Bulgaria

[edit]
No consensus
  • Novinite [341], editors in an August 2024 RSN discussion identified errors in its coverage of architecture but did not coalescee around a more general evaluation of reliability. [235]

Croatia

[edit]
No consensus
  • HKV.hr [342], a June 2020 RSN discussion established that HKV.hr republishes content from unreliable sources such as RT, but an editor argued that its coverage for "cultural" topics is nevertheless usable.[236]

Czech Republic

[edit]
Reliable
No consensus
Unreliable
  • Aeronet (aka AE News) [348], described by an editor as "fake news" with respect to its coverage of Czech politics.[237]
  • Aha! (tabloid) [349], described as a tabloid, unfavorably compared to other Czech sources.[237]
  • Blesk [350], described as a tabloid, unfavorably compared to other Czech sources.[237]
  • Parlamentní listy [351], described by editors as "horseshit" and "fake news" with respect to its coverage of Czech politics.[237]
  • Super [352], defunct, described as a tabloid, unfavorably compared to other Czech sources.[237]

Finland

[edit]
No consensus
  • GB Times [353], probably defunct. Insufficient RSN discussion, one editor expressed concern that they might be a PR mill.[238]

France

[edit]
Reliable

Germany

[edit]
Reliable
No consensus
Unreliable

Greece

[edit]
No consensus
  • Kathimerini [368][369], no consensus in a November 2020 RSN discussion. Editors noted that it has a conservative political bias.[246]
  • Proto Thema [370], disparaged by one editor in a November 2021 RSN discussion that did not draw broader participation.[247]
Unreliable
  • Greek City Times [371], unreliable due to a lack of a reputation for fact-checking and connections to neo-nazi groups per a July 2021 RSN discussion.[248] Previously discussed in November 2020 with a similar outcome.[249]

Ireland

[edit]
Reliable
No consensus
Unreliable
  • An Phoblacht [377], usable only for WP:ABOUTSELF cases for Sinn Feinn and maybe the IRA per a July 2020 RSN discussion.[254]
  • Gript Media [378], opinion publication, a January 2021 RSN discussion had a rough consensus that it is not usable for factual claims.[255]

Italy

[edit]
No consensus
Unreliable

Latvia

[edit]
Reliable
  • Meduza [381], described as generally reliable in a January 2023 RSN discussion.[258] Previously briefly described as reliable in a June 2020 RSN discussion but did not receive sufficient discussion for consensus.[259]

Malta

[edit]
Reliable

The Netherlands

[edit]
No consensus
  • NRC Handelsblad [384], described as one editor as considered at least mostly reliable.[261]

Poland

[edit]
Reliable
  • Gazeta.pl, [385], consensus for reliability in an October 2021 RfC.[262]
  • Gazeta Wyborcza [386], consensus for general reliability in a February 2021 RSN discussion.[5]
  • OKO.press [387], reliable per a March 2024 RfC.[263] Previously no consensus in an October 2021 RfC,[262] no consensus in a February 2021 RSN discussion.[264]
  • Polityka, [388], consensus for reliability in an October 2021 RfC.[262]
  • Trojmiasto.pl, [389], small consensus in a November 2022 RSN discussion that it is reliable for local news.[265]
No consensus
  • NaTemat [390], consensus that it is a tabloid and should not be used for controversial topics.[262]
Unreliable
  • Do Rzeczy [393], rough consensus for unreliability in an October 2021 RfC,[262] previously no consensus in a February 2021 RSN discussion, with a majority of editors arguing that it was unreliable.[268]
  • Gazeta Polska [394], unreliable per an October 2021 RfC,[262] previously no consensus in a February 2021 RSN discussion with a majority of editors arguing that it was unreliable.[269]
  • Najwyższy Czas! [395], unreliable far-right fringe site per a February 2021 RSN discussion.[270]
  • Nasz Dziennik, [396] unreliable per a February 2021 RSN discussion.[271]
  • niezalezna.pl [397], unreliable per an October 2021 RfC,[262] previously no consensus in a February 2021 RSN discussion, with a majority of editors arguing that it was unreliable.[272]
  • Radio Maryja [398], unreliable per a February 2021 RSN discussion.[271]
  • Sieci ([399], [400], [401], [402], [403], [404], [405]), rough consensus for unreliable in a February 2021 RSN discussion.[273]
  • TV Republika [406], unreliable per an October 2021 RfC,[262] previously no consensus in a February 2021 RSN discussion with a majority of editors arguing that it was unreliable.[269]
  • TV Trwam [407] unreliable per a February 2021 RSN discussion.[271]

Russia

[edit]
Reliable
  • Kommersant [408][5]
  • Meduza [409], described as generally reliable in a January 2023 RSN discussion.[258] Previously briefly described as reliable in a June 2020 RSN discussion but did not receive sufficient discussion for consensus.[259]
  • Novaya Gazeta [410], small consensus for reliability in a February 2023 RSN discussion.[274] Previously briefly described as reliable in a June 2020 RSN discussion but did not receive sufficient discussion.[259]
No consensus
  • Donbass Today [donbasstoday.ru], no consensus in a September 2023 RSN discussion.[275]
  • Great Russian Encyclopedia [411], no consensus on general usage in a December 2023 RSN discussion, although there was general agreement that it is not reliable for claims relating to Ukraine or other topics of political interest to the Russian government.[276]
  • RBK Group (rbc.ru, rbc.ua, RBC Group, RosBiznessConsulting) [412][413], no consensus in a June 2020 RSN discussion.[259]
  • Reframing Russia [414], British university research project, no consensus in a December 2020 RSN discussion.[277]
  • RIA Novosti [415], official news agency of the Russian government. It is generally considered a usable source for official government statements and positions. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for other topics, though opinions generally lean towards unreliability.[5]
Unreliable
  • ANNA News, [416], deprecated in a March 2022 RfC.[5]
  • hrvc.net (Human rights violations Chechnya) [417], possibly defunct, described as self-published by one editor at RSN in May 2020.[278]
  • Life.ru [418], pro-Kremlin propaganda per a June 2023 RSN discussion.[279]
  • peoples.ru [419][280]
  • proza.ru [420], self-publishing platform per a March 2023 RSN discussion.[281]
  • The Siberian Times [421], editors in a 2020 RSN discussion came to a consensus that it is not a reliable source.[282]
  • South Front, described as a Russian government-backed disinformation site.[283][5]
  • Vzglyad [422], Russian state propaganda outlet per a May 2021 RSN discussion.[284]
  • TASS (ТАСС, ITAR-TASS, Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union) [423], In a 2022 RfC, editors achieved a strong consensus that TASS is a biased source with respect to topics in which the Russian government may have an interest and that the source is generally unreliable for providing contentious facts in that context. Editors attained a rough consensus that TASS should not be deprecated at this time and a rough consensus that TASS is generally unreliable more broadly for facts, with the caveat that it is considered reliable for quotes of statements made by the Kremlin, the Russian State, and pro-Kremlin politicians. A previous 2019 RfC had concluded that reliability is unclear or additional considerations apply.[5]

Switzerland

[edit]
Reliable

Ukraine

[edit]
Reliable
No consensus
  • Euromaidan Press, [427] no consensus in a June 2022 discussion.[288]
  • RBK Group (rbc.ru, rbc.ua, RBC Group, RosBiznessConsulting) [428][429], no consensus in a June 2020 RSN discussion.[259]
  • UNIAN.ua [430], described as relatively reliable for reporting on topics other than Ukraine–Russia relations in a January 2021 RSN discussion.[289]
  • Kyiv Post [431], described in a March 2022 RSN discussion as being reliable prior to firing its staff in November 2021, with the implication that quality may have dropped sharply since then.[290]
  • Kyiv Independent [432], no consensus in a March 2022 RSN discussion.[290]
Unreliable

United Kingdom

[edit]
Reliable
No consensus
  • The Argus, [457] no consensus in an October 2022 RSN discussion.[304]
  • Asian Express [458], assessed as unreliable by one editor in a September 2020 RSN discussion.[305]
  • Castlewales.com [459], covers medieval castles of Wales, editors in a 2020 discussion noted that it is written by recognized experts, insufficient discussion to declare a clear consensus.[306]
  • Daily Mirror [460], tabloid.[5]
  • Desmog Blogs desmog.uk, desmog.co.uk, desmogblog.com [461][462][463], Editors in a 2020 discussion generally agreed that the source has a significant bias but did not agree on whether it is generally reliable. Editors noted that it likely has more editorial control than a typical blog, but could be unreliable due to other reasons.[307]
  • Encyclopedia Britannica [464], a tertiary source with a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Most editors prefer reliable secondary sources over the Encyclopædia Britannica when available. From 2009 to 2010, the Encyclopædia Britannica Online accepted a small number of content submissions from the general public. Although these submissions undergo the encyclopedia's editorial process, some editors believe that content from non-staff contributors is less reliable than the encyclopedia's staff-authored content.[5]
  • Evening Standard [465], despite being a free newspaper, considered more reliable than British tabloids.[5]
  • The Eye (Wales) [466], a June 2020 RSN discussion was mostly dismissive of the source's coverage but did not come to a clear condemnation.[308]
  • Gauchoworld [467], no consensus in an August 2023 RSN discussion.[309]
  • Hansard [468], primary source of transcripts from Parliament, use with attribution.[5]
  • Hope not Hate [469], advocacy group for anti-racism and anti-fascism, reliability must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.[5]
  • The Lobster (magazine) [470], no consensus in a small June 2024 RSN discussion.[310]
  • Morning Star (British newspaper) [471], no consensus, communist political line.[5]
  • The National (Scotland) [472], generally reliable per WP:NEWSORG per an April 2023 RSN discussion.[311] Previously no consensus in a brief October 2020 RSN discussion.[295]
  • The New European [473], a July 2020 RSN discussion did not come to a firm consensus.[312]
  • openDemocracy [474], no consensus in a June 2021 RSN discussion.[313] In a prior discussion, editors raised concerns that there is insufficient fact checking, but suggested that it's likely usable for attributed opinions. Insufficient participation in the discussion for a consensus.[314]
  • Scottish-places.info [475], no consensus in an April 2021 RSN discussion.[315]
  • The Skeptic (UK magazine) [476], no clear consensus on general reliability in an October 2020 RSN discussion, leaning towards reliability, particularly for claims about perspectives of the mainstream scientific community.[316]
  • The Spectator [477], a June 2020 RSN discussion came to a rough consensus that it is usable for attributable opinion.[317]
  • Spiked (magazine) [478], no consensus in a March 2024 RSN discussion.[318] Previously no consensus in an April 2020 RSN discussion.[319]
  • The Tab [479], a January 2021 RSN discussion roughly agreed that it is not a good source, but some editors argued that it may occasionally be usable.[320]
  • UnHerd [480], no consensus, leaning towards unreliability, in an August 2023 RSN discussion.[321]
Unreliable

North America

[edit]

Canada

[edit]
Reliable
No consensus
  • itbusiness.ca [516], described as usable by one editor in an April 2024 RSN discussion.[342]
  • The Tyee [517], no consensus in a December 2020 RSN discussion[343].
Unreliable

Costa Rica

[edit]
Reliable

Cuba

[edit]
Unreliable
  • TheCubanHistory.com, [525] probably unreliable per a June 2021 RSN discussion.[350]
  • U.S. Agency for Global Media and subsidiaries [526], generally unreliable and deprecated per a March 2024 RfC.[5]

United States

[edit]
Reliable
No consensus
  • Algemeiner [625], no consensus in a July 2020 RfC. Editors agreed that it is generally reliable for uncontroversial Jewish community news, but were divided on whether it is usable for controversial claims.[404]
  • Allsides.com [626][5]
  • Allthatsinteresting.com [627], no consensus in a November 2021 RSN discussion.[405]
  • American Community Survey, [628], described as reliable but primary in a June 2020 RSN discussion.[406]
  • The American Conservative [629], usable for attributed opinions, opinionated/biased source. A September 2020 RfC was split between editors that felt that it was unreliable due to promotion of conspiracy theories, and editors who felt that it was situationally reliable.[5]
  • Ballotpedia [630], election website with editorial team, but Wikipedia editors have expressed concern with their editorial process.[5]
  • BET [631], a small January 2021 RSN discussion suggested that while it may be usable in some cases as a major news network, its tendency towards sensationalism may make it less appropriate for BLP claims.[407]
  • The Boston Herald [632], no consensus. Described as an "old school conservative tabloid rag" by one editor, but referred to as having a tabloid appearance but reliable by other editors.[408][409][410]
  • Brookings Institution [633], think tank, albeit a relatively highly regarded one. Should be considered a primary source for its analysis of subjects.[411]
  • Bustle (magazine) [634], women's magazine, reliability unclear.[5]
  • BuzzFeed [635], not to be confused with BuzzFeed News[5]
  • Catholic Standard [636], likely reliable for basic reporting of facts, no consensus on its reliability or independence from other Catholic institutions per a small April 2023 RSN discussion.[412]
  • Cato Institute [637], reliable for opinion statements.[5]
  • Center for Economic and Policy Research [638], an economic policy think tank. Biased or opinionated, use attribution.[5]
  • Colorado Times Recorder [639], no consensus in a February 2023 RSN discussion.[413]
  • Cosmopolitan (magazine) [640], evaluate on a case-by-case basis.[5]
  • Council on Foreign Relations [641], think tank. Should be considered a primary source for its analysis of subjects.[411]
  • COURIER [642], no consensus in a December 2020 RSN discussion.[414]
  • The Daily Beast [643][5]
  • Democracy Now! [644], partisan source, no consensus on reliability.[5]
  • Dirt.com [645], no consensus in a June 2023 RSN discussion.[415]
  • The Dispatch [646], no consensus in a November 2020 RSN discussion. Editors noted that the writing appears to be thorough, but raised concerns about ownership and editorial independence, as well as opining that the publication is too new to allow for a proper assessment.[416]
  • Encyclopedia of Arkansas [647], no consensus between two editors in a December 2023 RSN discussion.[417]
  • Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting [648], progressive bias, do not use to support controversial claims in BLPs[5]
  • Fatherly [649], described as reliable for lifestyle-magazine reporting by one editor in a June 2024 RSN discussion.[418]
  • FITSNews [650], no consensus in a December 2020 RSN discussion.[419]
  • Fox News [651] [652], political and science coverage generally unreliable, no consensus on other news coverage.'[5]
  • The Free Press [653], no consensus in an April 2024 RSN discussion.[420] Previously no consensus on whether it should be considered WP:SPS in a February 2023 RSN discussion.[421]
  • Gay City News [654], no consensus in a December 2020 RSN discussion.[422]
  • The Green Papers [655], April 2020 RfC closed as no consensus, with a slightly stronger case for unreliability.[423]
  • Hill Rag [656], no clear consensus in a December 2022 RSN discussion.[424]
  • HuffPost [657], no consensus with most editors preferring to use more established sources.[5]
  • Human Events [658], biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed.[5]
  • The Hustle [659], no clear consensus in a 2020 RSN discussion. Note that much of its material is tertiary summaries of other sources.[425]
  • Independent Journal Review [660], news reporting is largely syndicated from Reuters, "community member" posts are self-published.[5]
  • Independent Political Report [661], no consensus in an August 2024 RSN discussion.[426] Previously a small consensus for unreliability in a September 2010 RSN discussion.[427]
  • Inside Hook [662], no consensus in a March 2024 RSN discussion.[428]
  • Jamestown Foundation [663], a think tank. Should be considered a primary source for its analysis of subjects.[411]
  • Jewish News Syndicate [664], no consensus in a July 2020 RfC. Some editors vouched for its reliability, while others said that the publication was very new and thus hard to evaluate.[404]
  • LA Weekly [665], a December 2022 RSN discussion raised concerns about their editorial policies in relation to articles apparently commissioned by a long-term Wikipedia abuser, but did not come to a firm consensus regarding its content overall.[429]
  • Law & Crime [666], no consensus in a June 2021 RSN discussion that recapped prior discussions.[430]
  • LawSites (Lawnext.com) [667], self-published source, no consensus on its status as potential US legal WP:SME in a November 2023 RSN discussion.[431]
  • Legal Insurrection [668], no consensus in a May 2024 RfC, with a majority of respondents hedging between "considerations apply" and "generally unreliable".[432]
  • LGBTQ Nation [669], no consensus in a December 2022 RSN discussion.[433]
  • The Liberty Herald, [670], described as unreliable by one editor in a June 2021 RSN discussion.[434]
  • Local Government Information Services [671][672][673][674][675][676][677][678][679][680][681][682][683][684][685][686][687][688][689][690][691][692][693][694][695][696][697][698][699][700][701][702][703][704][705], umbrella group of political outlets operated by Dan Proft masquerading as local news sources per a January 2021 RSN discussion. There has been no analysis on a paper by paper level, but editors expressed concern about the group as a whole.[435]
  • Lifehacker [706] run by G/O Media, weak consensus for unreliability in October 2020 RSN discussion, but later discussions highlighted that the site has (some) editorial oversight.[436][437]
  • Mediaite [707], inappropriately blurs news and opinion.[5]
  • Media Matters for America [708], progressive media-watchdog.[5]
  • Mental Floss [709], their history trivia section was described as a poor quality source in a June 2021 RSN discussion, no discussion of other topics or sections.[438]
  • The Messenger (website), no consensus in an October 2023 RSN discussion.[439]
  • Monkey Cage [710], opinion publication. Largely staffed by certified experts per a July 2020 RSN discussion.[440]
  • More Perfect Union [711], rough consensus for "exercise caution" in a July 2023 RSN discussion.[441]
  • MyNorthwest.com [712], consensus in a June 2023 RSN discussion hovered between "reliable WP:NEWSORG" and "use with caution", with extra caution recommended for political and KTTH-authored articles.[442]
  • National Bridge Inventory [713], disparaged by one editor in a June 2023 RSN discussion that did not receive any further responses.[443]
  • National Review [714], no consensus, partisan source (American conservative).[5]
  • NewsNation [715], no consensus in a November 2023 RSN discussion.[444]
  • Newsweek (2013–present) [716], many languages, changes in editorial leadership have led to a decline in the magazine's reliability, evaluate on a case-by-case basis.[5]
  • Nosh.com [717], no consensus on reliability in a February 2023 RSN discussion.[445]
  • Oregon Encyclopedia [718], no consensus in a September 2020 RSN discussion.[446]
  • Our Town St. James, [719] local newspaper, no consensus regarding its reliability in a March 2021 RSN discussion.[447]
  • Paper Mag [720], no consensus in an October 2023 RSN discussion.[448]
  • Paste (magazine) [721], no consensus for reliability on political topics.[449]
  • Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [722], no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion. Concerns were raised that stories had been manipulated to push pro-Trump narratives, but it's not clear that this extended to factual reporting.[450]
  • Pride.com [723], an LGBT-oriented media company, editors in a May 2020 RfC were unable to discern clear editorial policies, and asserted the quality varied from article to article.[451]
  • RealClear media [724] (RealClearPolitics, RealClearInvestigations]]), no consensus in an April 2021 RfC.[452]
  • Right Wing Watch [725], a July 2019 discussion yielded no consensus.[453]
  • Rolling Stone [726], generally reliable for pop culture topics, generally unreliable for politics, see RSP for more details.[5]
  • Salon (website) [727], largely an opinion publication, no consensus on reliability.[5]
  • Skeptic (US magazine) [728], no clear consensus on general reliability in an October 2020 RSN discussion, leaning towards reliability, particularly for claims about perspectives of the mainstream scientific community.[316]
  • Skeptical Inquirer [729], no clear consensus on general reliability in an October 2020 RSN discussion, leaning towards reliability, particularly for claims about perspectives of the mainstream scientific community.[316]
  • Sludge [730], reports on lobbying and money in politics. A 2020 RSN discussion had concerns that there were only two employees, and that other RS's don't reference them.[454]
  • Spectrum Culture, [731] no consensus in a June 2021 RSN discussion.[455]
  • Star Media publications Michigan Star, Tennessee Star, Ohio Star, Minnesota Sun [732][733][734][735], editors in a 2020 RSN discussion identified reasons to suspect unreliability for these publications, but discussion was a bit too sparse to call consensus.[456] Tennessee Star specifically was described as marginal, and at most usable for the sourcing of uncontroversial facts in a February 2023 RSN discussion.[457]
  • Talking Points Memo [736], no consensus in a 2013 RSN discussion. Editors described them as "a professional news organization with editorial oversight", but were also concerned about their far left bias.[458]
  • ThinkProgress [737], defunct. Discussions of ThinkProgress are dated, with the most recent in 2013. Circumstances may have changed. Some consider ThinkProgress a form of WP:NEWSBLOG, and reliable for attributed statements of opinion. Others argue that ThinkProgress is generally reliable under WP:NEWSORG, albeit with due consideration for their political leanings.[5]
  • Toledo Blade [738], no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion. Concerns were raised that stories had been manipulated to push pro-Trump narratives, but it's not clear that this extended to factual reporting.[450]
  • Townhall [739], as of 2010, a few editors commented that opinion pieces in Townhall are reliable as a source for the opinion of the author of the individual piece, although they may not be reliable for unattributed statements of fact.[5]
  • Washington Examiner [740], no consensus about general reliability. There is consensus that opinions in the Washington Examiner should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims regarding living persons.[5]
  • The Washington Times [741], marginally reliable, and should be avoided when more reliable sources are available. Its reporting is considered to be particularly biased for climate change and US race relations.[5]
  • The Week [742][743][744], editors in a June 2020 RSN discussion raised concerns that it is primarily a publisher of opinion.[459]
Unreliable
  • Ad Fontes Media [745], in an April 2020 discussion about its use for a specific claim, most editors felt that it was not usable due to being self-published.[460] A June 2020 RSN discussion had no consensus between editors who felt that it was unreliable and editors who felt that it would sometimes be usable with attribution.[461]
  • AlterNet [746], generally unreliable partisan source that also aggregates articles from other sources.[5]
  • The American Bazaar [747], small consensus for unreliability in an October 2023 RSN discussion.[462]
  • The American Mail [748], unreliable per a February 2023 RSN discussion.[463]
  • Antiwar.com [749][750], biased and opinionated.[5]
  • Attorney At Law Magazine [751], pay-for-play churnalism per an August 2023 RSN discussion.[464]
  • Black Agenda Report, [752] rough consensus for unreliability in a September 2021 RSN discussion.[465]
  • Big League Politics [753], considered a fringe website that promotes conspiracy theories per a February 2019 RSN discussion.[466]
  • Blaze Media [754], including Conservative Review [755], is considered generally unreliable for facts, sometimes reliable for opinions.[5]
  • TheBlot, [756] consensus in a July 2021 RfC that it is not reliable.[467]
  • Breitbart News, may be ok for opinion but in that case the specific article needs to be whitelisted.[5]
  • The Buffalo Chronicle, [757] disparaged by multiple RS and generally unreliable per a February 2022 RSN discussion.[468]
  • The California Globe [758], generally unreliable per an April 2021 RfC.[469]
  • Capital Research Center [759], deemed an unreliable advocacy think tank in a May 2020 RSN discussion. May be usable as a primary source.[470]
  • Chicago YIMBY [760], described as a blog in a July 2023 RSN discussion.[471]
  • CounterPunch [761][762], biased/opinionated[5]
  • CNSNews.com (Cybercast News Service) [763], unanimous consensus for unreliability in a 2019 RfC.[5]
  • The Daily Caller [764][765][766], deprecated for publishing false information.[5]
  • The Daily Wire [767], primarily publishes opinion, usable as attributed primary source for opinions, otherwise generally unreliable.[5]
  • Daily Kos [768], activism blog, consensus to avoid it when better sources are available.[5]
  • Daily Magazines, unreliable per a February 2023 RSN discussion.[463]
  • Dissident Voice [769] not generally reliable per a September 2021 RSN discussion.[472]
  • Epoch Times [770], also contains lots of reporting on China, bias toward Falun Gong, may not give appropriate weight to controversial issues.[5]
  • The Federalist (website) [771], generally unreliable per an April 2021 RfC.[5] Previously no consensus.[473]
  • Forbes.com contributors [772], no editorial oversight[5]
  • Frontpage Mag [773][774], consensus for unreliability in an April 2020 discussion,[474] previously disparaged in a September 2019 discussion[29] Deprecated in July 2020 RfC.[475]
  • Fuchsia Magazine [775], small consensus for unreliability in a March 2023 RSN discussion.[476]
  • Gawker [776], rumors and speculation without attribution.[5]
  • Heat Street, usable with attribution, but does not sufficiently distinguish news reporting and opinion pieces.[5]
  • HuffPost contributors [777], minimal editorial oversight.[5]
  • HS Insider [778], probably unreliable according to one editor due to the publication's student-driven nature.[477]
  • Idavox [779], generally unreliable per a February 2023 RSN discussion.[478]
  • InfoWars, did you really need to look this one up?[5]
  • Inquisitr [780], a January 2021 RfC had a rough consensus for being generally unreliable.[479]
  • InsideSources [insidesources.com], self-published conspiracy site per a small December 2023 RSN discussion.[480]
  • Intellectual Takeout [781], unreliable opinion blog per a May 2024 RSN discussion.[481]
  • Law Officer Magazine lawofficer.com [782][783], unreliable and self-published per a December 2020 RSN discussion, possibly not even a real magazine.[482]
  • Media Bias/Fact Check [784], generally unreliable, questionable methodology.[5]
  • Media Research Center [785], conservative media-watchdog.[5]
  • Mises Institute [786], rough consensus for unreliability in an October 2020 RSN discussion, with the majority of editors considering it a fringe publisher of opinion, and minorities arguing that it was either contextually reliable or generally reliable.[483]
  • Money Inc [787], an April 2020 RSN discussion described the source as a self-published group blog.[484]
  • National Enquirer [788], supermarket tabloid.[5]
  • The National Pulse [789], small consensus for unreliability in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[485] Reaffirmed as unreliable in a January 2021 RSN discussion.[486]
  • The New American [790][5]
  • New Tang Dynasty Television [791], deemed to be equivalent to other Falun Gong publications such as Epoch Times in a May 2020 RSN discussion.[82]
  • New York Post (New York Evening Post, Page Six) [792][793], generally unreliable per a September 2020 RfC.[5] No consensus on the reliability of its entertainment coverage in particular per an April 2024 RfC.[487]
  • Newsmax [794], deprecated at RSP.[5]
  • Occupy Democrats [795], deprecated.[5]
  • O'Keefe Media Group as well asProject Veritas deprecated in a July 2023 RfC due to reputation for deliberate fabrication[488]
  • One America News Network (OANN) [796][5]
  • Ourcampaigns.com [797], unreliable per RfCs in April 2021[489] and February 2021 RfC.[490]
  • PanAm Post [798], a June 2020 RSN discussion had a rough consensus that this source is generally unreliable, with some early voters arguing that it could be sometimes reliable.[491]
  • PETA [799], consensus that its publications are generally unreliable in an August 2020 RfC.[492]
  • Politics USA [800], in a May 2020 RfC, one editor stated flatly that the source is not reliable.[493]
  • PragerU [801], in a discussion closed January 2020, there was consensus that PragerU is generally unusable.[494]
  • The Raw Story [802], A January 2021 RfC found this source generally unreliable.[495]
  • RedState [803], rough consensus for unreliability in a September 2020 RSN discussion.[496]
  • Thought Catalog [804], A March 2019 discussion determined that this source has poor editorial oversight and sometimes publishes fiction.[497]
  • The Unz Review [805][806], antisemitic, pseudoscientific, and fringe content.[5]
  • VDARE [807], deprecated, consensus that it is generally unusable as a source.[5]
  • Vents Magazine, unreliable per a February 2023 RSN discussion.[463] Reaffirmed in a July 2023 RSN discussion.[498]
  • The Washington Free Beacon [808], rough consensus in a May 2020 discussion that it is not reliable, with a minority dissenting opinion.[499]
  • We Hunted the Mammoth, [809] described as a self-published blog in an August 2021 RSN discussion. The authors were considered almost-experts by some participants, but the general consensus is that better sources should be preferred.[500]
  • Western Journal [810], two 2019 discussions elicited only strong condemnations of the source's reliability.[5]
  • WorldNetDaily [811], deprecated, there is a clear consensus that WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source, and that it should not be used because of its particularly poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[5]

Oceania

[edit]

Australia

[edit]
Reliable
No consensus
  • Australian Strategic Policy Institute, [819] additional considerations apply per an October 2021 RfC.[508]
  • Creative Spirits [820], a May 2020 RSN discussion suggested caution but didn't come to a solid consensus on reliability.[509]
  • The Latin Australian Times [821], disparaged by one editor in a January 2021 RSN discussion that did not draw further participation.[510]
  • news.com.au, [822] described as a Murdoch tabloid, "treat with caution" by one editor in a June 2023 RSN discussion.[511]
  • Parramatta Advertiser [parramattaadvertiser.com.au], no consensus in a June 2024 RSN discussion.[512]
  • Queensland Places [823], no consensus in a February 2023 RSN discussion.[513]
  • Sky News Australia, [824] a September 2022 RfC about the reliability of this source's web articles ended inconclusively, with a significant portion of participants voting for either "generally reliable" or "deprecate".[514]
  • Victorian Places [825], no consensus in a February 2023 RSN discussion.[513]
Unreliable

New Zealand

[edit]
Reliable
  • NewsHub, [833] described as reliable by two editors in a November 2022 RSN discussion.[520]
  • The Spinoff [834], described as reliable by an editor in a November 2020 RSN discussion.[521]
No consensus
  • NZ on Screen [835], no consensus in a small May 2024 RSN discussion.[522]
  • Scoop NZ, [836], no consensus in a small March 2022 RSN discussion.[523]

South America

[edit]

Argentina

[edit]
Unreliable
  • El Rompehielos, [837] one editor in a June 2021 RSN discussion made a case for it being unreliable.[524]

Brazil

[edit]
No consensus
  • Instituto Mises Brazil [838], think tank, disparaged by one editor in an August 2020 RSN discussion that did not form a consensus. No relation to the US-based Mises Institute.[525]

Guyana

[edit]
No consensus
  • Guyana Times International [839], disparaged by one editor in a May 2023 RSN discussion.[526]


Trinidad and Tobago

[edit]
No consensus


Venezuela

[edit]
Unreliable

By topic

[edit]

Generally speaking, significant independent coverage in any reliable news source contributes to the notability of any topic (however, they may be less than authoritative for supporting claims for specialized topics like science or religion).

In addition, here are some source breakdowns of sources that are specific to certain topics.

Animals

[edit]
No consensus
  • World Spider Catalog [845], no consensus in an April 2023 RSN discussion.[529]
Unreliable
  • animals24-7.org [846], unreliable per a September 2020 RSN discussion.[530]
  • daxtonsfriends.com [847], unreliable per a September 2020 RSN discussion.[530]
  • dogbitelaw.com [848], unreliable per a September 2020 RSN discussion.[530]
  • Dogsbite.org [849], unreliable per a September 2020 RSN discussion.[530]
  • fatalpitbullattacks.com [850], unreliable per a September 2020 RSN discussion.[530]
  • nationalpitbullvictimawareness.org [851], unreliable per a September 2020 RSN discussion.[530]

Biography

[edit]
Reliable
  • BurkesPeerage.com [852], consensus for reliability for genealogical information in a June 2020 RSN discussion, but most of its other content is not independent of the subjects.[5][531]
  • debretts.com [853][5]
  • People (magazine) [854], generally reliable for BLPs, do not use for particularly contentious claims.[5]
No consensus
  • Arlingtoncemetery.net [855], self-published, may have some usable information per an editor in a December 2020 RSN discussion.[532]
  • BabyNames.com [856], one editor has argued that this website has insufficient editorial oversight.[533]
  • Biography.com [857][5]
  • E! [858], generally usable for celebrity news but may not represent due weight.[5]
  • Entrepreneur (magazine) [859], There is no consensus for the reliability of Entrepreneur Magazine, although there is a consensus that "contributor" pieces in the publication should be treated as self-published, similar to Forbes contributors. Editors did not provide much evidence of fabrication in their articles, but were concerned that its coverage tends toward churnalism and may include improperly disclosed paid pieces.[5]
  • Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting [860], no consensus on general reliability, do not use to support controversial claims in BLPs[5]
  • Jezebel (website) [861], news and cultural commentary geared towards women, many editors agree that it inappropriately blurs opinion and factual reporting.[5]
  • Pando.com [862], no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion.[534]
  • TMZ [863], no consensus about the reliability of TMZ. Although TMZ is cited by reliable sources, most editors consider TMZ a low-quality source and prefer more reliable sources when available. Because TMZ frequently publishes articles on rumors and speculation without named authors, it is recommended to properly attribute statements from TMZ. When TMZ is the only source for a piece of information, consider whether the information constitutes due or undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person.[5]
  • Us Weekly [864], no consensus. Consensus that it is less reliable than People.[5]
Unreliable
  • Almanach de Saxe Gotha http://almanachdegotha.org, editors advocated for deprecation in a June 2020 RSN discussion. Not to be confused with gotha1763.com or the print version of the Almanac de Gotha.[531]
  • Ancestry.com [865][5]
  • angelfire.com/realm/gotha [866], editors advocated for deprecation in a June 2020 RSN discussion.[531]
  • Bradysnario.com [867], may be defunct, disparaged by an editor in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[535]
  • Celebitchy.com [868], unreliable gossip site based on 1 discussion.[536]
  • CelebrityNetWorth [869][5]
  • Chivalricorders.com [870], may be defunct, editors advocated for deprecation in a June 2020 RSN discussion.[531]
  • Countere.com [871], small consensus for unreliability in a September 2020 RSN discussion.[537]
  • Cracroft's Peerage [872], unreliable per a June 2020 RSN discussion.[531]
  • EarnTheNecklace [873], unfavorably compared to CelebrityNetWorth.[538]
  • Enciclopedia d'arte italiana, [874] small consensus in a December 2021 RSN discussion that the biographical entries are submitted by the subjects with little to no editorial review.[539]
  • englishmonarchs.co.uk [875], editors advocated for deprecation in a June 2020 RSN discussion.[531]
  • FamilySearch [876], user-generated.[5]
  • Famous Birthdays, no fact checking.[5]
  • FamousBirthsDeaths.com [877], self published.[540]
  • Find a Grave [878], user-generated.[5]
  • Findmypast [879][880], primary source[5]
  • Geni.com [881], open wiki.[5]
  • Guide2WomenLeaders.com [882], disparaged as self-published and unreliable in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[541]
  • Hello! (magazine) [883], celebrity tabloid with a reputation for fabrication.[332]
  • The Hustler's Digest [884], assessed to include both self-published and pay-to-play material with insufficient editorial oversight in a September 2020 RSN discussion.[542]
  • Internet Speculative Fiction Database [885], not reliable for biographical data or most notability concerns as biographical content is taken from bibliographic copy provided by the subjects. However, strictly bibliographic information is likely reliable.[543]
  • jacobite.ca [886], editors advocated for deprecation in a June 2020 RSN discussion.[531]
  • Looktothestars.org [887], described as a PR site in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[544]
  • Marquis Who's Who [888], content is not independent of subjects.[5]
  • MarriedCeleb.com [889], consensus that there is no evidence that it is reliable.[545]
  • Media Entertainment Arts WorldWide, [890], small consensus that it is a gossip tabloid in a March 2021 RSN discussion.[546]
  • Medium (website) [891], self-publishing site, do not use for BLPs. (See also the entry for Cuepoint, a Medium-owned publication with editorial oversight)[5]
  • NetWorthPost [892], unreliable per a June 2023 RSN discussion.[547]
  • NNDB (Notable Names Database) [893], poor reputation for fact checking, sometimes sources from Wikipedia.[5]
  • NickiSwift.com [894], gossip blog.[548]
  • odssf.com [895], consists of unsourced articles and has a blank "about us" page. Unreliable per January 2018 RSN discussion.[549]
  • PopSugar [896], disparaged as a gossip site in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[550] Described as potentially usable for non-BLP content in a December 2020 RSN discussion.[551]
  • Royal Central, [897], deprecated per a September 2022 RfC.[5]
  • StarsUnfolded [898], self-published source.[5]
  • Who's Who (UK) [899][5]
[edit]
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Sources
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources
See also: Wikipedia:Record charts

Google custom search for generally reliable sources for video games (External link)

Reliable
  • ArtNet, [900], consensus that its art news coverage is generally reliable in a July 2021 RSN discussion.[552] Also described by one editor as a good source in a March 2024 RSN discussion.[553]
  • Automaton media [901], small consensus for reliability in a January 2023 RSN discussion.[554]
  • The A.V. Club [902][5]
  • AVN (magazine), [903] consensus for general reliability in an August 2021 RfC.[5]
  • Billboard (magazine) [904], generally reliable for music news per a September 2020 RSN discussion. Major publisher of US record charts.[555]
  • Behind the Voice Actors, [905] generally reliable but typically not significant coverage per a March 2022 RfC.[556]
  • Blender (magazine) [906], defunct, reliable for music.[557]
  • British Film Institute [907], generally reliable per a January 2023 RSN discussion.[558]
  • Cartoon Brew [908], rough consensus for reliability in a May 2024 RSN discussion,[559] previously no consensus in a January 2024 RSN discussion.[560]
  • Deadline Hollywood [909][910], reliable for entertainment-related articles.[5]
  • Den Fami Nico Gamer [911], small consensus for reliability in a January 2023 RSN discussion.[554]
  • Dicebreaker [912], marginally reliable for reviews per a July 2022 RSN discussion.[561] Previous consensus was that they are reliable for claims related to board games per a May 2021 RSN discussion.[562]
  • Digital Spy [913][914][5]
  • The Direct [915], small consensus for reliability for pop culture coverage in a December 2022 RSN discussion.[563]
  • Entertainment Weekly [916], reliable for entertainment-related articles, no consensus for other topics.[5]
  • ESTNN, [917], small consensus for reliability for video game topics in a February 2024 RSN discussion.[564]
  • Exclaim! [918], reliable for music reviews.[565]
  • Filmcompanion.in [919], generally reliable for entertainment, not including the crowdsourced Readers Write segments, per a July 2023 RSN discussion.[566]
  • Foreword Reviews [920], rough consensus for general reliability in a January 2024 RSN discussion that noted that they also publish clearly-marked promotional reviews, which would not confer notability.[567]
  • Game Developer [921][922], generally reliable for video games.[5]
  • GQ [923], an August 2019 discussion had a unanimous consensus that GQ is reliable for fashion-related topics, and a less unanimous consensus that it is reliable for other topics as well.[568]
  • Gizmodo [924], generally reliable for techonology, pop culture, and entertainment. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for controversial statements.[5]
  • Glamour, [925] well-established fashion magazine per a July 2021 RSN discussion.[569]
  • HighSnobiety [926], described favorably by one editor in a November 2020 RSN discussion.[570]
  • The Hollywood Reporter [927], reliable for entertainment-related articles.[5]
  • HorrorNews.net [928], consensus for reliability in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[571]
  • Igromania, [929] reliable according to one editor in a June 2021 RSN discussion.[572]
  • Idolator (website) [930], reliable for music, evaluate for due weight on a case-by-case basis.[5]
  • IGN [931], reliable for entertainment-related subjects, although they also host blogs which should be treated as regular blogs.[5]'
  • io9 [932], reliable for critical reviews as a Tomatometer-approved publication.[573]
  • Kirkus Reviews [933], most content by Kirkus Reviews is considered to be generally reliable, except for its paid content Kirkus Indie.[5]
  • The Mary Sue [934], reliable for reviews and opinion, not reliable for reblogged content.[5]
  • Metacritic [935], generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film, TV, and video games. There is no consensus on whether its blog articles and critic opinion pages are generally reliable for facts. There is consensus that user reviews on Metacritic are generally unreliable, as they are self-published sources. Reviewers tracked by Metacritic are not automatically reliable for their reviews.[5]
  • Mixdown [936], professional publication per a July 2024 RSN discussion.[574]
  • New Musical Express (NME) [937], generally reliable per a November 2020 RSN discussion.[575]
  • People Make Games [938], generally reliable in a February 2023 RfC that elicited responses between "generally reliable" and "considerations apply".[576]
  • Polygon (website) [939], generally reliable per a July 2020 RSN discussion. Note that the discussion was focused on whether it is specifically reliable for sexual misconduct allegations in BLPs, with the consensus affirming that it is reliable even for this sensitive subject.[577]
  • Rolling Stone [940], There is consensus that Rolling Stone is generally reliable. Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with proper attribution. The publication's capsule reviews deserve less weight than their full-length reviews, as they are subject to a lower standard of fact-checking.[5]
  • Rotten Tomatoes [941], Rotten Tomatoes is considered generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film and TV. There is no consensus on whether its blog articles and critic opinion pages are generally reliable for facts. There is a consensus that user reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are generally unreliable, as they are self-published sources. Reviewers tracked by Rotten Tomatoes are not automatically reliable for their reviews, while there is no consensus on whether their "Top Critics" are generally reliable.[5]
  • Soap Hub [942], small consensus for reliability for claims about soap operas outside BLP content, no consensus on reliability for BLP content, per a December 2020 RSN discussion.[578]
  • Stylist (magazine) [943], reliable for uncontroversial pop culture reviews per a small consensus in a February 2022 discussion about its reliability for TV/film reviews.[579]
  • Sweety High [944], one editor described it as marginally reliable in a February 2021 RSN discussion.[580]
  • Tatler [945], small consensus for reliability on fashion topics in a 2020 RSN discussion.[581]
  • TheWrap [946], as an industry trade publication, there is consensus that TheWrap is a good source for entertainment news and media analysis. There is no consensus regarding the reliability of TheWrap's articles on other topics.[5]
  • TubeFilter [947], generally reliable per an October 2023 RSN discussion, but also hosts sponsored content.[582]
  • TV Guide [948], generally reliable, some consider it to be a primary source.[5]
  • Variety (magazine) [949], generally reliable entertainment trade magazine.[5]
  • Vice Media (Garage, i-D, Motherboard, Vice, Vice News) [950], while there is no consensus for general reliability, it is reliable for arts and entertainment.[5]
  • Vogue (magazine) [951], generally reliable.[5]
  • Uproxx [952], weak consensus for reliability in a 2020 RSN discussion.[583]
  • Vanity Fair (magazine) [953],[5]
No consensus
  • AfterEllen [954], a July 2020 RSN discussion did not come to a consensus, with a majority arguing that it was generally reliable and usable as attributable opinion.[584]
  • allaccess.com [955], reliable for some information such as release dates per a July 2020 RSN discussion, may not be sufficiently independent for notability.[585]
  • Allmusic, [956] rough consensus in a March 2021 RSN discussion for the reliability of their prose text, not reliable for their infoboxes which are user-generated, no consensus on whether it should count towards establishing notability.[586]
  • AskMen [957], editors in a 2020 discussion were concerned that the publication does not distinguish between sponsored and independent content, and that it engages in churnalism.[587]
  • AwardsWatch [958], no consensus in a small December 2023 RSN discussion.[588]
  • Beebom.com, [959] no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[589][5]
  • Blabbermouth [960], no firm consensus in an August 2024 RSN discussion.[590]
  • Boing Boing [961], however there is no consensus regarding their reliability for topics other than pop culture.[5]
  • Bounding Into Comics [962], no consensus in a May 2020 RSN discussion, some several editors suggesting that article quality varies.[591]
  • British Comedy Guide [963], no consensus in a November 2023 RSN discussion.[592]
  • Chortle [964], described by one editor in a February 2024 RSN discussion as reliable for their reviews but not for their tour details and listings.[593]
  • CliffsNotes [965], a study guide. Editors consider CliffsNotes to be usable for superficial analyses of literature, and recommend supplementing CliffsNotes citations with additional sources. Reliable for notability.[5]
  • Collider (website), [966] no consensus in a March 2024 RSN discussion.[594] Previously no consensus in a March 2021 RSN discussion.[595]
  • Comic Book Resources (CBR)[967] a July 2022 RSN discussion included a variety of opinions on the site's reliability, with a rough consensus that coverage since 2016 was of lower quality and tends towards sensationalism.[596]
  • Comingsoon.net [968], described by one editor as unreliable in a January 2024 RSN discussion.[597]
  • Cuepoint, [969] consensus in an August 2022 RfC that it should be judged on a case-by-case basis, particularly dependent on the authors of the specific cited articles in question.[598]
  • Daily.bandcamp.com [970], no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[599]
  • The Daily Dot [971], no community consensus on reliability in a September 2022 RSN discussion, though generally considered fine for non-contentious claims of fact.[5]
  • The Daily Game [972], described by one editor as unreliable in a May 2023 RSN discussion.[600]
  • Dancing Astronaut [973], no consensus, leaning towards unreliability in a February 2024 RSN discussion.[601]
  • datatransmission.co [974], no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[599]
  • The Deli Magazine [975], no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[599]
  • Dexerto [976][977][978][979], no consensus (option 2) per an October 2023 RfC. Previously considered unreliable.[602]. Also listed at WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources, where outright errors have been discussed.[603]. A May 2019 RfC deemed that its Dexerto was not unreliable enough to be deprecated.[604]
  • Dusted Magazine [980],[981], no consensus in a February 2024 RSN discussion.[605]
  • EDM.com [982], no consensus, leaning towards unreliability in a February 2024 RSN discussion.[601]
  • Flamesrising.com, [983] no consensus in a June 2021 RSN discussion.[606]
  • Fryderyk Chopin Institute [984], described as reliable for claims related to classical music by one editor in a January 2021 RSN discussion.[607]
  • Genius (website) [985], song lyrics and annotations are user-generated. No consensus about articles with bylines published on the website.[5]
  • Get Ready to Rock [986], no consensus in a small June 2024 RSN discussion.[608]
  • Grand Comics Database [987], no consensus in a February 2023 RSN discussion.[609]
  • Horror Obsessive [988], no consensus in a January 2023 discussion where one editor made a case for unreliability.[610]
  • Hype Beast, [989], no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[599]
  • LateNighter [990], described as reliable by one editor in an April 2024 RSN post.[611]
  • Locus [991] no consensus ın a small August 2024 RSN discussion.[612]
  • Mashable, [992][5]
  • Metalmaidens.com [993], consensus that further considerations apply in a November 2021 RfC.[613]
  • Metalreviews.com [994], no consensus in a November 2020 RSN discussion.[614]
  • MetalSucks [995], MetalSucks is considered usable for its reviews and news articles. Avoid its overly satirical content and exercise caution when MetalSucks is the only source making a statement.[5]
  • The Needle Drop [996], no consensus in a January 2021 RfC.[615][5]
  • News of the World [997], defunct, while deprecated as unreliable for general news reporting, some editors hold that it is usable with attribution for film reviews.[5]
  • Ones to Watch [998] no consensus in a May 2024 RSN discussion.[616]
  • Player.One [999], no consensus in a September 2019 WP:Video Games/Sources discussion.[617]
  • Popspoken [1,000], no consensus in an April 2024 RSN discussion.[618]
  • Public Art in Public Places [1,001], no consensus in an August 2023 RfC.[619]
  • Punknews, [1,002], no consensus in a February 2022 RSN discussion.[620]
  • PureWow [1,003], no consensus in an April 2024 RSN discussion.[621]
  • The Ronin [1,004], no consensus in a November 2021 RfC.[622]
  • Screen Rant [1,005], might not be appropriate for controversial statements in BLPs, but it is reliable enough for other uses.[5]
  • Singersroom [1,006], small, rough consensus that it is unreliable following an unclear cutoff date ~2019 per a March 2023 RSN discussion.[623]
  • Soap Opera News [1,007], one editor argued that it is likely not reliable in a January 2023 RSN discussion.[624]
  • Social Blade [1,008], usable primary source for Youtube statistics but not a reliable source of analysis or evidence of notability per a January 2024 RSN discussion.[625]
  • SparkNotes [1,009][5]
  • Sputnik Music [1,010], no consensus in a September 2023 RSN discussion.[626]
  • TMZ [1,011], no consensus about the reliability of TMZ. Although TMZ is cited by reliable sources, most editors consider TMZ a low-quality source and prefer more reliable sources when available. Because TMZ frequently publishes articles on rumors and speculation without named authors, it is recommended to properly attribute statements from TMZ. When TMZ is the only source for a piece of information, consider whether the information constitutes due or undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person.[5]
  • TohoKingdom [1,012], self-published but has some claim to being an expert for Godzilla-franchise related subjects.[627]
  • UKGameshows.com [1,013], no consensus in a May 2022 RSN discussion.[628]
  • WeRaveYou [1,014], no consensus, leaning towards unreliability in a February 2024 RSN discussion.[601]
  • Winteriscoming.net [1,015], no consensus in a December 2023 RSN discussion.[629]
  • Worldofwonder.net [1,016], possibly marginally reliable as a primary source for information about World of Wonder (company) productions per a May 2020 discussion.[630]
  • XBIZ, [1,017] no consensus in an August 2021 RfC.[5]
  • YourEDM [1,018], no consensus, leaning towards unreliability in a February 2024 RSN discussion.[601]
  • Youth Time [1,019], no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[599]
Unreliable
  • Album of the Year [1,020], consensus in a 2020 RSN discussion that the site's review aggregation incorporates reviews from unreliable sources.[631]
  • Allkpop [1,021], unreliable gossip magazine per an April 2024 RSN discussion.[632]
  • Alternative Vision [1,022], an August 2019 discussion had a small consensus that it is not reliable[633]
  • Amazon (company) [1,023], content is provided by sellers.[5]
  • Amomama [1,024], unreliable tabloid per a July 2024 RSN discussion.[634]
  • Arcade Heroes [1,025], deemed a fansite without editorial controls in an RSN discussion.[635]
  • Art of Manliness [1,026], non-expert blog per an April 2021 RSN discussion.[636]
  • beatportal.com [1,027], unreliable per a May 2021 RSN discussion.[599]
  • Broadway World [1,028], primarily prints PR per a February 2023 RSN discussion.[637] Previously described similarly by one editor in a January 2023 RSN discussion.[638]
  • Cinema Cats [1,029], self-published non-expert website per an October 2020 RSN discussion.[639]
  • Daily-beat.com [1,030], disparaged by one editor in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[599]
  • Discogs [1,031], user-generated content.[5]
  • Distractify, [1,032] There is consensus that Distractify is generally unreliable. Editors believe Distractify runs run-of-the-mill gossip that is unclearly either user-generated or written by staff members and should not be used in BLPs.[5]
  • The Electric Hawk [1,033], not a journalistic source per a May 2021 RSN discussion.[599]
  • electronicbeats.net [1,034], described as a promotional site in a May 2021 RSN discussion, may be usable as a primary source.[599]
  • Film Freeway [1,035], unreliable WP:UGC per an April 2023 RSN discussion.[640]
  • Film Music Reporter [1,036], treated skeptically at a September 2020 RSN discussion.[641] May be usable for basic information such as track listings for films per an April 2021 RSN discussion.[642]
  • Future Mag Music [1,037], described as a promotional site in a May 2021 RSN discussion, may be usable as a primary source.[599]
  • Game Skinny, [1,038] generally unreliable per a May 2021 RSN discussion.[643]
  • Geek Girl Authority [1,039], small consensus that it is a group blog in a small January 2024 RSN discussion.[644]
  • Goodreads [1,040], user-generated.[5]
  • IMDb [1,041], user-generated.[5]
  • Insight music [1,042], described as a promotional site in a May 2021 RSN discussion, may be usable as a primary source.[599]
  • Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music [1,043][1,044], self-published and generally unreliable per an August 2020 RSN discussion. Editors note that the source includes satire, is self-published, and includes articles that claim to cite Wikipedia.[645]
  • Kirkus Indie, paid publisher that should not be used to assess notability per a March 2021 RSN discussion.[646][5]
  • Know Your Meme [1,045], "submissions" are user-generated, as are "confirmed" entries. There is no consensus on whether their video series is reliable.[5]
  • Last.fm [1,046], user-generated, deprecated.[5]
  • metal-experience.com, [1,047] consensus for unreliability due to insufficient fact checking per an April 2021 RfC.[647]
  • Metalheadzone [1,048], insufficient editorial oversight.[648]
  • Nine to Five Records [1,049], promotional website in a May 2021 RSN discussion, may be usable as a primary source.[599]
  • Old Time Music [1,050], AI-driven spam per a February 2024 RSN discussion.[649]
  • Plastic Mag [1,051], described as likely self-published in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[599]
  • The Playground [1,052], promotional site according to one editor in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[599]
  • Rate Your Music (RYM, Cinemos, Glitchwave, Sonemic) [1,053][1,054][1,055], user-generated, deprecated.[5]
  • Ratings Ryan [1,056], self-published blog per a February 2023 RSN discussion.[650]
  • Reviewit.pk [1,057] small consensus for unreliability in a February 2024 RSN discussion.[651]
  • Rocklistmusic.co.uk [1,058], self-published source per a January 2023 RSN discussion.[652]
  • Rollingout.com [1,059], small consensus in an RSN discussion that it is not reliable.[653]
  • Rotoscopers, [1,060], crowdsourced with insufficient oversight according to one editor in a January 2022 RSN discussion.[654]
  • Saving Country Music [1,061], rough consensus in a January 2022 RSN discussion that it is a self-published source to be avoided.[655]
  • Secret Shores music [1,062], likely self-published according to an editor in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[599]
  • SongMeanings [1,063], user generated per February 2019 RSN discussion.[656]
  • SongMeaningsAndFacts.com [1,064], no editorial oversight.[657]
  • SoundCloud [1,065], self published.[658]
  • Spirit of Metal [1,066], self-published source.[5]
  • Static Media [1,067], [1,068], rough consensus for unreliability in an October 2023 RSN discussion.[659]
  • Stylecraze.com [1,069], unreliable per a small July 2024 RSN discussion.[660]
  • Thrashocore.com, [1,070] generally unreliable per an April 2021 RfC.[661]
  • TrekNation (Trek Today, Trek BBS, Jammers Reviews)[1,071][1,072][1,073][1,074], described as a self-published source by an editor in a May 2020 RSN discussion.[662]
  • Tunefind [1,075], user-generated.[5]
  • TV.com [1,076], described as primarily user generated and low quality in a September 2020 RSN discussion.[663]
  • TV Tropes [1,077], user-generated.[5]
  • VGChartz [1,078][5]
  • Vinylized, [1,079], crowdfunding website per one editor in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[599]
  • The Von Pip Musical Express [1,080], self published non-expert blog per an October 2020 RSN discussion.[664]
  • WatchMojo [1,081], content farm with no clear editorial oversight per a May 2020 RSN discussion.[665]
  • We Got This Covered [1,082], the lack of its editoral oversight, publication of unsubstantiated or false rumors, speculations claiming as fact, and contributions accepting from non-staff contributors.[5]
  • WhoSampled [1,083], user-generated.[5]
  • Wikia (Fandom) [1,084][1,085], open-wiki. Note that while Wikia should not be cited, when published under a compatible license it may be permissible to copy information from there.[5]

Business, companies and products

[edit]
Reliable
No consensus
  • Better Business Bureau [1,094], a May 2020 RSN discussion had a small consensus that while its analysis and rankings of businesses may not be reliable, it is likely reliable for basic factual information about companies.[668]
  • Bitcoin Magazine [1,095], a July 2020 RSN discussion did not come to a firm consensus regarding reliability.[669]
  • Business Insider [1,096][1,097][1,098][1,099], in 2015 their site had a disclaimer saying information therein may not be correct.[5]
  • CNBC [1,100], no consensus. Mentioned as a typical WP:NEWSORG, but editors also had concerns about their promotion of non-notable cryptocurrencies, their talk show hosts, and the poor clarity of one of their articles.[670]
  • PitchBook Data (Pitchbook, Pitchbook Platform, Pitchbook News and Analysis [1,101], no consensus due to insufficient discussion, reliability may not be consistent across the company's publications, non-premium content may not be reliable.[671]
  • The Motley Fool, [1,102], no consensus in a February 2021 RSN discussion, with editors leaning describing it as a source to avoid but noting its popularity.[672]
  • NASDAQ News [1,103], no consensus in a December 2020 RSN discussion, largely publishes reprints.[673]
  • The Next Web [1,104], no consensus, 2014 and 2016 discussions considered it reliable, 2018 discussions leaned toward unreliable.[5]
  • Realtor.com [1,105], a July 2020 RSN discussion had a consensus that the websites hosts a wide variety of content, ranging from reliable well-researched articles to promotional fluff.[674]
  • RetailDive.com [1,106], an August 2021 RSN discussion assessed that it is a trade magazine with clearly delineated sponsored and non-sponsored content, but did not reach a firm assessment of the reliability of its independent reporting.[675]
  • TechCrunch [1,107], careful consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog, as well as whether the piece/writer may have a conflict of interest, and to what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing. TechCrunch may be useful for satisfying verifiability, but may be less useful for purpose of determining notability.[5]
Unreliable

Film

[edit]
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources

Google custom search for generally reliable sources for film (External link)

Reliable
No consensus
  • DiscussingFilm [1,164], insufficient discussion in a 2020 RSN discussion.[685]
  • Film Threat, [1,165], no consensus in an April 2024 RSN discussion.[686] Previously no consensus in a May 2022 RSN discussion, which noted that some of its content is paid.[687]
  • The Filmik [1,166], one editor in a May 2022 RSN discussion opined that they are not reliable based on their newness and lack of listed editorial staff or policies.[688]
Unreliable
  • Allmovie [1,167], a June 2024 RSN discussion raised serious concerns about its reliability.[689]
  • Blu-ray.com [1,168], database is provided by its userbase.[679]
  • Comicbookmovie.com [1,169], user-submitted content.[679]
  • FilmAffinity [1,170], a social media site with a film database.[679]
  • Filmdaily.co [1,171], user-generated per an April 2023 RSN discussion.[690]
  • Film Reference http://www.filmreference.com/, weak consensus for being unreliable due to unclear editorial standards.[691]
  • Filmibeat [1,172], described as churnalism in a May 2022 RSN discussion.[692]
  • IMDB [1,173], content is mostly user submitted.[679]
  • TV.com (MovieTome, GameFAQs) [1,174][1,175], database information is user-submitted and reviewed by an "editor" (usually a person who has contributed the most) or a staff member.[679]
  • Wikia [1,176], user generated.[679]
  • Wikipedia [1,177], non-English Wikipedias, and sites that mirror them, are not considered reliable sources for the content taken from the articles themselves, even when such articles are sourced by reliable sources. Use the sources instead.[679]

Food

[edit]
Reliable
  • Beer Business Daily [1,178], hesitant consensus in an April 2023 RSN discussion that it appears to be a well-established industry publication with use by others.[693]
  • Eater (website), generally reliable per an April 2023 RSN discussion.[694]
Unreliable
  • Craft Coffee Spot [1,179], commercial blog per an April 2023 RSN discussion.[695]
  • TasteAtlas [1,180], small consensus for unreliability in a December 2023 RSN discussion.[696]

Geography and history

[edit]
Reliable
  • Ancient Asia [1,181], peer-reviewed academic journal per a November 2021 RSN discussion.[697]
  • CIA Factbook [1,182], usable for uncontroversial facts, be cautious of bias.[698]
  • E-Perimetron [1,183], reliable per a small February 2024 RSN discussion.[699]
  • Marxist Internet Archive Encyclopedia of Marxism [1,184], a May 2023 RSN discussion had a cautious, small consensus for reliability while noting the obvious biases. N.b. that the rest of the Marxist Internet Archive website mostly comprises primary sources.[700]
  • Ronen Bergman, rough consensus in a September 2021 RSN discussion that their work is generally reliable, although attribution may be necessary.[701]
  • Smarthistory [1,185], small consensus for reliability in a February 2023 RSN discussion.[702]
No consensus
  • An Anarchist FAQ (book) [1,186], reliable for attributed WP:ABOUTSELF-type statements, other sources preferred, per a November 2020 RSN discussion.[703]
  • Arcadia Publishing [1,187], described as "use with caution" and little better than self-publication in a December 2020 RSN discussion.[704]
  • The Art Story [1,188], no consensus on overall reliability in a April 2023 RSN discussion that did agree on describing it as appropriate for grade school students but inferior to genuine scholarly sources.[705]
  • Defending History, [1,189] self-published blog written by Dovid Katz. No consensus on whether Katz's academic expertise applies to history or whether there is sufficient USEBYOTHERS to establish reliability.[706]
  • Don's Maps.com [1,190] , described as WP:UGC by one editor in a March 2024 RSN discussion.[707]
  • Encyclopedia of Communist Biographies [1,191], no consensus in an August 2023 RSN discussion.[708]
  • Encyklopedia II wojny światowej (book), editors were divided on whether this source is unreliable due to its close connection to the military and communist party of the Polish People's Republic, or whether it can be used with caution in some contexts.[709]
  • Flag Institute [1,192], no consensus in a February 2024 RSN discussion.[180]
  • GEOnet Names Server (GNIS) [1,193], reliable for locations and coordinates, not reliable for feature classes, does not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement of GEOLAND on its own per a December 2021 RfC.[710]
  • Google Maps [1,194], is useful for some purposes, but can also be considered original research. For China, OpenStreetMap is preferable.[5]
  • Historynet.com [1,195], disparaged by one editor in a July 2022 RSN discussion.[711]
  • Joshua Project [1,196], two saying unreliable, one saying unsure, one saying reliable across 3 different old RSN discussions.[712][713][714]
  • Libcom.org [1,197], no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion.[715]
  • Mindat.org [1,198], user-generated per one editor in a July 2023 RSN discussion.[716]
  • Monthly Review, [1,199] no consensus regarding general quality in a July 2022 RSN discussion concerning its reprint of content from deprecated source The Grayzone.[717]
  • Peakbagger.com, [1,200], no consensus in a January 2022 RSN discussion.[718]
  • PeopleGroups.org [1,201], described as unreliable by one editor in a December 2023 RSN discussion.[719]
  • The World History Encyclopedia [1,202], criticized by one editor in a June 2024 RSN post that did not receive further discussion.[720]
  • Världens Historia [1,203], one editor described them as generally reliable, but less so than actual history books.[721]
  • NCERT textbooks [1,204], generally geared for grade school education, may be oversimplified and thus inferior to academic sources for Wikipedia. Editors noted that their quality varies considerably.[722]
  • rulers.org [1,205], no consensus in a June 2021 discussion that raised concerns about its reliability.[723]
  • spanamwar.com [1,206], no consensus in a small January 2023 discussion where one editor argued that the blog's editor is a subject-matter expert.[724]
  • Vexilla Mundi [1,207], non-expert blog per 1 editor in an October 2023 RSN discussion.[725]
  • Worldatlas.com [1,208], no consensus in a small July 2024 RSN discussion.[726]
  • World Economics [1,209], no consensus in a July 2023 RSN discussion.[727]
Unreliable
  • Archaeology-World.com [1,210], consensus for unreliability in a January 2023 RSN discussion.[728]
  • Archontology.org, [1,211], small consensus that it is written by non-experts in an October 2022 RSN discussion.[729]
  • Atlas Obscura [1,212], unreliable due to crowdsourced format per a March 2023 RSN discussion.[730] Previously, editors in an October 2020 RSN discussion thought that its magazine articles are likely reliable, but that its location entries may not be due to crowdsourcing concerns.[731]
  • Books by Allan W. Eckert, a 2020 RSN discussion largely agreed that his books, while entertaining, mix an unacceptable amount of fiction into their accounts.[732]
  • Books, particularly encyclopedias, by James B. Minahan.[733]
  • The Dorchester Review [1,213], There is a July 2024 consensus The Dorchester Review is generally unreliable, as it is not peer reviewed by the wider academic community. It has a poor reputation for fact-checking and lacks an editorial team. The source may still be used in some circumstances e.g. for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and content authored by established subject-matter experts.[734]
  • EuropeanHeraldry.org [1,214], descirbed as a self-published source in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[735]
  • Flags of the World (FOTW) [1,215], unreliable per a November 2022 RSN discussion.[736]
  • Glaukopis [1,216], consensus for unreliability in a March 2023 RSN discussion.[737] Previously rough consensus for unreliability regarding the topic of antisemitism in Poland in a February 2021 RSN discussion, without consensus on its general reliability.[738]
  • Geneaology Trails [1,217], effectively user-generated per a small April 2024 discussion.[739]
  • History (American TV network) (The History Channel) [1,218], most editors consider it to be unreliable due to its promotion of conspiracy theories.[5]
  • HistoryOfRoyalWomen.org [1,219], may be defunct, self-published non-expert source per an October 2020 RSN discussion. May have citations to better sources.[740]
  • International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research [1,220], predatory journal per a March 2024 RSN discussion.[741]
  • Jadovno.com [1,221], Russian? Editors in an April 2020 RSN discussion raised concerns that it does not have clear editorial policies and advised against using it.[742]
  • New Eastern Outlook [1,222], deprecated in a June 2022 RfC.[743]
  • partylike1660.com [1,223], small consensus for unreliability in a December 2022 RSN discussion.[744]
  • Tibetan Political Review [1,224], a January 2021 RSN discussion was closed as being not generally reliable as an academic source.[745]
  • touregypt.net [1,225], self-published and promotional content per March 2019 RSN discussion.[746]
  • Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation [1,226], a February 2021 RSN discussion had a consensus that their website is not a reliable source for claims about mass killings under Communist regimes.[747] Reaffirmed in a January 2022 RSN discussion.[748]
  • Weather2Travel.com [1,227], website has a disclaimer that it should not be relied upon.[5]
  • Wordspy.com [1,228], an April 2020 RSN discussion concluded that the source is self-published and did not consider its author a sufficiently prominent expert to confer reliability.[749]

Medicine and health

[edit]
See also: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

Keep in mind that even if a journal is reliable, WP:MEDRS usually requires using a secondary source. So that means the article needs to be marked as a review, systematic review, meta-analysis, guideline, or practice guideline. It is not usually appropriate to cite a paper describing a single study or experiment, which is a primary source.

Peer reviewed is not the same thing as a review article. Most journal articles are peer reviewed.

Preprints are not peer reviewed, and are not a reliable source.

Journal articles should be from a journal that is related to the subject. Citing a journal article about epilepsy that was published in Environmental Science and Pollution Research is probably not appropriate.

Reliable and WP:MEDRS[750]
Reliable
No consensus
  • Frontiers Media [1,248], they publish around 140 peer reviewed journals that are titled Frontiers in [...]. No consensus in a March 2023 RfC, with opinions expressed for "generally unreliable" and "considerations apply".[755] Previously, consensus that it is unreliable in a 2021 RSN discussion.[756][757]
  • Mayo Clinic [1,249][1,250], a "MEDRS of last resort". Marginally reliable for unsurprising claims. Should not be used to support WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims. Better sources preferred.[758][759]
  • National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) [1,251], a "MEDRS of last resort". Marginally reliable for unsurprising claims per a July 2020 RSN discussion. Should not be used to support WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims. Better sources preferred.[759]
  • Quackwatch [1,252], no consensus, self-published site run by an expert in the field.[5]
  • Verywell [1,253] (including https://www.verywellhealth.com/ https://www.verywellfamily.com/ https://www.verywellmind.com/), considered marginally reliable in a May 2020 RSN discussion[760] but are currently on the blacklist due to having been spammed.
  • WebMD [1,254], a "MEDRS of last resort". Marginally reliable for unsurprising claims. Should not be used to support WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims. Better sources preferred.[761][759]
Unreliable
  • bioRxiv [1,255], a preprint repository.
  • Health Liberation Now! [1,256], self-published group blog per a November 2022 RSN discussion.[762]
  • Healthline, consensus to deprecate and blacklist in a July 2023 RfC.[763]
  • Journal of Complementary Medicine Research [1,257], predatory journal per a February 2021 RSN discussion.[764]
  • Journal of Natural Science, Biology and Medicine [1,258], predatory journal per a July 2020 RSN discussion.[765]
  • Kinesiology Review - non-MEDLINE, low-impact journal not reliable for exceptional claims per a July 2024 RSN discussion.[766]
  • Leafly.com [1,259], promotional, not a MEDRS-quality source for cannabis or health.[767]
  • Medriva [1,260], unreliable per a February 2024 RSN discussion.[768]
  • medRxiv [1,261], distributes unpublished eprints.
  • Preprints.org [1,262], scientific papers that have not undergone peer review.
  • Social Science Research Network [1,263], a repository for preprints.

Military topics and firearms

[edit]
Reliable
  • H. I. Sutton hisutton.com[1,264], subject matter expert for naval warfare per a November 2020 RSN discussion.[769]
  • Oryxspioenkop (Oryx) oryxspioenkop.com [1,265],Consensus reached in a September 2022 Wikiproject discussion that it is a Subject-matter expert for military topics.[770]
No consensus
  • The Arkenstone [1,266], no clear consensus in a September 2020 RSN discussion. It has been cited by the US Department of Defense, and might qualify as a self-published expert source.[771]
  • defensereview.com [1,267], leaning toward unreliable on the basis of being self-published, but insufficient discussion to reach a consensus.[772]
  • GlobalSecurity.org [1,268], in a 2020 discussion, one editor considered it a think tank only suitable as a primary source, while another considered it reliable and disputed its status as a think tank.[773]
  • guns.com [1,269], weak consensus that the News section is reliable in a July 2020 RSN discussion.[774]
  • Institute for Strategic Dialogue [1,270], no consensus in a small December 2023 RSN discussion.[775]
  • Militant Wire [1,271], no consensus in a July 2023 RSN discussion.[776]
  • Military Watch Magazine [1,272], one editor described it as unreliable in a July 2023 RSN discussion.[777]
  • Pak Military Monitor [1,273], no consensus in a February 2024 RSN discussion.[778]
  • uboat.net [1,274], editors are divided on its reliability in two discussions. Editors allege a local consensus at WP:MILHIST that it is reliable up to GA level, but not for FA.[779][780]
  • War is Boring [1,275], no clear consensus in a September 2020 RSN discussion. Some evidence of use by reliable sources and might be an expert self-published source, although editors also note that it has recently reduced the amount of original content that it publishes and largely just reprints other publications.[771]
Unreliable
  • ArmyRecognition.com [1,276][781]
  • defence-blog.com [1,277], unreliable per a March 2024 RSN discussion.[782] Previously described as self-published in a November 2020 RSN discussion.[783]
  • Defseca.com ([1,278], [1,279], unreliable blog per a February 2021 RSN discussion.[784]
  • forces-war-records.co.uk [1,280], unreliable due to circular referencing with Wikipedia per an October 2020 RfC.[785]
  • Global Firepower Index, [1,281], small consensus for unreliability in a March 2022 RSN discussion.[786]
  • Military Today, [1,282] unreliable self-published source per a February 2021 RSN discussion.[787]
  • Militaryland [1,283], self-published source per June 2022 RSN discussion.[788] Reaffirmed in March 2023[789] and April 2023[790] discussions.
  • Naval Encyclopedia.com [1,284], unreliable per a small March 2024 RSN discussion.[791]
  • Navypedia [1,285], fan project with little editorial oversight per November 2022 RSN discussion.[792]
  • The Truth About Guns [1,286], group blog, not reliable for factual reporting.[5]
  • War History Online [1,287], rough consensus that the authors are not established subject-matter experts and that the source does not have an established record of accuracy.[793]
  • weaponsandwarfare.com [1,288], blog with no clear editorial oversight, no relation to Weapons and Warfare, a defunct magazine.[794]

Publishers

[edit]

In many discussions, users clarified that no publisher's works can be considered always reliable for everything.

Reliable
No consensus
Unreliable
  • Cambridge Scholars Publishing [1,298], vanity press (a publishing house where authors pay to have their books published, anybody can publish)[805]
  • Creative Crayon Publishers[806]
  • Dharma Publications, self-published per one editor in a March 2021 RSN discussion.[807]
  • Diamond Pocket Books Pvt Ltd., vanity press according to a March 2021 RSN discussion.[808]
  • Lulu.com, self-publishing; deprecated[5]
  • Pentland Press, vanity press[809]
  • Sarup & Sons publishing house, based in India, a September 2020 RSN discussion had a consensus that the source has published copyright-violating material and thus cannot be trusted to generally practice appropriate editorial oversight.[810]
  • Scribd [1,299], self-publishing[5]

Religion

[edit]
Reliable
No consensus
  • Anglican Ink [1,306], no consensus in a September 2023 RSN discussion.[815]
  • Anti-Defamation League [1,307], unreliable for topics relating to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict or Zionism, and unreliable for information regarding entries on their hate symbol database, otherwise likely reliable on a case-by-case basis.[5] Previously generally reliable with attribution per a July 2020 RfC. Editors raised concerns that it may be less reliable for subjects related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[816]
  • Association of Religion Data Archives, ARDA, Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures [1,308][1,309][1,310][5]
  • Catholic Culture [1,311], no consensus in a February 2023 RSN discussion.[817]
  • Catholic News Agency [1,312], editors in a June 2020 RSN discussion raised concerns about its role as an advocacy platform for the Catholic church.[818]
  • China Buddhism Encyclopedia [1,313], disparaged by an editor in a July 2020 RSN post that did not draw any further discussion, insufficient discussion.[819]
  • Christian Post [1,314], an April 2020 RSN discussion did not come to a clear consensus on this source's reliability.[813]
  • Church Executive [1,315], no consensus in a small February 2024 RSN discussion.[820]
  • Crux (online newspaper) (cruxnow.com) [1,316], a 2019 RSN discussion appeared to treat Crux as a potentially reliable source, noting its pedigree as a Boston Globe spinoff, but did not extensively discuss the source as the focus of the discussion pivoted to questions of UNDUE.[821] No consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion.[822]
  • Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah [1,317], no consensus in an August 2020 RSN discussion.[823]
  • Encounter Books [1,318], American conservative publishing house. Briefly disparaged in an RSN discussion where a book published by it was deemed unreliable for claims relating to Ayatollah Khomeini, insufficient discussion for consensus.[801]
  • GCatholic [1,319], no consensus in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[824]
  • Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online (gameo.org)[1,320], Editorial access is restricted, but editors also voiced concerns that it is run by an advocacy group.[825]
  • Hymnary.org [1,321], weak consensus that it can be reliable for basic facts about hymns but that it is not a good source for establishing notability or assigning DUE.[826]
  • Islamansiklopedisi.org.tr [1,322], no consensus in a November 2020 RSN discussion.[827]
  • IslamQA.info [1,323], not to be confused with IslamQA.org, no consensus in a February 2022 RSN discussion that noted that it may be reliable for Salafist perspectives.[828] Previously considered self-published fringe source in a January 2020 RSN discussion.[829]
  • Middle East Quarterly [1,324], a journal published by Middle East Forum, some editors hold that it is a respectable publication and note its citations in academic literature. Others maintain that it is fringe and/or unreliable, and dispute that the examples of citations provided in the discussion are proof of reliability.[830]
  • Radiance Weekly [1,325], published by Jamaat-e-Islami, likely not independent for most subjects where it would be relevant to cite it.[97]
  • Reasonablefaith.org [1,326], biased source, other sources preferred per a January 2021 RSN discussion.[831]
  • TalkOrigins Archive [1,327], no clear consensus in an August 2020 RSN discussion, with some editors considering it a reliable source for coverage of Creationist perspectives, and others describing it as "not the best source".[832]
  • Thesunniway.com [1,328], self-described advocacy platform, has ties to individuals who have been identified as "hate preachers".[833]
  • Thetorah.com,[1,329] no consensus in a November 2022 RSN discussion.[834]
Unreliable
  • Aleteia [1,330], described as low quality by one editor in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[835]
  • Amir Taheri books and blog, has been caught promoting hoaxes and fabricating quotes, particularly relating to Islam, on multiple occasions.[801]
  • AnsweringMuslims.com [1,331], possibly defunct, an RSN discussion closed in 2020 had a consensus that the website's roots in an anti-Muslim organization render it unreliable for claims about Islam.[836]
  • Bitter Winter [1,332], English, based in Italy. Generally unreliable but some editors think it might sometimes be relevant with attribution per a June 2022 RfC. Editors raised concerns that it is published by the advocacy group CESNUR, whose publications are considered an unreliable source.[837]
  • catholic-hierarchy.org, self-published source per a July 2020 RSN discussion.[838]
  • CESNUR [1,333][1,334], an advocacy organisation, it also publishes an academic journal, editors agree that it has a bias toward New religious movements and that its conflicts of interest make the source unusable.[5]
  • catholicism.org [1,335], reliable for own opinion but not much else according to an RSN discussion.[839]
  • Chabad.org [1,336], usable for Chabad's perspectives on ABOUTSELF grounds but otherwise not reliable per a July 2020 RSN discussion.[840] Reaffirmed in an August 2020 RFC, with some editors considering it usable for basic non-controversial claims.[841]
  • Church Militant (website) [1,337], not a publication with a reputation for factual reporting, may be usable with attribution for Traditionalist Catholic perspectives.[842]
  • Daniel Pipes's website [1,338], editors identified it as promoting conspiracy theories in a 2020 RSN discussion.[833]
  • Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies publications Mormon Studies Review, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies not reliable for Wikivoice claims per a March 2024 RSN discussion.[843] Also listed at WP:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Sources.
  • Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch [1,339], fringe publication.[830]
  • haribhakt.com [1,340], editors were unable to identify its publisher in a 2020 RSN discussion and cast doubts on its reliability based on content on the site.[833]
  • International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, [1,341] editors in a March 2021 RSN discussion held that it is a religious organization without expert credentials and that its publications are equivalent to a self-published blog. Usable for ABOUTSELF claims.[844]
  • IslamicStudies.org [1,342], possibly defunct, appears to be a one-person blog per a 2020 RSN discussion.[833]
  • Jewish Virtual Library [1,343], editors raised concerns about a propensity to cite Wikipedia, a lack of clear editorial controls, and bias related to Israel-Palestine in a May 2020 RfC.[5]
  • Jihad Watch [1,344], fringe anti-Muslim conspiracy blog.[830][845]
  • The Legal Culture [1,345], journal and news website, advocacy publication published by the Polish fringe Traditionalist Catholic group Ordo Iuris, not reliable per a September 2020 RSN discussion.[846]
  • Legends of America [1,346], small consensus for unreliability in a March 2024 RSN discussion.[847]
  • LifeSiteNews [1,347], deprecated in a 2019 RfC.[5]
  • Madain Project [1,348], an October 2020 RSN discussion had a small consensus for unreliability due to lack of credentials and use by RS.[848]
  • Monergism.com [1,349], small consensus in a 2020 discussion that its POV and lack of clear editorial policy means that it is not reliable for anything other than WP:ABOUTSELF.[849]
  • Muflihun.com [1,350], self-published source.[850]
  • Newreligiousmovements.org/Cultdatabase.com [1,351], generally unreliable per an April 2024 RSN discussion.[851]
  • Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe [1,352], not reliable per an August 2020 RSN discussion[852]
  • OrthodoxWiki [1,353], open wiki per September 2022 discussion[853]
  • Patheos [1,354], collection of blogs.[5]
  • PoliticalIslam.com [1,355], run by Center for the Study of Political Islam, small consensus for unreliable per a 2020 RSN discussion.[833]
  • Robert B. Spencer, fringe anti-Islam author[801][845]
  • TheReligionOfPeace.com https://thereligionofpeace.com/, per a May 2020 RSN diiscussion.[854]
  • Saints.ru [1,356], unreliable per a June 2023 RSN discussion.[855]
  • SikhiWiki [1,357], open wiki per March 2019 discussion[856]
  • wrldrels.org [1,358], discussed at RSN in July 2020 by two editors, whose positions were "garbage source" and "possibly usable, but with caution", respectively. The source has ties to CESNUR, see its entry above.[857]

Science and technology

[edit]
Reliable
No consensus
  • 9to5Google [1,398], while there was a significant disagreement in a RSN discussion spanning from December 2022 to February 2023, the general idea is that other considerations apply.[884]
  • Alexa Internet [1,399], defunct website rankings website.[5]
  • All About Circuits,[1,400] "probably fine" per one editor in a March 2021 RSN discussion.[885]
  • Carnot-Cournot Netwerk [1,401], Swiss nuclear energy lobby group. Editors in a 2020 RSN discussion did not come to a consensus regarding the reliability of its publications.[886]
  • CleanTechnica [1,402], editors were divided over the source's general level of reliability in a May 2020 RSN discussion; there was some level of agreement that it could be used for minor technical details and uncontroversial claims, but editors were divided as to whether their more in depth coverage is reliable.[887]
  • CNET [1,403], reliable prior to a 2020 sale of the publication, clearly unreliable following a 2022 decision to publish content written by AI without sufficient oversight, no consensus for the 2020-2022 period.[5]
  • The Debrief [1,404], no consensus in a February 2024 RSN discussion.[888]
  • Digital Trends [1,405], no consensus (leaning reliable) in a September 2023 RSN discussion.[889]
  • Encyclopedia Astronautica [1,406], no consensus in a September 2023 RSN discussion.[5]
  • FossForce [1,407], no consensus in a July 2023 RfC.[890]
  • Grit Daily [1,408], no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion where editors disagreed on whether the publication provided enough editorial oversight. Not to be confused with Grit (newspaper).[891]
  • Hackaday [1,409], no consensus as to whether its editorial oversight is sufficient to rise above WP:BLOGS.[892]
  • HowStuffWorks [1,410], no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion.[893]
  • MakeUseOf.com [1,411][1,412], no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion.[894]
  • Mantleplumes.org [1,413], no consensus in a February 2021 RSN discussion.[895]
  • MathWorld [1,414], no consensus in an April 2024 RSN discussion.[896]
  • MobileSyrup, [1,415] no consensus in a July 2022 RSN discussion.[897]
  • Neowin [1,416], insufficient discussion for a consensus, mentioned by one editor as reliable in a 2015 RSN discussion.[898]
  • The Next Web [1,417], no consensus, 2014 and 2016 discussions considered it reliable, 2018 discussions leaned toward unreliable.[5]
  • Popular Mechanics [1,418], a January 2021 RSN discussion narrowly focused on its usability for UFO topics had consensus that it is not reliable for WP:FRINGE, with minimal discussion about its general reliability.[899]
  • Psychology Today blogs [1,419], no consensus, while often written by experts, may not necessarily be experts in fields sufficiently relevant to claims that they may make.[900]
  • ScienceBlogs [1,420], no consensus, network of invite-only blogs run by experts. However, some blogs may write about subjects outside of their author's expertise.[5]
  • The Shortcut [1,421], no consensus in a March 2024 RSN discussion.[901]
  • SlashGear [1,422], insufficient discussion, but mentioned as reliable by an editor in a 2015 RSN discussion.[902]
  • Space News [1,423], insufficient discussion for a consensus, one editor did not speak highly of them, noting that they're an aggregator, they reprint press releases, have a small staff, and no experts.[903]
  • Softpedia [1,424], reliable for reviews, no consensus for news articles.[5]
  • TechCaball, [1,425] no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[904]
  • TechCrunch [1,426], careful consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog, as well as whether the piece/writer may have a conflict of interest, and to what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing. TechCrunch may be useful for satisfying verifiability, but may be less useful for purpose of determining notability.[5]
  • TechDirt [1,427], no consensus in a February 2023 discussion.[905]
  • Thoughtco.com [1,428], weak consensus for reliability for uncontroversial claims, should not be used to support extraordinary claims.[906] Note as well the RSP entry for the various publications of its parent company, Dotdash.
  • Tom's Guide [1,429], mentioned in passing by one editor as reliable. Not enough mentions to generate a consensus.[907]
Unreliable
  • arXiv [1,430], self-published source. Papers hosted here may or may not have also been published in a peer-reviewed journal–if so, cite that journal but provide a link to arXiv.[5]
  • chemicalbook.com [chemicalbook.com], commercial marketplace without sufficient editorial oversight per a June 2023 RSN discussion.[908]
  • CoinDesk [1,431], there is a consensus that it is not reliable for evaluating notability on the basis of its coverage, and should be avoided in favor of mainstream sources.[5]
  • CPP Reference [1,432], user-generated source per a May 2024 RSN discussion.[909]
  • Crunchbase [1,433], user generated content.[5]
  • EconStor [1,434], self-publishing site which may host material by reliable subject-matter experts but which confers no reliability of its own per one editor in a June 2023 RSN discussion.[910]
  • Ed-Tech Press [1,435], disreputable and likely predatory per a July 2020 RSN discussion.[911]
  • Encycolorpedia.com [1,436], in an April 2020 discussion, an editor concluded that it is not reliable because it does not publish any information about who runs the site.[912]
  • Followchain [1,437], described by 2 editors as unreliable in a February 2024 RSN discussion.[913]
  • Garden.org [1,438], crowdsourced wiki per an August 2021 RSN discussion.[914]
  • Journal of Novel Applied Sciences [1,439], likely predatory per a July 2020 RSN discussion.[915]
  • KenRockwell.com [1,440], self-published source without credentials.[916]
  • Liliputing.com [1,441], self-published per a November 2019 RFC.[917]
  • Omniglot [1,442], possibly self-published, no consensus on reliability but consensus that it is not a good indication of notability due to its indiscriminate information in a July 2020 RSN discussion.[918]
  • Pc.net [1,443], unreliable per one editor in a February 2023 RSN discussion.[919]
  • Phoronix [1,444], self-published source.[920]
  • Proprivacy.com [1,445], appears to be a corporate-affiliate news site and is thus not reliable.[921]
  • ResearchGate [1,446], user generated content. Papers hosted there may also be published elsewhere, in which case they may be reliable.[5]
  • Retroreversing [1,447], unreliable per one editor in a February 2023 RSN discussion.[919]
  • Science Publishing Corporation [1,448], predatory publication on Beal's list per June 2024 RSN discussion.[922]
  • Stack Exchange (Stack Overflow, MathOverflow, Ask Ubuntu)[1,449][1,450][1,451][1,452][1,453][1,454], user generated.[5]
  • The Starship Campaign, [1,455] fansite per a June 2021 RSN discussion.[923]
  • Tech Times [1,456] Pay for play per a January 2022 RSN discussion.[924]
  • TuttoAndroid [1,457], editors in a September 2020 RSN discussion found evidence that it plagiarizes from unreliable sources.[925]
  • VPNPro.com [1,458], native advertising and sponsored content.[926]

Sports

[edit]
Reliable
  • The Athletic [1,459] generally reliable per a March 2024 RfC.[927]
  • Bluff (magazine) [1,460], stopped publishing in 2015. Reliable for poker information per an August 2020 RSN discussion.[928]
  • CardsChat News [1,461], reliable for poker information per an August 2020 RSN discussion.[928]
  • ESPN [1,462][1,463][1,464], sports publication of record, doesn't appear to have ever been seriously challenged as a source for sports information.[929]
  • Extratime.ie [1,465][1,466], reliable for association football coverage per a January 2021 RSN discussion.[930]
  • Chris Turner's Snooker Archive, reliable expert source per an August 2022 RSN discussion.[931]
  • Sports Illustrated [1,467]
  • Soccerway [1,468], can be used to determine if a player has appeared in a match which meets WP:NFOOTY
  • SwimSwam.com [1,469], asserted as reliable for swimming-related news by one editor in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[932]
  • Swimming World News [1,470], asserted as reliable for swimming-related news by one editor in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[932]
No consensus
  • Baseball Almanac, no consensus in a December 2023 RSN discussion.[933]
  • Baseball in Wartime [1,471], one editor called the source an expert blog in a September 2020 RSN discussion.[934]
  • Heavy.com [1,472], should not be relied upon for any serious or contentious statements.[5]
  • Lacancha.com [1,473], defunct, called an WP:SPS by one editor in July 2020.[935]
  • SBNation [1,474], no consensus in an August 2023 RSN discussion.[936] Previously, all editors involved in a 2020 discussion agree that articles published in this source should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.[937]
  • Sherdog.com [1,475], opinions varied wildly at a November 2020 RfC, with a plurality considering it to be one of the best MMA-focused sources, if not necessarily as good as major outlets like ESPN.[938][5]
  • SoccerBible [1,476], no consensus in a September 2023 RSN discussion.[939]
  • Svenskafans [1,477], no consensus in a May 2024 RSN discussion.[940]
Unreliable
  • Footballdatabase.eu [1,478], user generated and unreliable per a December 2023 RSN discussion.[941]
  • Highstakesdb [1,479], self-published poker blog, but may be usable for tournament results per an August 2020 RSN discussion.[928]
  • Rocket Robin's Soccer In Toronto http://rocketrobinsoccerintoronto.com/, blog compiling primary source information.[942]
  • Sportskeeda [1,480], generally unreliable per a June 2021 RSN discussion.[943]
  • The Sportster, [1,481] listed as unreliable by WP:WikiProject Professional Wrestling due to a lack of proper fact checking.[944]
  • Transfermarkt [1,482][1,483], player profiles and statistics can be edited by registered users, making this source unreliable.

Vehicles (cars, aircraft, trains, ships)

[edit]
Reliable
  • Car and Driver [1,484], generally reliable for non-technical claims per a January 2021 RSN discussion.[945]
  • One Mile at a Time [1,485], an editor in a December 2020 RSN discussion suggested that the source's author is a subject-matter expert for civil aviation.[946]
  • Outandaboutlive, [1,486], generally reliable for coverage of motor homes per a May 2022 RSN discussion[947]
  • tcawestern.org [1,487], rough consensus in a 2020 RSN discussion for reliability for model-train related claims as a self-published expert source.[948]
  • Trains [1,488], reliable per a June 2023 RSN discussion.[949]
No consensus
  • American-rails.com [1,489], editors expressed doubts about its reliability in an August 2020 RSN discussion but did not come to a firm consensus.[950]
  • Ch-aviation [1,490], described as a reliable trade publication by one editor in an August 2023 RSN discussion.[951]
  • The Drive The War Zone[1,491], one editor made a case for unreliability in a July 2023 RSN discussion that did not receive further participation.[952]
  • Hotairengines.org [1,492], no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion.[953]
  • roads.org.uk [1,493], typically-reliable but self-published source per an October 2022 RSN discussion.[954]
  • Supercars.net [1,494], editors in a May 2020 RSN discussion did not come to a clear consensus, with several suggesting it was unreliable and no one defending it as a high quality source.[955]
  • Superyacht Times [1,495], no consensus on whether it can be used for notability purposes in an August 2020 RSN discussion, although there was a consensus that it is usable for simple statements of fact confirming the sale of boats.[956]
  • ukrailnews, [1,496] no firm consensus, leaning towards unreliable, in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[957]
  • Zamaaero [1,497], no consensus in a February 2024 RSN discussion.[958]
Unreliable
  • The Aerodrome [1,498], self-published per a December 2021 RfC.[959]
  • Belgian Wings [1,499], not reliable per a December 2019 RSN discussion.[960]
  • bozhdynsky.com [1,500], self-published and non-expert source per a July 2019 RSN discussion.[961]
  • Carfolio [1,501], small consensus for unreliability in a June 2020 RSN discussion.[962]
  • cahighways.org [1,502], considered a hobbyist website that is not published by a subject-matter expert per April 2022 RSN discussion.[963]
  • f-16.net [1,503], not reliable per a March 2022 RSN discussion.[964]
  • Fighter Jets World [1,504], not reliable, caught passing off photohopped images as real per a March 2022 RSN discussion.[965]
  • Land Transport Guru [1,505] consensus in a December 2023 RSN discussion that it is a self-published enthusiast site.[966]
  • Planespotters.net [1,506], consensus that it is self-published in a March 2023 RSN discussion.[967]
  • Simple Flying [1,507][5]
  • Teslarati [1,508], effectively PR per an August 2023 RSN discussion.[968]

Unclassifiable

[edit]
Reliable
No consensus
  • etymonline [1,511], self-published but possibly a subject-matter expert per an August 2020 RSN discussion. Editors agreed that better sources will generally be available for the subject matter, nevertheless.[971]
Unreliable

News aggregators

[edit]

These websites usually pull their news reports from other websites. When possible, references to these websites should be replaced with links to the original website. These are often web portal websites.

Scripts and tools

[edit]
Main page: Wikipedia:User scripts/List § References

Several scripts and tools exist that will flag issues and problems with sources.

Scripts
Tools
Wikipedia:CiteWatch (see Signpost article)

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Link to WP:RSN discussion or other location
  2. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 337#RfC: Coda Story
  3. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 294#AFP
  4. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_403#Reliability_of_theafricareport
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az ba bb bc bd be bf bg bh bi bj bk bl bm bn bo bp bq br bs bt bu bv bw bx by bz ca cb cc cd ce cf cg ch ci cj ck cl cm cn co cp cq cr cs ct cu cv cw cx cy cz da db dc dd de df dg dh di dj dk dl dm dn do dp dq dr ds dt du dv dw dx dy dz ea eb ec ed ee ef eg eh ei ej ek el em en eo ep eq er es et eu ev ew ex ey ez fa fb fc fd fe ff fg fh fi fj fk fl fm fn fo fp fq fr fs ft fu fv fw fx fy fz ga gb gc gd ge gf gg gh gi gj gk gl gm gn go gp gq gr gs gt gu gv gw gx gy gz ha hb hc hd he hf hg hh hi hj hk hl hm hn ho hp hq hr hs ht hu hv hw hx hy hz ia ib ic id ie if ig ih ii ij ik il im in io ip iq ir is it iu iv iw ix iy iz ja jb jc jd je jf jg jh ji jj jk jl jm jn jo jp jq jr js jt ju jv jw jx jy jz ka kb kc kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn ko kp kq kr ks kt ku kv kw kx ky kz la lb lc ld le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo lp lq lr ls lt lu lv lw lx ly lz ma mb mc md me mf Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
  6. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#Balkan Insight, N1
  7. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_397#Bureau_of_Investigative_Journalism
  8. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 15#Human Rights Watch
  9. ^ a b Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 342#Some organizations I wanted to talk about.
  10. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 342#Jeune Afrique
  11. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#Balkan Insight, N1
  12. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 301#Quartz
  13. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 316#Quartz
  14. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_405#is_antifascist-europe.org_reliable
  15. ^ a b Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 339#Reports in Al Akhbar and Asharq Al-Awsat for an alleged Israeli massacre
  16. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 316#Genocide Watch: Unreliable source?
  17. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 325#GlobalVoices.org
  18. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 324#Is Middle East Eye a reliable source for contentious claims about a BLP
  19. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_436#Middle_East_Monitor
  20. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 343#Middle East Monitor
  21. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_440#RfC:_RFE/RL
  22. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 352#Resumen Latinamericano
  23. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 267#RfC: TRT World
  24. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_429#Worldcrunch
  25. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 353#World Socialist Web Site
  26. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 292#The 1619 Project and the World Socialist Web Site
  27. ^ a b c Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_428#Operation_World,_Joshua_Project_and_Asia_Harvest
  28. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_428#bnnbreaking.com_?
  29. ^ a b c WP:RSN/Archive 272#Are meforum.org , consortiumnews.com, and theguardian.com/commentisfree RSs?
  30. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_423#RFC:_The_Cradle
  31. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 289#Is Meaww a reliable source?
  32. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_389#Modern_Diplomacy_.eu
  33. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_448#Reliability_of_NewsReports
  34. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 301#stalkerzone as a source for claim about Bellingcat
  35. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 388#taketonews.com: Machine generated translations as standalone WP:RS ?
  36. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#Today_News_Africa
  37. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#CamerounWeb
  38. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 362#RfC: tghat.com
  39. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 269#RfC: Daily Graphic and graphic.com.gh
  40. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#Who's_Who_in_Ghana
  41. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_419#Yen.com.gh
  42. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 26#Expertise in Nigerian sources?
  43. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 319#The Guardian (Nigeria)
  44. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_391#WP:LTA_writing_articles_at_LA_Weekly_and_guardian
  45. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_446#Nigerian_News_Sources
  46. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_414#Vanguard_(Nigeria)
  47. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 343#Bellanaija.com
  48. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 272#Nairaland
  49. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 317#New Era
  50. ^ a b c WP:RSN/Archive 263#Somalia news sources
  51. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#Somali Dispatch
  52. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 293#RfC: Is African Independent a reliable source?
  53. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 352#Reliability of the Mail & Guardian
  54. ^ a b Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_418#South_African_sources
  55. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_442#The_South_African_(3rd_time_of_asking)
  56. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 267#PML Daily article about political bloggers
  57. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 325#Zambia Daily Mail
  58. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_401#Unreliability_of_Hasht_e_Subh
  59. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_445#panarmenian.net
  60. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 314#Panarmenian.net and pan.am (PanARMENIAN.Net)
  61. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 366#RFC on apa.az use for Armenia/Nagorno-Karabakh articles
  62. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_387#Gunaz_TV
  63. ^ a b c Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_449#Banglar_Alo_and_Sylnewsbd.com
  64. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_402#OurtimeBD
  65. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 340#Reliability of Somoy News
  66. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 357#RfC: Perennial sources consideration for Caixin?
  67. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 279#Is the Hong Kong Free Press a reliable source?
  68. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 309#South China Morning Post (and Lin Nguyen, a fabricated writer)
  69. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 297#RfC: Apple Daily
  70. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_431#Bamboo_Works
  71. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 313#Views on Central Tibetan Administration
  72. ^ a b c d e WP:RSN/Archive 271#Chinese news sources
  73. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 332#RfC: China Daily
  74. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#RfC: guancha.cn
  75. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 279#People's Daily and Qiushi as opinion pieces and non CoI BLP realiable sources
  76. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#RfC: What's on Weibo
  77. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 274#Xinhua reliability
  78. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_376#RFC:_Bitter_Winter
  79. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 293#CGTN (China Global Television Network)
  80. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 313#Douban
  81. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 302#faluninfo.net
  82. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 294#Should we be using this Falun Gong media outfit as a source for BLPs, politics, China, etc?
  83. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 306#RfC: Wen Wei Po
  84. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_395#georgia_today
  85. ^ Biswas, Soutik (2012-01-12). "Why are India's media under fire?". BBC News. Retrieved 2020-03-06.
  86. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 248#Scroll, OpIndia, The Wire, The Quint, The Print, DailyO, postcardnews, rightlog etc.
  87. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 313#Boom! ( www.boomlive.in )
  88. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 280#Use of caravanmagazine in Asaram article
  89. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_389#Cinestaan
  90. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 352#Feminism in India
  91. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 67#The Hindu
  92. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 305#The Hindu
  93. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 145#News rack: Is it a reliable source
  94. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 248#General discussions
  95. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 293#RfC: The Indian Express
  96. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 307#LiveMint - increasingly used in India. Reliability disputed
  97. ^ a b c d WP:RSN/Archive 285#Radiance Veiwsweekly (radianceweekly.in)
  98. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 296#Newslaundry on OpIndia
  99. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 316#Rajasthan Patrika
  100. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_390#Sahapedia
  101. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Shethepeople.TV
  102. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#Nithyananda
  103. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_402#RfC:_The_Wire_(India)
  104. ^ a b c WP:RSN/Archive 314#123 Telugu, Idlebrain, and FullHyderabad
  105. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 331#RfC: Asian News International (ANI)
  106. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 301#Bollywood Hungama
  107. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_442#East_India_Story
  108. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Economic Times Brand Equity
  109. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_424#Unreliable_sources?_FirstPost_/TimeNow
  110. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_403#Heritage_Times_(India)
  111. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_445#Reliablity_of_idlebrain.com_for_Telugu_cinema
  112. ^ a b Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 353#Sify.com and Indiaglitz
  113. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 320#Janta Ka Reporter
  114. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 286#National Herald
  115. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 350#WP:NDTV
  116. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_449#RfC:_NewsClick
  117. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 268#Orissapost.com
  118. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_397#Oneindia_as_a_reliable_source
  119. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_389#Use_of_The_Pioneer_(India)_for_an_Indian_author's_Reception_section
  120. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 310#The Sunday Guardian
  121. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 368#Times of Assam
  122. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 158#Times of India
  123. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#Times of India RFC
  124. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#Connexionblog
  125. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_401#e-pao.net
  126. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#EastMojo
  127. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 292#postcard.news and tfipost.com
  128. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 290#Is Hindi 2News a reliable source?
  129. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 366#Hindu Post Reliability
  130. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_391#Indiafacts
  131. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 313#Live History India
  132. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 290#The Logical Indian for Jai Shri Ram
  133. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 313#Masala!
  134. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 350#RfC - Moneylife
  135. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 236#onefivenine.com - broad consensus sought
  136. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 288#OpIndia and Swarajya
  137. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 311#Sarup & Sons
  138. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_389#TimesNext_-_reliable?
  139. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_437#RfC:_Reliability_of_WION
  140. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 315#Is WION a reliable source?
  141. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 288#Youth Ki Awaaz
  142. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 322#Yuva TV
  143. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#Tapol bulletin
  144. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 305#Encyclopædia Iranica
  145. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 368#Encyclopaedia Iranica RS?
  146. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 174#FARS News Agency (Iranian news source)
  147. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_448#Iran_International_in_Iran_related_topics
  148. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_305#Arab_News_on_Iran_International
  149. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_442#Iranwire
  150. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 332#Islamic Republic News Agency
  151. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_431#RfC:_Tasnim_News_Agency
  152. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 337#Possible citogenesis from the Tehran Times
  153. ^ a b c WP:RSN/Archive 271#Kurdish Press
  154. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 296#Is B'Tselem a RS?
  155. ^ a b c Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_432#Israeli based news sources
  156. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_445#RfC:_+972_Magazine
  157. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_431#+972_magazine
  158. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 337#Debka.com
  159. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 305#RfC: Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)
  160. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_448#I24NEWS
  161. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_414#"Special_Content"_in_The_Jerusalem_Post
  162. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 293#NRG360 - formerly nrg
  163. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_442#Stop_using_The_Times_of_Israel_as_a_source_for_Israel-Palestine_conflict_news.
  164. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 192#Times of Israel
  165. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 315#Is Wafa.ps a RS?
  166. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 289#israelunwired.com
  167. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 345#Are Buzz Plus News and The Asahi Shimbun reliable source for a BLP
  168. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_446#Reliability_of_The_Japan_Times?
  169. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#Reliability for Japanese newspapers
  170. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 334#Is NHK World-Japan reliable?
  171. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_390#Add_NHK_World-Japan
  172. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 306#Nikkei
  173. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_390#Chara_Biz.com
  174. ^ a b c WP:RSN/Archive 315#Kazakh-government funded outlets
  175. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_430#Tahawolat
  176. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_420#Al-Mayadeen
  177. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 316#newsarawaktribune.com.my
  178. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 342#The Sun (Malaysia)
  179. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_421#Would_https://mongoltoli.mn/history/_be_a_sufficient_source_for_info_on_mongolian_history?
  180. ^ a b Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_429#Two_sources_on_Mongol_Flags_that_I_need_confirmation_for
  181. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#Justice_for_Myanmar
  182. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 266#Is Kathmandu Tribune a Reliable Source
  183. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 368#RfC Daily NK
  184. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 57#Pakistani and Iranian media, and Cageprisoners
  185. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 236#Are Indian news outlets "always" RS about Pakistani weapons
  186. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_418#Dawn_newspaper
  187. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_423#The_Express_Tribune
  188. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_433#Factfocus.com
  189. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 339#Questions regarding Geo TV / Geo News (geo.tv)
  190. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_435#Global_Village_Space
  191. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_389#Hip_in_Pakistan
  192. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_379#MM_News
  193. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_442#ProPakistani.pk,_again
  194. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_432#ProPakistani.pk
  195. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_440#BOL_News
  196. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 306#DND
  197. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_443#"Pakistan_Frontier"
  198. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_445#pakmag.net
  199. ^ a b c Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_387#Reliability_of_Filipino_tabloids:_Hataw!_and_Pilipino_Mirror
  200. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_426#adobo magazine
  201. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_442#Daily_Tribune
  202. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_387#PinoyParazzi
  203. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_402#Asharq_News
  204. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_428#Al_Arabiya
  205. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_418#Al_Arabiya
  206. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 289#Rfc: Arab news is a reliable source?
  207. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_429#Vulcan_Post
  208. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#Is_chosun.com_a_reliable_source_for_articles_about_North_Korea?
  209. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 311#Colombo Page
  210. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#amazinglanka.com
  211. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 286#Al Masdar news
  212. ^ a b c d e WP:RSN/Archive 274#Sources used in Rojava and related articles
  213. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 347#Kurdistan24
  214. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 324#KurdWatch
  215. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 298#ettoday.net
  216. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 329#RfC: Taiwan News
  217. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 320#Taiwan News
  218. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 298#Taiwan News Online
  219. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 293#RfC: PeoPo.org
  220. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_419#The_Thaiger
  221. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 344#Is "A Haber" a reliable source?
  222. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 321#Ahval
  223. ^ a b c Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 340#Turkish News Sites
  224. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_411#Democrat_News/Demokrat_Haber_(Turkish)
  225. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_397#Hürseda_Haber
  226. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 267#RfC: TRT World
  227. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_321#RfC:_Daily_Sabah
  228. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_420#Onedio.com
  229. ^ a b Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 341#UAE news outlets: Gulf News and thenationalnews.com
  230. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_413#The_National_(Emirati_news_outlet)
  231. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_437#Iazzzi:_thearabianpost.com/ipanewspack.com
  232. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 363#Is Thanh Nien reliable?
  233. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 322#Talk: 2020 Pacific typhoon season#Linfa split-RS concerns if death toll is 148
  234. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 290#Edwin E. Jacques
  235. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 448#Novinite
  236. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 298#HKV.hr
  237. ^ a b c d e f g h i j WP:RSN/Archive 268#Post-Velvet Revolution Mladá fronta DNES
  238. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 236#GB Times (gbtimes.com)
  239. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_448#Reliability_of_ARD_Documentary
  240. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 278#FAZ
  241. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_401#Schleswig-Holsteinischer_Zeitungsverlag
  242. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_400#Focus_(German_magazine)
  243. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 278#Die Welt
  244. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 278#Die Welt
  245. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 278#Die Welt
  246. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 317#Is Kathimerini reliable on this page?
  247. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 360#ProtoThema
  248. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 347#American Journal of Health Behavior
  249. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 320#greekcitytimes.com
  250. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 323#Irish Times and Irish Examiner
  251. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_409#RfC:_Should_RTÉ_(Raidió_Teilifís_Éireann)_be_considered_to_be_a_generally_reliable_source?
  252. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 345#Is the Beacon a reliable source for Irish/international news and/or current affairs?
  253. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_401#Is_The_Ditch_a_reliable_source_for_political_news?
  254. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 299#RfC: An Phoblacht
  255. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 325#Is Gript Media a reliable source for Irish/international news and/or current affairs?
  256. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_401#Milano_Finanza
  257. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_419#Is_Libero_(newspaper)_a_reliable_source?
  258. ^ a b Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_396#Meduza_and
  259. ^ a b c d e WP:RSN/Archive 298#Rbc.ru and rbc.ua
  260. ^ a b Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_393#Malta_Today_and_The_Malta_Independent
  261. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#nrc.nl
  262. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 355#RfC: Polish sources
  263. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_432#oko_press_Poland-_propaganda_can_be_reliable_source?
  264. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 329#Gazeta Wyborcza and OKO.press
  265. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_389#Trójmiasto.pl
  266. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 329#Polskie Radio
  267. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 329#Telewizja Polska
  268. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 328#Do Rzeczy
  269. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 328#Gazeta Polska & TV Republika
  270. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 328#Najwyższy Czas!
  271. ^ a b c WP:RSN/Archive 328#Rydzyk's media empire
  272. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 328#niezalezna.pl
  273. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 328#Sieci & wpolityce.pl & associated portals
  274. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_396#Novayagazeta,_noob_question
  275. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_414#donbasstoday.ru
  276. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#Great_Russian_Encyclopedia_Online
  277. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 322#Reframing Russia about East StratCom Task Force
  278. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 293#Hrvc.net
  279. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_407#Is_Life.ru_reliable?
  280. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 272#Russian websites gimn1567.ru , elib.biblioatom.ru , www.famhist.ru, and www.peoples.ru
  281. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_399#proza.ru
  282. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 298#The Siberian Times
  283. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 286#South Front
  284. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 338#Vzglyad (newspaper)
  285. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 278#NZZ as generally reliable
  286. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 369#Ukrainian Pravda (Ukrainska Pravda)
  287. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_379#Zaborona
  288. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_376#Reliability_of_Euromaidan_Press
  289. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#Ukrainian sources
  290. ^ a b Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 368#The Kyiv Independent
  291. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_414#Militarnyi_(mil.in.ua)
  292. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 338#Byline Times (bylinetimes.com, NOT byline.com)
  293. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 316#Byline Times
  294. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 270#RfC: The Herald (Glasgow)
  295. ^ a b c WP:RSN/Archive 316#Assessment of Scotland's newspapers
  296. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_443#Lancashire_Telegraph
  297. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_390#LBC_News
  298. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_442#liverpool daily post
  299. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#Nation.Cymru
  300. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 313#The New Statesman
  301. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 334#Sky News
  302. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 313#TheyWorkForYou
  303. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_418#RfC:_Reliability_of_WhatPub
  304. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_387#The_Argus
  305. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 312#Asianexpress.co.uk
  306. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 283#castlewales
  307. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#DeSmog Blogs (aka desmog.uk, desmog.co.uk, dsmogblog.com)
  308. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 298#The Eye Wales
  309. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_412#Gauchoworld?
  310. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_441#Obituary_in_Lobster_(magazine)_for_Olivia_Frank_(a_transgender_mossad_spy);_is_it_investigative_or_conspiratorial?
  311. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_402#The_National_(newspaper,_Scotland)
  312. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 301#The New European
  313. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 345#OpenDemocracy
  314. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 262#Antony Lerman at openDemocracy
  315. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 337#scottish-places.info: A great source dressed up like a bad one?
  316. ^ a b c WP:RSN/Archive 315#Skeptic and Skeptic Inquirer
  317. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 298#The Spectator
  318. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_429#Spiked (magazine)
  319. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 289#Spiked
  320. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 324#Deprecate The Tab?
  321. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_410#UnHerd
  322. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 398#Reliability of Anarchist Federation website as a source for facts on BLP article Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull
  323. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 335
  324. ^ a b c WP:RSN/Archive 274#Seeking acceptance of reliability of UK progressive online only news sites - The Canary, Evolve Politics and Skwawkbox
  325. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 292#The Canary
  326. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 296#ConservativeHome
  327. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 318#Can we please adapt the Daily Mail consensus to reflect a position on Mail on Sunday?
  328. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 310#Daily Sport
  329. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 290#Epistle News for Dean Schneider
  330. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 334#Lesbian and Gay News
  331. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_382#Reliability_of_GB_News_as_a_source_for_citations
  332. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 279#Hello! magazine (again)
  333. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 317#Jacobite Magazine
  334. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#The_Milli_Chronicle
  335. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 288#Move Skwawkbox to at least 'no consensus' section
  336. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 375#tvnewsroom.co.uk
  337. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 346#UK Defence Journal
  338. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 63#Bloody-Disgusting
  339. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 358#Reliability of The Canadian Encyclopedia
  340. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 292#RfC: Is Global News generally a reliable source for news and current affairs coverage?
  341. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 340#RfC: The Globe and Mail
  342. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_435#itbusiness.ca
  343. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 320#Taiwan News
  344. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 366#The Dorchester Review
  345. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_398#Passage
  346. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 296#The Post Millennial for article Supervised injection site
  347. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 316#Rebel News
  348. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 307#Toronto Guardian
  349. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_431#La_Teja_(Costa_Rican_newspaper)
  350. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 343#TheCubanHistory.com
  351. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 294#Atlanta Black Star
  352. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 19#Huffington Post, AJC, & E&P
  353. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 363#Attractions Magazine
  354. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 283#Boston Globe
  355. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RealClear media
  356. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#Chicago Tribune
  357. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 280#CIA factbook
  358. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_409#The_City_(website)_TheCity.NYC
  359. ^ a b c d Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_396#Cleveland.com_reliability?
  360. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 117#Using Congressional Research Service reports at National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
  361. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 343#Healthgrades and Courthouse News
  362. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 298#thediplomat.com
  363. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 77#Fast Company
  364. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 275#theconversation.com
  365. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 293#Federal News Network Comment
  366. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_401#The_Forward
  367. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 187#Foreign Policy magazine
  368. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 283#Honolulu Civil Beat
  369. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 322#PopSugar
  370. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 188#Huffington Post
  371. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 302#Jacobin
  372. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 324#Jacobin
  373. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Rfc: Jacobin (magazine)
  374. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 325#The Jewish Journal
  375. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 293#The Jewish Week reliability?
  376. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_407#KFYR-TV
  377. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 326#Lawfare Blog
  378. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 321#Lead Stories fact checker - reliable?
  379. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 288#Mainer News
  380. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#Mapping_Prejudice
  381. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 322#Soap Hub as a reliable source
  382. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 296#Is NBC a reliable sources for the Wikipedia The Epoch Times (ET) article?
  383. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 287#The News-Press
  384. ^ a b Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_411#Two_local_alternative_newspapers_in_the_San_Francisco_area
  385. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 260#Citation for Breitbart News WP article: sufficiently direct?
  386. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 275#theconversation.com
  387. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 372#PR Week
  388. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#Is Rollcall a reliable source for Rob Portman's wealth?
  389. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 58#Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross of the San Francisco Chronicle
  390. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 188#Huffington Post
  391. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 326#RfC on SCOTUSblog
  392. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 284#Obituary
  393. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 188#Huffington Post
  394. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_402#Southwest_Voices
  395. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_401#Stacker
  396. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 121#Blogs at Shooting of Trayvon Martin
  397. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 309#Street Roots
  398. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_402#TaxProf_Blog
  399. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 269#Teen Vogue for political or crime news?
  400. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_376#Texas_Attorney_General's_interview_reliable_or_not?
  401. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 298#U.S. News
  402. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_380#The_Virgin_Islands_Daily_News
  403. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 330#Voice of America (VOA)
  404. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 302#Algemeiner Journal & The Jewish News Syndicate
  405. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 358#allthatsinteresting.com
  406. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 343#American Community Survey
  407. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#BET
  408. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 309#What are the absolute least reliable liberal-leaning and conservative-leaning sources?
  409. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 222#All newspapers that publish in tabloid format are not reliable sources?
  410. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 156#tabloids
  411. ^ a b c WP:RSN/Archive 253#Are Think Tanks considered reliable sources for politically controversial articles?
  412. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_401#Catholic_Standard
  413. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_398#The_Colorado_Times_Recorder,_Passage,_and_Idavox_as_sources_in_the_Foundation_Against_Intolerance_and_Racism_article
  414. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 321#COURIER
  415. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#Reliability_of_"Dirt.com"?
  416. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 317#The Dispatch on Guo Wengui
  417. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#Encyclopedia_of_Arkansas
  418. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_442#Another_season,_another_Bluey_source_up_for_grabs
  419. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 322#FITSNews - reliable?
  420. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_433#Is_this_article_about_a_Communist_millionaire_from_The_Free_Press_reliable?
  421. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_397#The_Free_Press
  422. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 322#Gay City News
  423. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 290#RfC: Is The Green Papers a generally reliable source for reporting election-related information?
  424. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_393#Hill_Rag
  425. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 288#The Hustle
  426. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_449#Independent_Political_Report
  427. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_76#Independent_Political_Report
  428. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_430#Insidehook.com
  429. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_391#WP:LTA_writing_articles_at_LA_Weekly_and_guardian.ng?
  430. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 346#Law & Crime
  431. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_420#Lawnext.com,_LawSites_magazine
  432. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_441#RfC:_Legal_Insurrection
  433. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_391#LGBTQ_Nation
  434. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 345#The Liberty Herald
  435. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#Local Government Information Services
  436. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 315#Lifehacker
  437. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 330#How's LifeHacker nowadays?
  438. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 343#Mental Floss
  439. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_418#Reliability_of_themessenger.com
  440. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 301#Monkey Cage
  441. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_409#More_Perfect
  442. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#MyNorthwest.com
  443. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#National_Bridge_Inventory
  444. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_419#NewsNation
  445. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_397#nosh.com_as_an_RS
  446. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 312#Oregon Encyclopedia
  447. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 334#Our Town St James
  448. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_416#Reliability_of_Paper_(magazine)?
  449. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 287#RfC: Is Paste a generally reliable source for politics-related topics?
  450. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 324#Pittsburg Post-Gazette and Toledo Blade
  451. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 293#RfC: Pride.com
  452. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 336#RealClear media
  453. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 271#Right Wing Watch
  454. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#'Sludge' magazine article on Douglas Murray's video for PragerU
  455. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 344#Spectrum Culture
  456. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 289#Tennessee Star, Michigan Star, etc.
  457. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_397#Tennessee_Star_-_reliable_source?
  458. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 159#Talking Points Memo as RS for documenting a Senator's vote
  459. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 298#The Week ( theweek.co.uk / theweek.com )
  460. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 290#Ad Fontes Media and AllSides
  461. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 298#Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart
  462. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_417#The_American_Bazaar
  463. ^ a b c Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_398#Are_Daily_Magzines,_The_American_Mail,_and_Vents_Magazine_reliable?
  464. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_411#Attorney_at_Law_magazine,_attorneyatlawmagazine.com
  465. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Black Agenda Report
  466. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 259#Is Bigleaguepolitics.com a reliable source for an accusation against Rashida Tlaib?
  467. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 348#RFC — TheBlot
  468. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 368#Buffalo Chronicle
  469. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 336#RfC: California Globe
  470. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 294#Capital Research Center / InfluenceWatch / Dangerous Documentaries
  471. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_409#Reliability_of_Military_Watch_Magazine
  472. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Dissident Voice
  473. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 274#The Federalist (website)
  474. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 291#FrontPage Magazine
  475. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 301#RFC: FrontPage Magazine
  476. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_398#Fuchsia_Magazine
  477. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 340#HS Insider (Los Angeles Times)
  478. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_398#Idavox
  479. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 324#Inquisitr revisited
  480. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#InsideSources
  481. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_437#Is_intellectualtakeout.org_a_reliable_source?
  482. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 322#Law Officer Magazine ( lawofficer.com )
  483. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 316#Mises Institute articles
  484. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 289#Money Inc
  485. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 315#Raheem Kassam and https://thenationalpulse.com/ - can they be used for BLPs?
  486. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 326#The National Pulse
  487. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_436#RfC:_Entertainment_coverage_of_the_New_York_Post_(including_Decider_and_Page_Six)
  488. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_410#O'Keefe_Media_Group_and_Project_Veritas
  489. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 335#RfC - ourcampaigns.com
  490. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 328#RfC - ourcampaigns.com
  491. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 296#RfC: PanAm Post
  492. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 310#RfC: Reliability of PETA
  493. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 293#RfC: Is PoliticusUSA a reliable source?
  494. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 283#PragerU - an unreliable source?
  495. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 324#RfC - The Raw Story
  496. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 313#RedState
  497. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 262#Thought Catalog
  498. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#Vents_Magazine
  499. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 291#Using The Washington Free Beacon in politically related BLPs - is it an RS?
  500. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 349#We Hunted the Mammoth
  501. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 278#Is France 24 a reliable source?
  502. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 275#theconversation.com
  503. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 321#The Advertiser (Adelaide)
  504. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 352#Reliability of The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age
  505. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 309#The Australian
  506. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 322#The Australian Financial Review and paywalled content
  507. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 58#Nash Information Services
  508. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 357#RfC: Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) as Source
  509. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 292#Should this one be added as RS?
  510. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 325#The Latin Australian Times
  511. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#news.com.au
  512. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_442#The_Parramatta_Advertiser
  513. ^ a b Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_396#Victorian_Places
  514. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_384#Sky_News_Australia
  515. ^ ikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_384#The_Daily_Telegraph_(Sydney)
  516. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 286#RFC: Independent Australia
  517. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 288#newsweekly.com.au
  518. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 353#Historisches Lexikon Bayerns
  519. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 269#RfC: Quadrant Magazine
  520. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_389#Newshub
  521. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 317#The Spinoff / thespinoff.co.nz
  522. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_440#Is_NZ_On_Air_reliable?
  523. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 371#Scoop.co.nz
  524. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 342#El Rompehielos
  525. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 305#mises.org.br
  526. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_407#https://www.guyanatimesinternational.co_and_guardian.co.tt
  527. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_407#https://www.guyanatimesinternational.co_and_guardian.co.tt
  528. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_420#RfC:_Correo_del_Orinoco_(Orinoco_Tribune)
  529. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_402#World_Spider_Catalog
  530. ^ a b c d e f WP:RSN/Archive 313#Dogsbite.org, other dog attack-related advocacy websites
  531. ^ a b c d e f g WP:RSN/Archive 297#More nobility fansites
  532. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 320#arlingtoncemetery dot net
  533. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#BabyNames.com
  534. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#Pando.com
  535. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 315#Is brandsynario.com a reliable source?
  536. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 275#Celebitchy.com - Reliable?
  537. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 313#Countere.com
  538. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 286#EarnTheNecklace.com
  539. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 361#Enciclopedia d'arte italiana
  540. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 257#famousbirthsdeaths.com
  541. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 314#guide2womenleaders.com
  542. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 311#The Hustler's Digest
  543. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 273#The Internet Speculative Fiction Database as a source for BLP data
  544. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 314#Look to the Stars
  545. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 287#Potential reliability of marriedceleb.com
  546. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 332#News Website MEAWW Reliable or Unreliable Source?
  547. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#Net_Worth_Post
  548. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 272#Nickiswift.com
  549. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 236#odssf.com
  550. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 314#PopSugar?
  551. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 322#PopSugar
  552. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 348#Artnet news
  553. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_430#Artnet News + artist's estates
  554. ^ a b Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_396#Reliability_of_two_Japanese_gaming_websites_(Den_Fami_Nico_Gamer_and_Automaton_Media)
  555. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 312#Question about Billboard
  556. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 370#RfC: Behind the Voice Actors
  557. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 284#Blender
  558. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_396#British_Film_Institute
  559. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_440#RfC:_Cartoon_Brew
  560. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_423#Cartoon_Brew
  561. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_379#Reliability_of_The_Dicebreaker_(News)
  562. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 337#Dicebreaker
  563. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_391#thedirect.com
  564. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_425#ESTNN
  565. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 284#Exclaim!
  566. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#Filmcompanion.in_(2)
  567. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_425#Foreword_Reviews
  568. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 271#GQ
  569. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 348#Glamour Magazine as a Reliable Source in the Fashion Industry
  570. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 317#Highsnobiety
  571. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 314#HORRORNEWS.NET
  572. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 343#Igromania as a reliable Gaming Source
  573. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 277#Kissyfur
  574. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_446#Mixdown_(music_website)
  575. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 318#New Musical Express / NME / www.nme.com
  576. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_399#RFC:_People_Make_Games
  577. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 302#Is video game website polygon.com a RS for information on allegations of sexual misconduct against BLPs?
  578. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 322#Soap Hub as a reliable source
  579. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 368#Stylist magazine
  580. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 328#Sweety High
  581. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 288#Tatler
  582. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_418#Reliablity_of_Tubefilter
  583. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 284#Uproxx again
  584. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 302#AfterEllen
  585. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 301#allaccess.com
  586. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 331#AllMusic (allmusic.com): summary of previous AllMusic and/or "All Music" discussions
  587. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 284#AskMen
  588. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#AwardsWatch
  589. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 338#Beebom.com
  590. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_448#Blabbermouth
  591. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 293#The Reliability of "Bounding into Comics"
  592. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_419#British_Comedy_Guide
  593. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_425#Is_Chortle_reliable
  594. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_429#Collider
  595. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 334#Collider
  596. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_379#Is_Comic_Book_Resources_a_reliable_source?
  597. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_424#comingsoon.net
  598. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_381#RfC:_Cuepoint_Medium_publication_reliability
  599. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 340#Help identifying these sources as reliable or unreliable
  600. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_404#Daily_Game
  601. ^ a b c d Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_427#Electronic music sources
  602. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 262#Dexerto
  603. ^ WT:VGRS/Archive 25#Dexerto (part 2 - electric boogaloo)
  604. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 266#RfC: Dexerto
  605. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_429#Dusted_Magazine
  606. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 344#Flamesrising.com
  607. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#Fryderyk Chopin Institute
  608. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_441#Get_Ready_to_Rock_(getreadytorock.com)
  609. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_398#Grand_Comics_Database
  610. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_395#Horror_Obsessive
  611. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_435#Notes_on_LateNighter_source
  612. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_448#Locus_Mag
  613. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 357#RfC: Metalmaidens.com
  614. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 319#Is Metalreviews.com a reliable source
  615. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 326#The Needle Drop
  616. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_440#Ones_To_Watch's_reliability_and_use_for_notability
  617. ^ Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_22#Player.One
  618. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_433#Popspoken.com
  619. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_412#RfC:_Public_Art_in_Public_Places
  620. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 368#Punknews.org
  621. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_435#PureWow_review_on_animated_episode
  622. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 358#RfC: The Ronin
  623. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_400#singersroom.com_revisited
  624. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_395#Soap_Opera_News_for_the_dob_of_an_actor?
  625. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_425#Is_Social_Blade_a_reliable_source_for_YouTube_statistics?
  626. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_414#Sputnikmusic.com
  627. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 287#TohoKingdom
  628. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 375#UKGameshows.com for reviews and opinions
  629. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#Winteriscoming.net
  630. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 294#Video Vs review
  631. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 316#Album of the Year
  632. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_436#RfC:_Allkpop
  633. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 271#Alternative Vision
  634. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_445#amomama
  635. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 288#Arcade Heroes
  636. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 337#Is The Art of Manliness a reliable source, and is Brett McKay an expert source?
  637. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 398#Concern regarding Broadway World
  638. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_394#Broadway_World
  639. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 316#Cinema cats
  640. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_401#FilmFreeway
  641. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 313#Film Music Reporter
  642. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 335#Film Music Reporter
  643. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 339#Game Skinny
  644. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_425#Geek_Girl_Authority
  645. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 309#RfC : Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music
  646. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 331#Kirkus Indie
  647. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 334#RfC: metal-experience.com
  648. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 286#RfC: Metalheadzone
  649. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_429#oldtimemusic.com_is_AI_generated_spam
  650. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_398#Ratings_Ryan
  651. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_425#reviewit.pk
  652. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_396#rocklistmusic.co.uk_being_used_for_Top_100_Hip_Hop_songs_of_all-time
  653. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 288#Rolling Out
  654. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 363#Is Rotoscopers reliable
  655. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 362#Saving Country Music
  656. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 259#Songmeanings.com
  657. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 278#songmeaningsandfacts.com in Party Favor (song)
  658. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 201#Drop the Pilot
  659. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_418#Is_SVG.com_reliable?
  660. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_443#Stylecraze.com
  661. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 336#RfC: thrashocore.com
  662. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 293#TrekNation
  663. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 313#TV.com
  664. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 316#The Von Pip Musical Express
  665. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 294#WatchMojo
  666. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 288#Business Journals / bizjournals.com
  667. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 283#Is Fortune (magazine) considered reliable? it is not covered in WP:RSP
  668. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 292#Better Business Bureau
  669. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 301#Bitcoin Magazine reputable
  670. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 321#CNBC / Cryptocurrency
  671. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 283#PitchBook
  672. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 329#The Motley Fool
  673. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 320#NASDAQ News
  674. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 304#Realtor.com as RS for edits in articles
  675. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 350#RetailDive.com
  676. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_384#Coinmarketcap.com
  677. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_403#Statista_-_April_2023
  678. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_380#WallStreetPro
  679. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources#General
  680. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 353#The Cinemaholic
  681. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 271#Common Sense Media
  682. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 294#Common Sense Media
  683. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 344#Film School Rejects?
  684. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 289#The Futon Critic - is it reliable
  685. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 289#DiscussingFilm
  686. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_432#Film_Threat
  687. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 375#Is Film Threat still reliable?
  688. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 375#The Filmik
  689. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_442#allmovie.com_now_using_film_descriptions_and_actor_biographies_from_Wikipedia
  690. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_402#Filmdaily.co
  691. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 287#www.filmreference.com reliable or not
  692. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_376#Wanted_to_know_whether_these_websites_are_reliable_sources
  693. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_402#beernet.com
  694. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_403#Eater_(website)
  695. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_401#Craft_Coffee_Spot
  696. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#tasteatlas
  697. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 359#Ancient Asia journal
  698. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 280#CIA factbook
  699. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_429#Is e-Perimetron a reliable source?
  700. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_404#MIA:_Encyclopedia_of_Marxism
  701. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Ronen Bergman
  702. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_398#Smarthistory
  703. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 318#Anarchist FAQ used in various -ism articles.
  704. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 321#Reliability of Arcadia publishing
  705. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_402#The_Art_Story
  706. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 337#Defending History
  707. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_431#Is_donsmaps.com_a_reliable_source_for_Las_Caldas_cave?
  708. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_411#Encyclopedia_of_Communist_Biographies
  709. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 295#Encyklopedia II wojny światowej
  710. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 362#GEOnet Names Server (GNS)
  711. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_379#historynet.com
  712. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 80#Reliability of the Joshua Project as source
  713. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 27#Is Joshua Project reliable?
  714. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 74#Joshua Project
  715. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 324#Libcom.org
  716. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_409#Is_Mindat.org_reliable?
  717. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_379#Leaked_Paul_Mason_-_Amil_Khan_correspondence
  718. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 362#Is Peakbagger.com a reliable source?
  719. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_423#Is_PeopleGroups.org_Reliable_here
  720. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_441#The_World_History_Encyclopedia
  721. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#Världens Historia
  722. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#NCERT (Indian educational board)
  723. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 346#rulers.org
  724. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_396#spanamwar.com
  725. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_416#Is_Vexilla_Mundi_Reliable?
  726. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_445#Worldatlas.com
  727. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_409#'World_Economics'_as_a_source_of_economic_data_on_Afghanistan
  728. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_396#Archaeology-World.com
  729. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_388#Archontology.org
  730. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_399#Atlas_Obscura
  731. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 313#Atlas Obscura
  732. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 289#Allan W. Eckert
  733. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 281#Encyclopedias of James B. Minahan
  734. ^ Cite error: The named reference :01 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  735. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 314#europeanheraldry.org
  736. ^ [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_389#FOTW_-_[43]]]
  737. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_400#Glaukopis
  738. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 328#Glaukopis journal
  739. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_435#genealogytrails.com
  740. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 314#historyofroyalwomen.com
  741. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_430#International_Journal_for_Multidisciplinary_Research_in_relation_to_humanities_based_topics?
  742. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 289#Is Jadovno.com an RS?
  743. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_377#RFC_concerning_New_Eastern_Outlook
  744. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 393#https://partylike1660.com
  745. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 325#Tibetan Political Review
  746. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 261#touregypt.net
  747. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 329#Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation
  748. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 362#victimsofcommunism.org
  749. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 290#Word Spy
  750. ^ For journal articles, need to also check if it is a secondary source. That is, a review, systematic review, meta-analysis, guideline, or practice guideline.
  751. ^ a b c d e Wikipedia:Why MEDRS?#About sources again
  752. ^ a b c d e f g WP:MEDORG
  753. ^ a b c d e f g Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#List of core journals
  754. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 291#World Health Organization
  755. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_400#RFC:_Frontiers_Media
  756. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 329#Sourcing with Frontiers Journal in Public Health
  757. ^ WP:CITEWATCH
  758. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 268#Mayo Clinic
  759. ^ a b c WP:RSN/Archive 304#National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH)
  760. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 292#Verywell
  761. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 311#WebMD
  762. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_389#Health_Liberation_Now!_Relisted
  763. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_409#Healthline:_deprecate_or_blacklist?
  764. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 326#Is this journal a reliable source? Would its use be a violation of WP:MEDRS?
  765. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 301#Journal of Natural Science Biology and Medicine
  766. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_445#Inclusion_of_Kinesiology_Review_at_Feldenkrais_Method
  767. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 286#Leafly
  768. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_429#medriva.com
  769. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 319#www.hisutton.com
  770. ^ Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Oryxspioenkop_Reliability
  771. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 311#War is Boring and The Arkenstone
  772. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 272#defensereview.com
  773. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#GlobalSecurity.org
  774. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 304#guns.com
  775. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_423#Institute_for_Strategic_Dialogue
  776. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#militantwire.com
  777. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_409#Reliability_of_Military_Watch_Magazine
  778. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_429#The_Pak_Military_Monitor
  779. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 271#uboat.net
  780. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 75#Uboat.net
  781. ^ Archive 344#armyrecognition.com
  782. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_431#defence-blog.com
  783. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 320#defence-blog.com
  784. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 329#defseca.com
  785. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 315#RfC: forces-war-records.co.uk
  786. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 371#Global Firepower Index
  787. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 330#Military Today
  788. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_378#Is_Militaryland_reliable?
  789. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_401#MilitaryLand.net
  790. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_403#Militaryland.net
  791. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_431#naval-encyclopedia.com
  792. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 390#Navypedia.org
  793. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 347#War History Online
  794. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#weaponsandwarfare.com
  795. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 286#Books from Cambridge University Press
  796. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 266#The Greenwood Publishing Group
  797. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 163#HarperCollins Canada - are reliable publisher%3F
  798. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 163#Springer are reliable publisher%3F
  799. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 247#University of Chicago Press
  800. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 321#Reliability of Arcadia publishing
  801. ^ a b c d WP:RSN/Archive 277#Encounter Books and Adler & Adler Publication reliable?
  802. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 311#Jessica Kingsley Publishers
  803. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 284#New Leaf Publishing Group %28publisher%29
  804. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 251#Are university presses legally affiliated with the Univ. independent of the parent ORG of the University%3F
  805. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 209#Cambridge Scholars
  806. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 265#Creative Crayon Publishers
  807. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 331#Dharma Publications
  808. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 331#Diamond Pocket Books Pvt Ltd.
  809. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 147#Vanity press publication okay%3F
  810. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 311#Sarup & Sons
  811. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 294#RFC: Is Catholic News Service a reliable source?
  812. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 278#Encyclopedia of Women in World Religions
  813. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 290#Religion News and Christian Post
  814. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 331#The Tablet
  815. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_413#Anglican.ink
  816. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 302#RfC: Anti-Defamation League (ADL)
  817. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_397#Reliability_of_the_Catholic_Culture_website
  818. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 298#Catholic News Agency
  819. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 305#China Buddhism Encyclopedia
  820. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_429#Church_Executive
  821. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 277#Life Site News (again)- or rather Crux News
  822. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#Crux (Online Newspaper)
  823. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 309#Dar al-Ifta al Misriyyah / www.dar-alifta.org
  824. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 316#GCatholic.org
  825. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 283#Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online
  826. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 283#hymnary.org
  827. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 318#islamansiklopedisi.org.tr
  828. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 368#Is IslamQA.info a reliable source?
  829. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 283#IslamQA
  830. ^ a b c WP:RSN/Archive 277#Jihad Watch, the Middle East Forum and "Global muslim brotherhood daily watch" in articles about Islam
  831. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 325#Is reasonablefaith.org a reliable source or not?
  832. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 305#Are TalkOrigins and rationalrevolution RS for Scientific racism#Charles Darwin?
  833. ^ a b c d e WP:RSN/Archive 289#Reliable sources?
  834. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_389#Is_thetorah.com_a_reliable_source
  835. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 314#Is Aleteia a reliable source?
  836. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 283#AnsweringMuslims.com
  837. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_376#RFC:_Bitter_Winter
  838. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 301#Catholic-Hierarchy.org
  839. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 277#catholicism.org
  840. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 303#chabad.org
  841. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 309#RfC: Chabad.org
  842. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 277#Church Militant
  843. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_431#Foundation_for_Ancient_Research_and_Mormon_Studies_(FARMS)
  844. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 330#International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, https://www.ifcj.org
  845. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 293#Publications by Robert B. Spencer
  846. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 311#The Legal Culture - The Journal of Ordo Iuris Institute for Legal Culture
  847. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_430#LegendsofAmerica.com
  848. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 314#Is the "Madain Project" a reliable source? It investigates "Abrahamic faith" sites
  849. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 283#monergism.com
  850. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 288#Muflihun.com
  851. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_433#newreligiousmovements.com_/_cultdatabase.com
  852. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 306#Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe
  853. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 388#Orthodox Wiki
  854. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 294#Blacklisting thereligionofpeace.com
  855. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_407#saints.ru
  856. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 260#Is sikhiwiki.org a reliable source for anything?
  857. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 305#wrldrels.org
  858. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#Thoughts on reliability of apple fan sources 9to5Mac, AppleInsider, and MacRumors
  859. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 286#Books from Cambridge University Press
  860. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 349#The journal Capitalism Nature Socialism
  861. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 306#Question about PubChem , Sigma Aldrich and ChemSpider
  862. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#Digital.com
  863. ^ Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (science)
  864. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 292#Ethiopian Journal of Biological Sciences
  865. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 200#GeekWire
  866. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 287#Reliability of GSMArena
  867. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_393#Interesting_Engineering
  868. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 272#Lambda Alpha Journal for Man - published by an international student honors society
  869. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 97#Narrow focus
  870. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 112#Use of reliable media reports as secondary sources to support primary sources
  871. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 40#NASASpaceFlight.com
  872. ^ a b c WP:RSN/Archive 272#Science journal magazines (e.g. Nature, Scientific American (SciAm), Science, etc.)
  873. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 2#Bose Corporation and the intellexual web page
  874. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 70#Analysis of reliability needed at this AfD
  875. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 287#Reliability of GSMArena
  876. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 306#Popular Science magazine
  877. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 197#Retraction Watch
  878. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 337#Brian Dunning (Skeptoid Media): Reliability as a source
  879. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 301#Scientific American
  880. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 335#RfC: Space.com
  881. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 287#Reliability of GSMArena
  882. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 197#Nokia Lumia 920T GPU
  883. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#WebOfScience
  884. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 396#RfC: 9to5Google.com reliability?
  885. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 331#All About Circuits (allaboutcircuits.com)
  886. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 289#Carnot-Cournot Netwerk
  887. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 295#CleanTechnica, again
  888. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_425#Thedebrief.org
  889. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_414#Digital_Trends
  890. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 409#RfC: Is FossForce.com a reliable source for Free and open-source software (FOSS) articles?
  891. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 325#Grit Daily
  892. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 281#Hackaday
  893. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#How Stuff Works
  894. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 326#Should MakeUseOf.com be considered a reliable source?
  895. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 327#mantleplumes.org
  896. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_432#MathWorld
  897. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_379#Jonathan_Lamont's_review_at_MobileSyrup
  898. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 197#Nokia Lumia 920T GPU
  899. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#Popular Mechanics for UFO claims
  900. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#Psychology Today
  901. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_432#The_Shortcut:_reliable_source?
  902. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 197#Nokia Lumia 920T GPU
  903. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 251#SpaceNews
  904. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 338#Techcabal
  905. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 398#Techdirt
  906. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 281#ThoughtCo.
  907. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 287#Reliability of GSMArena
  908. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#chemicalbook.com
  909. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_440#cppreference.com
  910. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#EconStor
  911. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 304#Odd publisher: Ed-Tech Press
  912. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 290#Encycolorpedia
  913. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_426#Is_Followchain_a_reliable_source
  914. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 350#Is Garden.org reliable
  915. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 301#Journal of Novel Applied Sciences
  916. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 286#RfC: KenRockwell.com
  917. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 278#Liliputing.com blog as a reliable source?
  918. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 301#Omniglot
  919. ^ a b Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_398#retroreversing.com_and_pc.net_reliability?
  920. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 281#Phoronix
  921. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 277#Should proprivacy dot com be considered a reliable source?
  922. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_442#Is_"science_publishing_corporation"_aka_sciencepubco.com_a_reliablesource_for_Khasa_dam?
  923. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 346#The Starship Campaign
  924. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 364#Tech Times (techtimes.com), iTech Post( itechpost.com), Gamenguide (gamenguide.com)
  925. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 311#TuttoAndroid.net as a reliable source?
  926. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 275#Should vpnpro dot com be considered a reliable source?
  927. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_432#The_Athletic
  928. ^ a b c WP:RSN/Archive 306#Poker publications
  929. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 318#ESPN
  930. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 325#Extratime.ie
  931. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_382#Chris_Turner's_Snooker_Archive
  932. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 314#SwimSwam
  933. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#Baseball_Almanac
  934. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 311#Website Wartime in Baseball
  935. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 302#lacancha.com
  936. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_410#SB_Nation-staffed_sports_editorial_blogs
  937. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#Is it appropriate to use SBNation as a reference?
  938. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 318#Sherdog.com
  939. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_414#Reliability_of_SoccerBible.com_on_reviews_and_product_release_information_of_soccer/football_boots
  940. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_437#Svenska_Fans_(svenskafans.com)
  941. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_423#Footballdatabase.eu
  942. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#Rocket Robin Soccer in Toronto rocketrobinsoccerintoronto.com
  943. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 343#Sportskeeda generally unreliable?
  944. ^ Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources#Unreliable sources
  945. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 326#Car and Driver
  946. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 322#One Mile at a Time
  947. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 376#Outandaboutlive.co.uk
  948. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 318#Train Collectors Association website?
  949. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#Trains_(magazine)
  950. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 305#american-rails.com
  951. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_411#ch-aviation.com
  952. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_409#Internet_magazines:_'The_War_Zone'_and_'The_Drive'
  953. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#hotairengines.org
  954. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 387#roads.org.uk
  955. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 294#Supercars.net
  956. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 306#Superyacht Times
  957. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 339#ukrailnews.com
  958. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_429#zamaaero.com
  959. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 361#RfC: Reliability of theaerodrome.com
  960. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 281#belgian-wings.be as reliable source
  961. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 270#bozhdynsky.com
  962. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 296#Request for comment: Carfolio.com
  963. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 374#cahighways.org
  964. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 368#f-16.net
  965. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 368#fighterjetsworld.com
  966. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#Land_Transport_Guru
  967. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 399#Planespotters.net
  968. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_412#Teslarati
  969. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_383#RFC_on_Aon,_particularly_in_weather_related_articles
  970. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 101#The Weather Channel
  971. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 306#etymonline
  972. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 297#boredpanda.com
  973. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#choicely.com
  974. ^ a b c Wikipedia:Reliable sources#User-generated content
  975. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 350#Joshuaproject.net
  976. ^ past RSN discussions
  977. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 295#Listverse as a reliable source
  978. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#MobileReference/MobileReference.com
  979. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 301#News Break
  980. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 290#Is The Signpost a RS?
  981. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 352#TodayIFoundOut.com
  982. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 293#Urban Dictionary
  983. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 261#Is wikispace reliable?
  984. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 290#The Logical Indian for Jai Shri Ram
  985. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 301#News Break
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_page_patrol_source_guide&oldid=1242776479"