ARTIKELDIGITAL.COM

In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means that people can check that facts or claims correspond to reliable sources. Wikipedia's content is determined...

of the living person. Most cited sources are WP:PSEUDO and highly WP:NOTRELIABLE. Jaconsarto (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC) Note: This discussion...

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, sources given (cdbaby.com, filmbaby.com aso.) are WP:NOTRELIABLE.--Ben Ben (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Delete, possible speedy...

they could be self published (IMDB.com, uk.castingcallpro.com). Per WP:NOTRELIABLE, WP:SELFPUBLISH. --Ben Ben (talk) 10:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Note: This...

17:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC) Delete - The references cited are either WP:NOTRELIABLE or WP:SELFPUBLISH. Those references cited that are WP:RELIABLE are simply...

There are a few reviews online but they're from blogs and the like—notreliable sources. /wia /tlk /cntrb 19:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Delete. Not notable...

article heavily violates WP:NPOV and contains many unverifiable sources WP:NOTRELIABLE. Some claims raise a WP:REDFLAG, with some sections being highly opinionated...

self-promotional material is removed) - relies on either WP:PRIMARY or WP:NOTRELIABLE or WP:SELFPUBLISH sources. Dan arndt (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)...

was written by User:FalkMusic COI same-name person. The sources are WP:NOTRELIABLE - blogs, YouTube, Wordpress. Nothing indicates these two ever accomplished...

self-promotional material is removed) - relies on either WP:PRIMARY or WP:NOTRELIABLE or WP:SELFPUBLISH sources. Dan arndt (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)...

press release. 1 is from a questionable non-mainstream newspaper (see WP:NOTRELIABLE). 6 (BBC) is a dead link, and a search for the episode in question reveals...

criteria with current citations (definately has an issue with Wikipedia:NOTRELIABLE. Colenel Warden's book finds are interesting but more likely make BuddyTV...

the UK according to press releases, interviews, blogs, and other WP:NOTRELIABLE sources doesn't justify FuelMyBlog getting it's own article. --Joshuaism...

WP:GROUP, with the only refs I could find being either self published or WP:NOTRELIABLE. crh23 (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC) I agree that this program does...

reasons to merge or delete it. Almost all the sources are questionable (WP:NOTRELIABLE) also, as alot of it is quotes of a convicted murderer and her son. Another...

magazines are NOT considered reliable sources per Wikipedia's rules (see WP:NOTRELIABLE). Here's for everyone a translation of the so-called four reliable sources...

References are not covering all claims in the article. There are also WP:NOTRELIABLE sources used like own Linkedin or FootballMercato also user generated...

mentioned in 4, but wikipedia cannot be a reference to itself. Per WP:NOTRELIABLE, WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:INDEPENDENT. A PROD has been deleted by an anonymous...

Chrisahn (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Radical Teacher is WP:NOTRELIABLE Chrisahn (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Why would you say that...

generally does not consider Instagram as a reliable source. You may see WP:NOTRELIABLE for more information. Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 13:09, 26 July...

(couldn't find any relevant connections), but either way, this one fails WP:NOTRELIABLE for being an article from a church newspaper about how religion changed...

JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Half the current references are WP:NOTRELIABLE according to WP:PW/RS and a search didn't show any potential to fix it...

I reminded to WikiHannibal (talk · contribs) the WP:UNSOURCED and WP:NOTRELIABLE rules. I insist on WP:BALANCE for the article as well. As long as WikiHannibal (talk ·...

The reliability of these two Reed references can be judged (per WP:NOTRELIABLE and WP:BIASED) by reading Wikipedia's article on CounterPunch, the magazine...

think this satisfies WP:GNG but I do not. I think they fail, per WP:NOTRELIABLE, as "websites and publications ... that rely heavily on unsubstantiated...

While this is in no violation of the questionable source wiki page (WP:NOTRELIABLE), here are some "non-MMA" websites that relate to the topic, ESPN, Sportsnet...

visual "proof" is a promotional video from Brazzers, falling under WP:NOTRELIABLE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC) The ZZinsider video...

would be to have redirects to WP:Identifying reliable sources such as WP:NOTRELIABLE and WP:ISRELIABLE. Dlabtot (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC) The appropriate...

Bear illustrated systematic WP:OR and misrepresentation of sources (WP:NOTRELIABLE). I suggest WP:TNT could be applied by deleting the article and then...

business" aren't sufficient. These sources don't meet the requirements of WP:NOTRELIABLE. I've done my own searching, and I simply am coming up with nothing about...

Murray (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC) It may help you to read WP:NOTRELIABLE, it doesn't have to reflect that in the article the sources themselves...

JSTOR · TWL) WP:RNPOV, WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:WPNOTRS, WP:NOTRELIABLE. A genealogy that relies only on questionable primary sources, does not...

Nidhiki05 18:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC) These are riddled with WP:RS, WP:NOTRELIABLE ("lack meaningful editorial oversight"), WP:TOOSOON, and WP:ROUTINE ("routine...

has been published by a university press (see here). My reading of WP:NOTRELIABLE leads me to believe this is enough to establish some level of subject...

information about the editorial control exercised over the site? WP:NOTRELIABLE is fairly explicit about self-published websites, which I'm afraid is...

related to sourcing, the policy has priority. Shortcuts WP:NOTRELIABLEWP:NOTRELIABLE WP:NOTRSWP:NOTRS WP:QSWP:QS Questionable sources are those with a poor...

mention." --Oakshade (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC) And as per WP:NOTRELIABLE in the same article, "such sources include websites and publications...

—Farix (t | c) 22:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC) Any attempts to dispute WP:NOTRELIABLE sources are ignored, the status quo is all that matters in the case of...

subject-matter-expert comes in? I just now re-read WP:DEPREC, WP:DEPS, WP:NOTRELIABLE, WP:V and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Deprecated_sources multiple times...

verification of participation, hence failing WP:SOURCES and becomes WP:NOTRELIABLE. All-in-all, with (2) prior speedy deletes and obvious issues with the...

false information without any citation, using unreliable sources WP:NOTRELIABLE , issues of direct and indirect bias (including subject an article to...

assure by default there is language bias? (Source isn't in English, WP:notreliable.) Fruitmince (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC) Fruitmince, first...

of the living person. Most cited sources are WP:PSEUDO and highly WP:NOTRELIABLE. Jaconsarto (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC) Note: This discussion...

The facts asserted in quotations by a person interviewed can be WP:NOTRELIABLE, or only reliable as assertion of fact about the speaker. It is this...

magazines are NOT considered reliable sources per Wikipedia's rules (see WP:NOTRELIABLE). Here's for everyone a translation of the so-called four reliable sources...

own page. Noahco (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC) According to WP:NOTRELIABLE, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking...

JSTOR · TWL) WP:RNPOV, WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:WPNOTRS, WP:NOTRELIABLE. A genealogy that relies only on questionable primary sources, does not...

10 May 2015 (UTC) The source fails WP:VERIFIABILITY, in particular WP:NOTRELIABLE which states: "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation...

self-promotional material is removed) - relies on either WP:PRIMARY or WP:NOTRELIABLE or WP:SELFPUBLISH sources. Dan arndt (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)...

Chrisahn (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Radical Teacher is WP:NOTRELIABLE Chrisahn (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Why would you say that...

(couldn't find any relevant connections), but either way, this one fails WP:NOTRELIABLE for being an article from a church newspaper about how religion changed...

reasons to merge or delete it. Almost all the sources are questionable (WP:NOTRELIABLE) also, as alot of it is quotes of a convicted murderer and her son. Another...

The reliability of these two Reed references can be judged (per WP:NOTRELIABLE and WP:BIASED) by reading Wikipedia's article on CounterPunch, the magazine...

self-promotional material is removed) - relies on either WP:PRIMARY or WP:NOTRELIABLE or WP:SELFPUBLISH sources. Dan arndt (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)...

17:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC) Delete - The references cited are either WP:NOTRELIABLE or WP:SELFPUBLISH. Those references cited that are WP:RELIABLE are simply...

false information without any citation, using unreliable sources WP:NOTRELIABLE , issues of direct and indirect bias (including subject an article to...

the UK according to press releases, interviews, blogs, and other WP:NOTRELIABLE sources doesn't justify FuelMyBlog getting it's own article. --Joshuaism...

they could be self published (IMDB.com, uk.castingcallpro.com). Per WP:NOTRELIABLE, WP:SELFPUBLISH. --Ben Ben (talk) 10:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Note: This...

the unreliability of the source. If it's the type of source listed at NOTRELIABLE or WP:RSPSRC, that should be straightforward. To quote RUCD, "If there...

objected to inclusion on the following grounds: (a) Under the guideline WP:NOTRELIABLE Grizzuti Harrison is a “questionable source”. Her book is a memoir and...

References are not covering all claims in the article. There are also WP:NOTRELIABLE sources used like own Linkedin or FootballMercato also user generated...

WP:GROUP, with the only refs I could find being either self published or WP:NOTRELIABLE. crh23 (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC) I agree that this program does...

think this satisfies WP:GNG but I do not. I think they fail, per WP:NOTRELIABLE, as "websites and publications ... that rely heavily on unsubstantiated...

Nidhiki05 18:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC) These are riddled with WP:RS, WP:NOTRELIABLE ("lack meaningful editorial oversight"), WP:TOOSOON, and WP:ROUTINE ("routine...

mentioned in 4, but wikipedia cannot be a reference to itself. Per WP:NOTRELIABLE, WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:INDEPENDENT. A PROD has been deleted by an anonymous...

verification of participation, hence failing WP:SOURCES and becomes WP:NOTRELIABLE. All-in-all, with (2) prior speedy deletes and obvious issues with the...

press release. 1 is from a questionable non-mainstream newspaper (see WP:NOTRELIABLE). 6 (BBC) is a dead link, and a search for the episode in question reveals...

a policy-based argument why. -- ۩ Mask 10:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC) WP:NOTRELIABLE: "Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that...

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, sources given (cdbaby.com, filmbaby.com aso.) are WP:NOTRELIABLE.--Ben Ben (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Delete, possible speedy...

While this is in no violation of the questionable source wiki page (WP:NOTRELIABLE), here are some "non-MMA" websites that relate to the topic, ESPN, Sportsnet...

was written by User:FalkMusic COI same-name person. The sources are WP:NOTRELIABLE - blogs, YouTube, Wordpress. Nothing indicates these two ever accomplished...

Murray (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC) It may help you to read WP:NOTRELIABLE, it doesn't have to reflect that in the article the sources themselves...

own page. Noahco (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC) According to WP:NOTRELIABLE, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking...

mention." --Oakshade (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC) And as per WP:NOTRELIABLE in the same article, "such sources include websites and publications...

visual "proof" is a promotional video from Brazzers, falling under WP:NOTRELIABLE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC) The ZZinsider video...

business" aren't sufficient. These sources don't meet the requirements of WP:NOTRELIABLE. I've done my own searching, and I simply am coming up with nothing about...

Bear illustrated systematic WP:OR and misrepresentation of sources (WP:NOTRELIABLE). I suggest WP:TNT could be applied by deleting the article and then...

article heavily violates WP:NPOV and contains many unverifiable sources WP:NOTRELIABLE. Some claims raise a WP:REDFLAG, with some sections being highly opinionated...

The facts asserted in quotations by a person interviewed can be WP:NOTRELIABLE, or only reliable as assertion of fact about the speaker. It is this...

criteria with current citations (definately has an issue with Wikipedia:NOTRELIABLE. Colenel Warden's book finds are interesting but more likely make BuddyTV...

mörser, will travel (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Delete WP:NOTRELIABLE -- The references used in this article are predominantly primary sources...

There are a few reviews online but they're from blogs and the like—notreliable sources. /wia /tlk /cntrb 19:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Delete. Not notable...

which is why the community created policies and guidelines like WP:NOTRELIABLE/WP:SPS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP, among others. It's silly to pretend that there's...

priority. ==Sources that are usually not reliable== {{policy shortcut|WP:NOTRELIABLE|WP:NOTRS|WP:QS}} ===Questionable sources=== Questionable sources are...

Roscelese has wrongly represented Groundviews as a source falling within WP:NOTRELIABLE Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the...

shows in general have a poor reputation for checking the facts. So WP:NOTRELIABLE would seem to apply. An article should not be based primarily on such...

sources which I believe are "not acceptable" per WP:USERGENERATED, WP:NOTRELIABLE, WP:SCHOLARSHIP and many other reasons. I suggest that we stick to the...

al Madsar fails per WP:QUESTIONABLE, full stop. It is absolutely WP:NOTRELIABLE (and that is a policy, not a guideline). Talk about editorial oversight...

Questionable sources as they have no fact checking and are personal opinion. WP:NOTRELIABLE I mean really anyone can sign up to either site and claim to be whoever...

Moreover, it certainly does not meet any of the negative criteria in WP:NOTRELIABLE. Moreover, you stipulated "BR is acceptable to use because it is reliable";...

(UTC) Reject per NPOV (especially FALSEBALANCE, UNDUE, and YESPOV), V (NOTRELIABLE), BLP, and a CHERRYPICKING on top. Probably some other scary ALLCAPS...

overall significance to the article topic. Most importantly, WP:V at WP:NOTRELIABLE: Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking...

00:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC) "Insinuating", no. The policy reason is WP:NOTRELIABLE it "lacks meaningful editorial oversight" (fact-checking), and is "promotional"...

attention. GPinkerton (talk) 12:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Sounds WP:NOTRELIABLE due to WP:SELFPUB. An advocacy source might be a WP:BIASED RS, but I...

well-established news outlet, nor does it rebut the fact that WND has, to quote WP:NOTRELIABLE, a poor reputation for checking the facts, lacks meaningful editorial...

aspects, such as verifibiliaty, also see WP:SUBSTANTIATE. Tghat is also WP:NOTRELIABLE for it's reliance on WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. There's are serieus reliability...

mörser, will travel (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Delete WP:NOTRELIABLE -- The references used in this article are predominantly primary sources...

a policy-based argument why. -- ۩ Mask 10:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC) WP:NOTRELIABLE: "Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that...

self-published. (WP:SPS.) It's self published by UHHRU, an advocacy group. (WP:NOTRELIABLE.) The group is funded in part by the EU[69] and the National Endowment...

and guidelines to reject the addition of some sources. That is why WP:NOTRELIABLE exists.  — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC) The book is...

see a number of sources which do not meet wikipedia policies. see WP:NOTRELIABLE for example my-watchsite.com is an ecommerce site with not editorial...

disinterested perspective and the purported "full of WP:RS" appears to be WP:NOTRELIABLE. Again, he might merit an article in the future, akin to Pamela Geller...

the unreliability of the source. If it's the type of source listed at NOTRELIABLE or WP:RSPSRC, that should be straightforward. To quote RUCD, "If there...

00:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC) There is also a discussion of this topic at WP:NOTRELIABLE. It's not a list, but it might go some way to address what you're after...

issue; it's a BLP issue. Different standards apply. Check it out: WP:NOTRELIABLE Belchfire-TALK 17:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Good luck with that. Top level...

WP:ELNEVER and WP:COPYLINK also applies. To put it simply as per WP:NOTRELIABLE "they have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful...

then there is no difference to generally unreliable sources. Per WP:NOTRELIABLE: Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on...

kinds of articles which heavily relies on personal opinion under WP:NOTRELIABLE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Morbidthoughts is entirely...

including WP:DUE, WP:GEVAL, WP:MNA, WP:FRINGE, WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE/PS, WP:NOTRELIABLE & WP:ABOUTSELF. Stephfo needs to understand that these policies severely...

Moreover, it certainly does not meet any of the negative criteria in WP:NOTRELIABLE. Moreover, you stipulated "BR is acceptable to use because it is reliable";...

information about the editorial control exercised over the site? WP:NOTRELIABLE is fairly explicit about self-published websites, which I'm afraid is...

I reminded to WikiHannibal (talk · contribs) the WP:UNSOURCED and WP:NOTRELIABLE rules. I insist on WP:BALANCE for the article as well. As long as WikiHannibal (talk ·...

published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and WP:NOTRELIABLE Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking...

WP:NOTREAD WP:NOTREADBEFORE WP:NOTREADY WP:NOTRED WP:NOTRELATIVISM WP:NOTRELIABLE WP:NOTREPAIR WP:NOTRI WP:NOTRICORDER WP:NOTRIGHT WP:NOTRM WP:NOTROUTINE...

generally does not consider Instagram as a reliable source. You may see WP:NOTRELIABLE for more information. Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 13:09, 26 July...

JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Half the current references are WP:NOTRELIABLE according to WP:PW/RS and a search didn't show any potential to fix it...

disinterested perspective and the purported "full of WP:RS" appears to be WP:NOTRELIABLE. Again, he might merit an article in the future, akin to Pamela Geller...

has been published by a university press (see here). My reading of WP:NOTRELIABLE leads me to believe this is enough to establish some level of subject...

Kutty's claims of "misrepresentation of source", "not in source", and "WP:NOTRELIABLE" are not credible. The cited sources are not misrepresented and cited...