Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

This is an information page. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, but rather intends to describe some aspect(s) of Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline. It may reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting.

Shortcuts WP:RSP WP:RS/P

This page in a nutshell: This is a list of repeatedly discussed sources, collected and summarized for convenience. context matters tremendously when determining how to use this list.

Jump to the list of frequently discussed sources.

The following presents a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed. This list summarizes prior consensus and consolidates links to the most in-depth and recent discussions from the reliable sources noticeboard and elsewhere on Wikipedia.

, and if more recent discussions considering new evidence or arguments reach a different consensus, this list should be updated to reflect those changes.

Reliability is an inquiry that takes place pursuant to the

. These policies work together to determine whether information from reliable sources should be included or excluded.

Refer to the

, and is intended as a useful summary.

, because while it is usually unreliable as a source, it is designed to appear otherwise.

Consider also the

have the highest.

What if my source isn't here?

If your source isn't listed here, the only thing it really means is that it hasn't been the subject of repeated community discussion. That may be because the source you want to use is a stellar source, and we simply never needed to talk about it because it was so obvious.

(RSN), following the instructions at the top of that page, and after checking the "Search the noticeboard archives" there first. That is, after all, how the entries on this list got here to begin with.

You can also find a much longer list of previously discussed sources on various topics at Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide.

A source's absence from the list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present. Absence just means its reliability hasn't been the subject of serious questioning yet. "

"

.

Before doing so, please thoroughly familiarize yourself with content of previous discussions, and particularly the reasoning why consensus was reached, and not simply the outcome itself. Also consider when consensus was formed, and that the outcomes of very recent discussions are unlikely to be quickly overturned. Repeatedly restarting discussions where a strong and recent consensus already exists, may be considered

.

If you feel that this list inadequately summarizes the content of the linked discussions,

. In updating this list, please be mindful that it should only summarize the content of past discussions, and should not include novel arguments not previously covered in a centralized forum. If you would like to present a novel argument or interpretation, please do so in one of these forums, so that the discussion may be linked to, and itself summarized here.

Inclusion criteria

For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted

. For a discussion to be considered significant, most editors expect no fewer than two qualifying participants for RSN discussions where the source's name is in the section heading, and no fewer than three qualifying participants for all other discussions. Qualifying participants are editors who make at least one comment on the source's reliability.

Instructions

Any editor may improve this list. Please refer to the

if you get stuck.

Sources

Shortcuts

• WP:RSPSOURCES
• WP:RSPSS

Note: If you add/remove a source in the "

Wikipedia talk:CITEWATCH

if you need help.

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Uses
		List	Last	Summary
112 Ukraine		2019  2020  2020 1 A B	2020	112 Ukraine was deprecated following a 2019 RfC, which showed overwhelming consensus for the deprecation of a slew of sources associated with Russian disinformation in Ukraine. It was pointed out later in a 2020 RfC that 112 Ukraine had not been explicitly discussed in that first discussion prior to its blacklisting request. Further discussion established a rough consensus that the source is generally unreliable, but did not form a consensus for deprecation or blacklisting. The prior blacklisting was reversed as out of process.	1   2
ABC News		1 2	2021	There is consensus that ABC News, the news division of the American Broadcasting Company, is generally reliable. It is not to be confused with other publications of the same name.	1   2
Ad Fontes Media WP:ADFONTES 📌		1 2 3 4 5	2021	There is consensus that Ad Fontes Media and their Media Bias Chart should not be used in article space in reference to sources' political leaning or reliability. Editors consider it a self-published source and have questioned its methodology.	1
Advameg (City-Data )		2019  2019  2019 +14[c]	2019	Advameg operates WP:COPYLINK prohibits linking to copyright violations.	1   2   +43
The Age		2021	2021	The Age is a newspaper based in Melbourne, Australia. There is consensus that it is generally reliable.	1
Agence France-Presse (AFP)		1 2	2020	Agence France-Presse is a Syndicated reports from Agence France-Presse that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable.	1
Al Jazeera (Al Jazeera English, Aljazeera.com)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2019	Al Jazeera is considered a generally reliable news blogs should be handled with the corresponding policy.	1   2
Alexa Internet		2022 1 2 3 A	2022	Alexa Internet was a web traffic analysis company owned by infoboxes .	1
AllSides WP:ALLSIDES 📌		2022 1 2 3 4 5	2022	In a 2022 RfC, editors found no consensus on the reliability of AllSides as a whole. A significant minority of users noted that AllSides has been referenced in reliable sources as an accurate source for media bias ratings, while another significant minority argued that its methodology, which is partly based on the opinions of users, makes it unsuitable for Wikipedia. There is general consensus that reliability varies among the website's articles and should be determined on a case-by-case basis; while the high-confidence ratings are generally reliable as they are reviewed carefully by experts, others depend on blind user surveys that some editors consider opinionated and less reliable.	1
AlterNet		1 2 3 4 5	2019	There is consensus that AlterNet is generally unreliable. Editors consider AlterNet a syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher, and the citation should preferably point to the original publisher.	1
Amazon WP:RSPAMAZON 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2021	User reviews on Amazon are anonymous, self-published , and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Amazon is a reliable source for basic information about a work (such as release date, ISBN, etc.), although it is unnecessary to cite Amazon when the work itself may serve as a source for that information (e.g., authors' names and ISBNs). Future release dates may be unreliable.	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16
The American Conservative (TAC)		2019  2020  2021 1	2021	The American Conservative is published by the American Ideas Institute, an advocacy organisation. It is a self-identified opinionated source whose factual accuracy was questioned and many editors say that The American Conservative should not be used as a source for facts. There is consensus that in-text attribution .	1
Amnesty International		2022 1 2	2022	Amnesty International is a human rights advocacy organisation. There is consensus that Amnesty International is generally reliable for facts. Editors may on occasion wish to use wording more neutral than that used by Amnesty and in controversial cases editors may wish to consider attribution for opinion.	1
Anadolu Agency (general topics) (AA)		2019	2019	The 2019 RfC established no consensus on the reliability of Anadolu Agency. Well-established news outlets are normally considered reliable for statements of fact. However, Anadolu Agency is frequently described as a mouthpiece of the Turkish government that engages in propaganda, owing to its state-run status. See also: Anadolu Agency (controversial topics, international politics).	1   2
Anadolu Agency (controversial topics, international politics) (AA)		2019	2019	In the 2019 RfC, editors generally agreed that Anadolu Agency is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics. See also: Anadolu Agency (general topics).	1   2
Ancestry.com WP:ANCESTRY 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6	2021	Ancestry.com is a user-generated content , which is unreliable.	1
ANNA News (Abkhazian Network News Agency, Analytical Network News Agency)		2022 1	2022	ANNA News was deprecated in the 2022 RfC. It is a pro-Kremlin news agency that has been described as propaganda and has published fabricated information.	1
Answers.com (WikiAnswers)		1 2 3 4	2010	Answers.com (previously known as WikiAnswers) is a circular sourcing .	1
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) WP:RSPADL 📌		2020 1 2 3 4 5 6	2021	There is consensus that ADL is a generally reliable source, including for topics related to hate groups and extremism in the U.S. There is no consensus that ADL must be attributed in all cases, but there is consensus that the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL (particularly as antisemitic) should be attributed. Some editors consider the ADL's opinion pieces not reliable, and that they should only be used with attribution. Some editors consider the ADL a biased source for Israel/Palestine related topics that should be used with caution, if at all.	1
Antiwar.com		1 2 3 4	2011	There is consensus that Antiwar.com is generally unreliable. Editors consider Antiwar.com to be biased or opinionated .	1   2
Aon		2022 1	2022	In a 2022 RfC, there was consensus that Aon is generally reliable for weather-related articles. Editors pointed out that Aon often provides data not found in other sources, and care should be taken when using the source as it may be providing a different estimate than other sources, e.g. total economic damages, rather than property damage.	1
Apple Daily		2020 1	2021	A 2020 RfC found that Apple Daily was often but not always reliable, and that it may be appropriate to use it in articles about Hong Kong, but subject to editorial judgment, particularly if the topic is controversial and/or Apple Daily is the only source for a contested claim. There was concern that historically, it was not necessarily as reliable as it was in 2020. Apple Daily shut down in June 2021; website content is no longer accessible unless archived.[1]	1
Arab News		2020 1 2 3	2020	There is consensus that Arab News is a usable source for topics unrelated to the attribution for its coverage in this area. Some editors consider Arab News unreliable for matters related to the Saudi Arabian government.	1
Ars Technica		1 2 3	2022	Ars Technica is considered generally reliable for science- and technology-related articles.	1   2
arXiv WP:ArXiv 📌 WP:ARXIV 📌		1 2 3 4 A B	2015	arXiv is a self-published source, and is generally unreliable with the exception of papers authored by established subject-matter experts. Verify whether a paper on arXiv is also published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide an open access link to the paper (which may be hosted on arXiv).	1
Asian News International (ANI)		2021	2021	Asian News International is an Indian questionable and generally unreliable due to its reported dissemination of pro-government propaganda.	1
AskMen		1 2 3 4 5 6	2020	There is no consensus on the reliability of AskMen. See also: IGN.	1
Associated Press (AP)		1 2 3 4 5 6	2018	The Associated Press is a Syndicated reports from the Associated Press that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable.	1   2
The Atlantic (The Atlantic Monthly)		1 2 3 4	2022	The Atlantic is considered generally reliable. Editors should beware that The Atlantic does not always clearly delineate between reporting and opinion content; opinion pieces, including all articles in the "Ideas" column (theatlantic.com/ideas/), are governed by WP:RSOPINION .	1
The Australian		1 2	2020	The Australian is considered generally reliable. Some editors consider The Australian to be a partisan source. Opinion pieces are covered by WP:NEWSBLOG . Several editors expressed concern regarding their coverage of climate change related topics.	1
Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI)		2021	2021	There is consensus that use of Australian Strategic Policy Institute should be evaluated for biased or opinionated source that is reliable in the topic area of Australian defence and strategic issues but recommend care as it is a think tank associated with the defence industry in Australia and the Australian Government.	1
The A.V. Club		1 2 3 A	2014	The A.V. Club is considered generally reliable for film, music and TV reviews.	1
AVN (magazine)		2021	2021	Adult Video News (AVN) is considered generally reliable for the adult industry. Editors should take care to ensure the content is not a republished press release (which is marked as such in search).	1
Axios		1 2	2020	There is consensus that Axios is generally reliable. Some editors consider Axios to be a due weight .	1
Baidu Baike WP:BAIDUBAIKE 📌		2020 1 2 3 4	2020	Baidu Baike was deprecated in the 2020 RfC as it is similar to an self-published source. Although edits are reviewed by Baidu administrators before they are published, most editors believe the editorial standards of Baidu Baike to be very low, and do not see any evidence of fact-checking. The Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures kuso originated from Baidu Baike.	1   2   3
Ballotpedia WP:Ballotpedia 📌		1 2 3	2016	There is no consensus on the reliability of Ballotpedia. The site has an editorial team and accepts error corrections, but some editors do not express strong confidence in the site's editorial process. Discussions indicate that Ballotpedia used to be an user-generated content at some point. Currently, the site claims: "Ballotpedia's articles are 100 percent written by our professional staff of more than 50 writers and researchers."[2]	1
BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) WP:RSPBBC 📌		17[d]	2021	BBC is a British Statements of opinion should conform to the corresponding guideline.	1   2
Behind the Voice Actors		2022 1 2 3 4 A	2022	There is consensus that Behind the Voice Actors is generally reliable for roles credits. Editors agree that its coverage is routine and does not contribute to notability .	1
Bellingcat		2019 1 2 3 4 5 6	2021	There is consensus that Bellingcat is generally reliable for news and should preferably be used with biased source.	1
bestgore.com		2021	2021	There is consensus that bestgore.com is a shock site with no credibility. It is deprecated and has been added to the spam blacklist . bestgore.com was shut down in 2020; website content is no longer accessible unless archived.	1
Bild WP:BILD 📌		1 2 3	2020	Bild is a German tabloid that has been unfavourably compared to The Sun. A few editors consider the source usable in some cases.	1
Biography.com		1	2018	There is no consensus on the reliability of Biography.com. Some editors consider the source reliable because of its backing from A&E Networks and references to the website in news media. Others point to discrepancies between information on Biography.com and on more established sources, and an unclear fact-checking process.	1
Blaze Media (BlazeTV, Conservative Review, CRTV, TheBlaze)		1 2 3	2018	Blaze Media (including TheBlaze) is considered generally unreliable for facts. In some cases, it may be usable for attributed opinions. In 2018, TheBlaze merged with Conservative Review (CRTV) to form Blaze Media.[3]	1   2
Blogger (blogspot.com)		21[e]	2020	Blogger is a living persons ; this includes interviews, as even those cannot be authenticated.	1
Bloomberg (Bloomberg News, Bloomberg Businessweek)		1 2 3 4	2019	Bloomberg publications, including Bloomberg News and Bloomberg Businessweek, are considered generally reliable for news and business topics. See also: Bloomberg profiles.	1   2
Bloomberg profiles		1 2	2018	Bloomberg company and executive profiles are generally considered to be based on company press releases and should only be used as a source for uncontroversial information. There is consensus that these profiles should not be used to establish self-published sources. See also: Bloomberg .	1
Boing Boing		1 2 3	2019	There is no consensus on the reliability of Boing Boing. Although Boing Boing is a copyright law .	1
Breitbart News WP:BREITBART 📌		2018  2018 +15[f]	2020	Due to persistent abuse, Breitbart.com is on the outing policy , unless the editor is voluntarily disclosing the information on Wikipedia.	1   2
BroadwayWorld		1 2 3 4	2023	BroadwayWorld is considered generally unreliable, as it contains many articles that are verbatim of excerpts press releases disguised as authentic journalism. As the site has limited editorial oversight, and the true author of the content of press releases is obscured, so it is generally advised to not use this website for facts about living persons .	1
Burke's Peerage		2020 1	2020	Burke's Peerage is considered generally reliable for genealogy.	1
Bustle		2019	2019	There is consensus that the reliability of Bustle is unclear and that its reliability should be decided on an instance-by-instance basis. Editors noted that it has an editorial policy and that it will issue retractions. Editors also noted previous issues it had around reliability and that its content is written by freelance writers – though there is no consensus on whether this model affects their reliability.	1
BuzzFeed WP:BUZZFEED 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2018	Editors find the quality of BuzzFeed articles to be highly inconsistent. A 2014 study from the Pew Research Center found BuzzFeed to be the least trusted news source in America.[4] BuzzFeed may use A/B testing for new articles, which may cause article content to change.[5] BuzzFeed operates a separate news division, BuzzFeed News, which has higher editorial standards and is now hosted on a different website. See also: BuzzFeed News.	1
BuzzFeed News WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS 📌		10[g]	2021	There is consensus that BuzzFeed News is generally reliable. BuzzFeed News now operates separately from WP:RSOPINION. See also: BuzzFeed .	1   2
California Globe		2021	2021	There is consensus that The California Globe is generally unreliable. Editors note the lack of substantial editorial process, the lack of evidence for fact-checking, and the bias present in the site's material. Editors also note the highly opinionated nature of the site as evidence against its reliability.	1
The Canary		2021 1 2 3 4	2021	There is consensus that The Canary is generally unreliable. Its reporting is sensationalist at times; selective reporting, a left-wing bias, and a poor distinction between editorial and news content were also noted.	1
Cato Institute		1 2	2015	The Cato Institute is considered generally reliable for its opinion. Some editors consider the Cato Institute an authoritative source on attributed .	1
CelebrityNetWorth		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2018	There is consensus that CelebrityNetWorth is generally unreliable. CelebrityNetWorth does not disclose its methodology, and its accuracy has been criticized by The New York Times.[7]	1
Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR)		2020	2020	The Center for Economic and Policy Research is an attributed .	1
Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG, Global Research, globalresearch.ca)		2019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2019	Due to persistent abuse, Global Research is on the parity of sources should be considered.	1   2   3
CESNUR (Bitter Winter, Center for Studies on New Religions, Centro Studi sulle Nuove Religioni)		2022 1 2 3 4	2022	CESNUR is an conflicts of interest . There is also consensus that its content is unreliable on its own merits. CESNUR has an online magazine, Bitter Winter, that is also considered generally unreliable.	1   2   3
China Daily WP:CHINADAILY 📌		2021 1	2021	inline citations when sourcing content to China Daily.	1   2   3
China Global Television Network (CGTN, CCTV International) WP:CGTN 📌		2020 1 2	2020	China Global Television Network was deprecated in the 2020 RfC for publishing false or fabricated information. Many editors consider CGTN a propaganda outlet, and some editors express concern over CGTN's airing of forced confessions.	1
The Christian Science Monitor (CSM, CS Monitor) WP:CSMONITOR 📌		20[h]	2016	The Christian Science Monitor is considered generally reliable for news.	1
CliffsNotes		1 2	2018	CliffsNotes is a study guide. Editors consider CliffsNotes usable for superficial analyses of literature, and recommend supplementing CliffsNotes citations with additional sources.	1
Climate Feedback		1 2 3 4	2020	Climate Feedback is a self-published source due to its high reviewer requirements.	1
CNET (pre–October 2020)		18[i]	2023	CNET is considered generally reliable for its technology-related articles prior to its acquisition by Red Ventures in October 2020.	1
CNET (October 2020–November 2022)		1	2023	CNET was acquired by digital marketing company Red Ventures in October 2020, leading to a deterioration in editorial standards. Staff writers were pressured by company executives to publish content more favorably to advertisers in order to benefit Red Ventures' business dealings; this included both news stories and reviews.	1
CNET (November 2022–present) WP:CNET 📌		1	2023	In November 2022, CNET began deploying an experimental AI tool to rapidly generate articles riddled with factual inaccuracies and affiliate links, with the purpose of increasing SEO rankings. CNET never formally disclosed of its use of AI until Futurism and The Verge published reports exposing its actions. More than 70 finance-related articles written by the AI tool were published under the byline "CNET Money Staff", and Red Ventures issued corrections to over half of them amidst mounting pressure. CNET has since announced it would pause the use of its AI tool "for now", but concerns over its advertiser-driven editorial content remain unresolved.	1
CNN (Cable News Network)		2019  2020 16[j]	2022	There is consensus that news broadcast or published by CNN is generally reliable. However, biased , though not to the extent that it affects reliability.	1
Coda Media (Coda Story)		2021	2021	A 2021 RfC found consensus that Coda Media is generally reliable for factual reporting. A few editors consider Coda Media a biased source for international politics related to the US, as it has received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy , though not to the extent that it affects reliability.	1
CoinDesk WP:COINDESK 📌		2018  2019 1 2 3 4	2023	There is consensus that CoinDesk should not be used to establish notability for article topics, and that it should be avoided in favor of more mainstream sources. Check CoinDesk articles for conflict of interest disclosures, and verify whether their parent company (Digital Currency Group) has an ownership stake in a company covered by CoinDesk.[8]	1
Common Sense Media (CSM) WP:CSM 📌		1 2 3	2020	There is consensus that Common Sense Media is generally reliable for entertainment reviews. As an advocacy organization, Common Sense Media is attributed .	1
Consortium News		1 2 3 4 5	2019	There is consensus that Consortium News is generally unreliable. Certain articles (particularly those by fringe , demonstrably false, or have been described by mainstream outlets as "conspiracy theories."	1
The Conversation WP:THECONVERSATION 📌		1 2 3	2019	The Conversation publishes articles from academics who are WP:RSOPINION .	1
Cosmopolitan		1 2 3 4 5	2019	There is no consensus on the reliability of Cosmopolitan. It is generally regarded as a situational source, which means context is important. The treatment of Cosmopolitan as a source should be decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on the article and the information to be verified.	1
CounterPunch WP:COUNTERPUNCH 📌		2021 2022 12[k]	2022	CounterPunch is a left-wing political opinion magazine. Despite the fact that the publication has an editorial board, there is no effective editorial control over the content of the publication, so articles should be treated as attributed. Some articles in the publication promote conspiracy theories and historical denialism , but there was no consensus to deprecate the outlet based on the most recent RfC.	1   2
Cracked.com		1 2 3 4 5	2015	Cracked.com is a humor website. There is consensus that Cracked.com is generally unreliable. When Cracked.com cites another source for an article, it is preferable for editors to read and cite that source instead.	1
Crunchbase WP:CRUNCHBASE 📌		2019 1 2	2019	In the 2019 RfC, there was consensus to deprecate Crunchbase, but also to continue allowing user-generated content .	1
The Daily Beast WP:DAILYBEAST 📌		1 2 3 4 5	2021	There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a living persons .	1
The Daily Caller WP:DAILYCALLER 📌		2019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2019	The Daily Caller was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information.	1   2
The Daily Dot WP:DAILYDOT 📌		2022 10[l]	2022	There is no consensus regarding the general reliability of The Daily Dot, though it is considered fine for citing non-contentious claims of fact. Some editors have objected to its tone or consider it to be due weight before citing it in an article.	1
Daily Express WP:DAILYEXPRESS 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6	2020	The Daily Express is a tabloid with a number of similarities to the Daily Mail. It is considered generally unreliable.	1   2
Daily Kos WP:DAILYKOS 📌		1 2 3	2017	There is consensus that Daily Kos should generally be avoided as a source, especially for controversial political topics where better sources are available. As an point of view , many editors consider Daily Kos to inappropriately blur news reporting and opinion.	1
Daily Mail (MailOnline) WP:DAILYMAIL 📌 WP:RSPDM 📌		2017  2019  2020 52[m]	2022	The Daily Mail was deprecated in the 2017 RfC, and the decision was reaffirmed in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, about-self fashion. Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context. (Note that dailymail.co.uk is not trustworthy as a source of past content that was printed in the Daily Mail.) The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail. The deprecation includes other editions of the UK Daily Mail, such as the Irish and Scottish editions. The UK Daily Mail is not to be confused with other publications named Daily Mail that are unaffiliated with the UK paper. The dailymail.com domain was previously used by the unaffiliated Charleston Daily Mail , and reference links to that publication are still present.	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13
Daily Mirror (Mirror) WP:DAILYMIRROR 📌		1 2 3 4 5	2020	The Daily Mirror is a tabloid newspaper that publishes tabloid journalism. There is no consensus on whether its reliability is comparable to that of British tabloids such as the Daily Mail and The Sun .	1
Daily NK WP:DAILYNK 📌		2022	2022	The Daily NK is an online newspaper based in South Korea that reports on stories based inside of North Korea. There is no consensus as to if it should be deprecated or used with attribution. There is a consensus that this source, as well as all other sources reporting on North Korea, is generally unreliable. However, due to a paucity of readily accessible information on North Korea, as well as a perception that Daily NK is not more unreliable than other sources on the topic, it can be used as a source, albeit with great caution.	1
Daily Sabah		1	2020	Daily Sabah is considered to be a propaganda outlet that publishes pro-Turkish government news which aims to strengthen Westernophobia, and promote Turkish government policies. Editors also pointed out that Daily Sabah publishes unfactual information such as Armenian genocide denial , and mispresenting statements. Some editors consider it to be reliable enough to cite POV of the Turkish government with in-text attribution, and uncontroversial Turkey-related events.	1
Daily Star (UK) WP:DAILYSTAR 📌		2020 1 2 3 4	2020	The Daily Star was deprecated in the 2020 RfC due to its reputation for publishing false or fabricated information.	1   2
The Daily Telegraph (UK) (The Sunday Telegraph, The Telegraph)		2022 18[n]	2022	There is consensus that The Daily Telegraph (also known as The Telegraph) is generally reliable. Some editors believe that The Daily Telegraph is biased or opinionated for politics. Unrelated to The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) .	1
The Daily Wire		2021 1 2 3 4	2021	There is a strong consensus that The Daily Wire is generally unreliable for factual reporting. Detractors note the site's tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or are improperly verified.[9][10]	1
Deadline Hollywood WP:RSPDEADLINE 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6	2019	Deadline Hollywood is considered generally reliable for entertainment-related articles.	1   2
Debrett's		2020 1	2020	There is consensus that Debrett's is reliable for genealogical information. However, their defunct "People of Today" section is considered to be not adequately independent as the details were solicited from the subjects. Editors have also raised concerns that this section included paid coverage.	1
Democracy Now!		1 2 3 4 5	2013	There is no consensus on the reliability of Democracy Now!. Most editors consider Democracy Now! a Syndicated content published by Democracy Now! should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher.	1
Deseret News		1 2 3 4	2022	The Deseret News is considered generally reliable for local news. It is owned by a subsidiary of primary source as an official publication of the LDS Church.	1
Deutsche Welle (DW, DW-TV)		1 2 3	2022	Deutsche Welle is a German international broadcaster . It is considered generally reliable. Some editors consider that the quality of DW depends on the language edition.	1
Digital Spy		1 2 3 4 5 A	2012	There is consensus that Digital Spy is generally reliable for entertainment and popular culture. Consider whether the information from this source constitutes due or undue weight .	1   2
The Diplomat		1 2	2020	There is consensus that The Diplomat is generally reliable. Opinion pieces should be evaluated by WP:NEWSBLOG . Some editors have expressed concern on their reliability for North Korea-related topics.	1
Discogs WP:RSDISCOGS 📌		2019 1 2 3 4 5	2019	The content on Discogs is external links to the site may be appropriate.	1
Dotdash (About.com, The Balance, Lifewire, The Spruce, ThoughtCo, TripSavvy, Verywell )		2018  2020 +16[o]	2020	Dotdash (formerly known as About.com) operates a network of websites. Editors find the quality of articles published by About.com to be inconsistent. Some editors recommend treating About.com articles as whitelisted before they can be used. See also: Investopedia .	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10
The Economist		2022 1 2 3 4	2022	Most editors consider The Economist generally reliable. The Economist publishes exclusively magazine blogs and several podcasts, which should be handled with the respective guidelines.	1
The Electronic Intifada (EI)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2018	There is consensus that The Electronic Intifada is generally unreliable with respect to its reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction. Almost all editors consider The Electronic Intifada a attributed .	1
Encyclopædia Britannica Online) WP:BRITANNICA  📌		15[p]	2022	There is no consensus on the reliability of the Encyclopædia Britannica (including its online edition, 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. Content authorship is disclosed in the article history.	1
Encyclopædia Iranica		1 2 3 4 5	2022	The Encyclopædia Iranica is considered generally reliable for Iran-related topics.	1
Encyclopaedia Metallum (Metal Archives, MA) WP:METALLUM 📌		1 2	2016	Encyclopaedia Metallum is user-generated and so best avoided. It is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Unreliable sources .	1
Engadget		1 A	2012	Engadget is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles. Its statements should be attributed .	1
Entertainment Weekly (EW)		1 2 3 A	2018	Entertainment Weekly is considered generally reliable for entertainment-related articles. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for other topics.	1
Entrepreneur (Entrepreneur India)		2020 1	2021	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.com 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.	1
The Epoch Times (New Tang Dynasty Television) WP:EPOCHTIMES 📌		2019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2020	The Epoch Times was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. Most editors classify The Epoch Times as an advocacy group for the biased or opinionated source that frequently publishes conspiracy theories as fact.	1   2   3   4   5   6
Evening Standard (London Evening Standard)		1 2 3 4 5 6	2018	There is no consensus on the reliability of the Evening Standard. Despite being a free newspaper, it is generally considered more reliable than most British tabloids and middle-market newspapers.	1
Examiner.com		2009 1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2014	Due to persistent abuse, Examiner.com is on the The San Francisco Examiner , which has moved to a different domain. Examiner.com was shut down in 2016; website content is no longer accessible unless archived.	1
Facebook WP:RSPFB 📌 WP:RSPFACEBOOK 📌		2020 1 2 3	2020	Facebook is considered generally unreliable because it is a edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite Facebook as a source, and no consensus on whether Facebook citations should be automatically reverted with XLinkBot .	1
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)		2010 1 2 3 4 5	2014	There is no consensus on the reliability of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. However, there is strong consensus that publications from FAIR should not be used to support opinions .	1
FamilySearch		1 2 3 4 5 6	2018	FamilySearch operates a original research .	1
Famous Birthdays WP:FAMOUSBIRTHDAYS 📌 WP:FAMOUS BIRTHDAYS 📌		2019 1 2 3 4 5	2019	Due to persistent abuse, Famous Birthdays is on the living persons .	1
Fandom wikis (Wikia, Wikicities) WP:FANDOM 📌 WP:RSPWIKIA 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A	2019	Fandom (formerly Wikia and Wikicities) wikis are considered generally unreliable because policies and guidelines after copying. Fandom's staff blogs are written with an unclear level of editorial oversight and consensus is that they are not necessarily reliable. These should be treated as unreliable self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert.	1   2   3   4
The Federalist		2021	2021	The Federalist is generally unreliable for facts due to its attributed opinions.	1
Financial Times		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2018	The Financial Times is considered generally reliable.	1
Find a Grave		1 2 3 4 5 6	2021	The content on Find a Grave is copyright violations .	1
Findmypast		1 2 3 4 5	2019	Findmypast is a The Wikipedia Library previously offered access to Findmypast.	1
Flags of the World (website)		1 2 3 4 A	2013	Flags of the World has been written off as an unreliable source in general. Although some of its pages might refer to reliable sources, it is self-published content without editorial oversight, and the hosts "disclaim any responsibility about the veracity and accuracy of the contents of the website."	1   2
Flickr		1 2 3	2020	Most photos on Flickr are anonymous, original research .	1
Forbes WP:FORBES 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2022	Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable. Forbes also publishes various "top" lists which can be referenced in articles. See also: Forbes.com contributors.	1
Forbes.com contributors WP:FORBESCON  📌		16[q]	2022	Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable. Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as generally reliable. Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by "Forbes Staff" or a "Contributor", and check underneath the byline to see whether it was published in a print issue of Forbes. Previously, Forbes.com contributor articles could have been identified by their URL beginning in "forbes.com/sites"; the URL no longer distinguishes them, as Forbes staff articles have also been moved under "/sites". See also: Forbes .	1
Fox News[r] (news excluding politics and science) WP:FOXNEWS 📌		2010  2020 12[s]	2023	There is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science. See also: Fox News (politics and science), Fox News (talk shows).	1   2
Fox News[r] (politics and science) WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS 📌		2010  2020  2022 23[t]	2022	For politics and science, there is consensus that the reliability of Fox News is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use. As a result, Fox News is considered marginally reliable and generally does not qualify as a "high-quality source" for the purpose of substantiating in-text attribution for opinions. See also: Fox News (news excluding politics and science), Fox News (talk shows) .	1
Fox News[r] (talk shows)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2020	Fox News talk shows, including opinions. See also: Fox News (news excluding politics and science), Fox News (politics and science) .	1
FrontPage Magazine (FPM, FrontPageMag.com) WP:FPM 📌		2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2022	In the 2020 RfC, there was unanimous consensus to deprecate FrontPage Magazine. Editors consider the publication generally unreliable, and believe that its opinions should be assigned little to no biased or opinionated .	1   2
Game Developer (Gamasutra)		1 2 A	2020	Game Developer is considered generally reliable for subjects related to video games.	1   2
Game Informer		1 2 A B C D	2021	Game Informer is considered generally reliable for video games.	1
The Gateway Pundit (TGP)		2019 1	2019	The Gateway Pundit was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site is unacceptable as a source. It is unreliable for statements of fact, and given to publishing hoax articles and reporting conspiracy theories as fact.	1
Gawker		2019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2019	Gawker (2002-2016) was a gossip blog that frequently published articles on rumors and speculation without named authors. When Gawker is the only source for a piece of information, the information would likely constitute living person . When another reliable source quotes information from Gawker, it is preferable to cite that source instead. In the 2019 RfC, there was no consensus on whether Gawker should be deprecated. In 2021, the publication was relaunched under Bustle Digital Group. The current incarnation has not been discussed at RSN.	1
Gazeta Wyborcza		1 2	2021	There is consensus that Gazeta Wyborcza is generally reliable.	1
Geni.com		1 2 3 4 5	2019	original research .	1
Genius (Rap Genius) WP:GENIUS  📌		1 2	2019	Song lyrics, annotations and descriptions on Genius are mostly WP:BLPSELFPUB , and usage of such commentary should conform to that policy.	1   2
Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) (names and locations)		2021 1	2022	The Geographic Names Information System is a United States-based geographical database. It is generally reliable for its place names and locations/coordinates. Editors should take care that GNIS uses a different convention for its coordinates, using a particular feature of a location rather than the geometric center that most WikiProjects use.	1
Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) (feature classes)		2021	2021	The Geographic Names Information System is a United States-based geographical database. It is generally unreliable for its feature classes and it should not be used to determine the legal recognition requirement .	1
GEOnet Names Server (GNS) (names and locations)		2021	2021	The GEOnet Names Server is an United States-based geographical database that covers non-US countries. It is considered to be close to generally reliable for its place names and locations/coordinates, though there are concerns that GNS may not always be accurate and sometimes report the existence of places that do not even exist. Editors are advised to exercise caution when using it.	1
GEOnet Names Server (GNS) (feature classes)		2021	2021	The GEOnet Names Server is a United States-based geographical database that covers non-US countries. It is generally unreliable for its feature classes and it should not be used to determine the legal recognition requirement .	1
Gizmodo		1 2 3	2021	There is consensus that Gizmodo is generally reliable for technology, popular culture, and entertainment. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for controversial statements.	1
Global Times (Huanqiu Shibao) WP:GLOBALTIMES 📌		2020 1 2 3 4 5	2021	The Global Times is a tabloid owned by the Chinese Communist Party. It was deprecated near-unanimously in a 2020 RfC which found that it publishes false or fabricated information, including pro-Chinese government propaganda and conspiracy theories. As with other Chinese news sites, the Global Times website may host announcements from government agencies not written by the tabloid. Authors are advised to find alternate web pages with the same content.	1   2
GlobalSecurity.org WP:GLOBALSECURITY 📌		2022 11[u]	2022	globalsecurity.org is an unreliable user-contributed and scraper site given to plagiarism. In the 2022 deprecation RFC, a slight majority of editors held that globalsecurity.org should be regarded as generally unreliable, with a significant minority arguing for deprecation. The site should not be used to back factual claims on Wikipedia. GlobalSecurity.org should not be confused with globalresearch.ca.	1
The Globe and Mail		2021	2021	In a 2021 RfC, editors found a strong consensus that The Globe and Mail is generally reliable for news coverage and is considered a newspaper of record.	1
Goodreads WP:GOODREADS 📌		1 2	2018	Goodreads is a self-published source , Goodreads is considered generally unreliable.	1
Google Maps (Google Street View) WP:GOOGLEMAPS 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2022	Google Maps and Google Street View may be useful for some purposes, including finding and verifying geographic coordinates and other basic information like street names. However, especially for objects like boundaries (of neighborhoods, allotments, etc.), where other reliable sources are available they should be preferred over Google Maps and Google Street View. It can also be difficult or impossible to determine the veracity of past citations, since Google Maps data is not publicly archived, and may be removed or replaced as soon as it is not current. Inferring information solely from Street View pictures may be considered original research. Note that due to restrictions on geographic data in China, OpenStreetMap coordinates for places in mainland China are almost always much more accurate than Google's – despite OpenStreetMap being user-generated – due to the severe distortion introduced by most commercial map providers. (References, in any case, are usually not required for geographic coordinates.)	1   2
The Grayzone WP:GRAYZONE 📌		2020 1	2020	The Grayzone was deprecated in the 2020 RfC. There is consensus that The Grayzone publishes false or fabricated information. Some editors describe The Grayzone as Max Blumenthal's blog, and question the website's editorial oversight.	1
The Green Papers		2020 1 A	2020	There is no consensus on the reliability of The Green Papers. As a United States election results, some editors question the site's editorial oversight.	1
The Guardian (TheGuardian.com, The Manchester Guardian, The Observer)		15[v]	2019	There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian's op-eds should be handled with biased or opinionated for politics. See also: The Guardian blogs .	1   2   3
The Guardian blogs		10[w]	2020	Most editors say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a "blogposts" tag to determine whether the page is a blog post or a non-blog article. See also: The Guardian .	1   2   3
Guido Fawkes		1 2 3 4	2020	The Guido Fawkes website (order-order.com) is considered generally unreliable because it is a living persons .	1
Guinness World Records		1 2 3 4 5	2020	There is consensus that world records verified by Guinness World Records should not be used to establish notability. Editors have expressed concern that post-2008 records include paid coverage.	1
Haaretz (Ḥadashot Ha'aretz)		10[x]	2021	Haaretz is considered generally reliable. Some editors believe that Haaretz reports with a political slant, particularly with respect to the opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline.	1   2
UK Parliament transcripts, House of Commons, House of Lords )		1 2 3 4	2019	As a transcript of parliament proceedings in the United Kingdom, Hansard is a secondary source as it merely contains the personal opinions of whoever is speaking in Parliament that day, and is subject to Parliamentary privilege . Hansard is not a word-for-word transcript and may omit repetitions and redundancies.	1   2   3   4   5   6
Heat Street		1 2	2017	Although Heat Street was owned by due weight must be considered because Heat Street covers many political topics not as talked about in higher-profile sources.	1
Heavy.com		1 2 3	2022	There is consensus that Heavy.com should not be relied upon for any serious or contentious statements, including dates of birth. When Heavy.com cites another source for their own article, it is preferable to read and cite the original source instead.	1
The Hill WP:THEHILL 📌		10[y]	2019	The Hill is considered generally reliable for American politics. The publication's self-published sources .	1
The Hindu WP:THEHINDU 📌		1 2 3 4	2022	There is consensus that The Hindu is generally reliable and should be treated as a opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline.	1
HispanTV		2019	2019	HispanTV was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed overwhelming consensus that the TV channel is generally unreliable and sometimes broadcasts outright fabrications. Editors listed multiple examples of HispanTV broadcasting conspiracy theories and Iranian propaganda .	1   2
History (The History Channel) WP:RSPHISTORY 📌		1 2 3	2021	Most editors consider conspiracy theories .	1
The Hollywood Reporter (THR) WP:THR 📌		1 2 3 4 5	2018	There is consensus that The Hollywood Reporter is generally reliable for entertainment-related topics, including its articles and reviews on film, TV and music, as well as its box office figures.	1
Hope not Hate (Searchlight)		2018 1 2 3 4 5	2019	Most commenters declined to make a general statement about publications from Hope not Hate. Reliability should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, while taking context into account. Because they are an advocacy group, they are a attributed .	1   2
HuffPost (excluding politics) (The Huffington Post) WP:HUFFPO 📌 WP:HUFFPOST 📌		2020 13[z]	2021	A 2020 RfC found HuffPost staff writers fairly reliable for factual reporting on non-political topics, but notes that they may give prominence to topics that support their political headline. See also: HuffPost (politics), HuffPost contributors .	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16
HuffPost (politics) (The Huffington Post)		2020 10[aa]	2020	In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics. The community considers HuffPost openly biased on US politics. There is no consensus on its reliability for international politics. See also: HuffPost (excluding politics), HuffPost contributors .	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16
HuffPost contributors (The Huffington Post)		2020 18[ab]	2020	Until 2018, the US edition of HuffPost published content written by contributors with near-zero editorial oversight. These contributors generally did not have a reputation for fact-checking, and most editors consider them highly variable in quality. Editors show consensus for treating HuffPost contributor articles as subject-matter expert. In 2018, HuffPost discontinued its contributor platform, but old contributor articles are still online. Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by a staff member or a "Contributor" (also referred to as an "Editorial Partner"). See also: HuffPost (excluding politics), HuffPost (politics) .	1   2
Human Events		1 2 3	2019	Editors consider Human Events attributed. In May 2019, a former editor-in-chief of Breitbart News became the editor-in-chief of Human Events; articles published after the leadership change are considered generally unreliable. There is no consensus on the reliability of Human Events's older content.	1
Idolator		1 2	2014	There is consensus that Idolator is generally reliable for popular music. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article.	1
IGN (Imagine Games Network) WP:IGN 📌		12[ac]	2017	There is consensus that IGN is generally reliable for entertainment and popular culture, as well as for film and video game reviews given that attribution is provided. Consider whether the information from this source constitutes WP:RSBLOG. See also: AskMen .	1
IMDb (Internet Movie Database) WP:IMDB 📌		2019 +32[ad]	2020	The content on IMDb is WP:IMDB-EL ).	1
The Independent		2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2021	The Independent, a British newspaper, is considered a reliable source for non-specialist information. In March 2016, the publication discontinued its print edition to become an online newspaper; some editors advise caution for articles published after this date.	1
Independent Journal Review (IJR)		1 2 3	2018	There is no consensus on the reliability of the Independent Journal Review. Posts from "community" members are considered syndicated stories from Reuters , and citations of these stories should preferably point to Reuters.	1
Independent Media Center (Indymedia, IMC) WP:IMC  📌		1 2	2020	The self-published source .	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17
The Indian Express WP:INDIANEXP 📌		2020	2020	The Indian Express is considered generally reliable under the news organizations guideline .	1
InfoWars (NewsWars) WP:INFOWARS 📌		2018  2018  2018 1	2018	Due to persistent abuse, InfoWars is on both the secondary source in articles.	1   2   3   4   5
Inquisitr		1 2 3	2021	Inquisitr is a news aggregator, although it does publish some original reporting. There is consensus that Inquisitr is a generally unreliable source. Editors note that where Inquisitr has aggregated news from other sources, it is better to cite the original sources of information.	1
Insider (excluding culture) (Business Insider, Markets Insider, Tech Insider) WP:BI 📌 WP:BUSINESSINSIDER  📌		2020  2022 11[ae]	2022	There is no consensus on the reliability of Insider. The site's syndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher. See also: Insider (culture) .	1   2   3
Insider (culture)		2021	2021	There is consensus that Insider is generally reliable for its coverage in its culture section. See also: Insider (excluding culture).	1   2
Inter Press Service (IPS)		1 2	2011	The Inter Press Service is a news agency. There is consensus that the Inter Press Service is generally reliable for news.	1   2   3
The Intercept		1 2 3 4	2020	There is consensus that The Intercept is generally reliable for news. Almost all editors consider The Intercept a attributed. For science, editors prefer peer-reviewed journals over news sources like The Intercept.	1
International Business Times (IBT, IBTimes) WP:IBTIMES 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2019	There is consensus that the International Business Times is generally unreliable. Editors note that the publication's editorial practices have been criticized by other reliable sources, and point to the inconsistent quality of the site's articles. The site's syndicated content , which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher.	1   2   3   4   5   6
International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) WP:IFCN  📌		2020	2020	The reliability of fact-checking organizations.	1
Investopedia WP:INVESTOPEDIA 📌		1 2 3 4 5	2023	Investopedia is a tertiary source on finances, owned by Dotdash . A number of users have reported inaccurate and low-quality content on this website. It is advised not to use Investopedia, and to cite other, higher quality sources instead.	1
IslamQA.info		1 2	2022	IslamQA.info is a Q&A site on Salafism founded and supervised by Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid. There is no consensus on whether it could be used for the Salaf Movement, with more reliable secondary sources recommended and in-text attribution if utilised. It is considered generally unreliable for broader Islam-related topics due to it representing a minor viewpoint. Some editors also consider the website a self-published source due to the lack of editorial control.	1
Jacobin		2021 1 2 3 4	2022	due weight is given to their perspective amongst others'.	1   2
JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association)		1 2	2018	JAMA is a WP:MEDRS .	1
The Jewish Chronicle (The JC)		2021 1 2	2021	There is consensus that The Jewish Chronicle is generally reliable for news, particularly in its pre-2010 reporting. There is no consensus on whether The Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to the in-text attribution is recommended for its coverage of these topics.	1
Jewish Virtual Library (JVL)		2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 A	2021	The Jewish Virtual Library is a cites Wikipedia and it is mostly unreliable, especially in its "Myths & Facts" section. When it cites sources, those should preferably be read and then cited directly instead. Some exceptions on a case-by-case basis are possible.	1
Jezebel WP:JEZEBEL 📌		1 2	2016	There is no consensus on the reliability of Jezebel. Most editors believe that Jezebel is living persons .	1
Jihad Watch		2021 1 2 3	2021	Jihad Watch was deprecated in the 2021 RfC; of the editors who commented on the substance of the proposal, they were unanimous that the source is unreliable. It is a blog generally regarded as propagating anti-Muslim conspiracy theories.	1
Joshua Project		1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2022	The Joshua Project is an ethnological database created to support Christian missions. It is considered to be generally unreliable due to the lack of any academic recognition or an adequate editorial process. The Joshua Project provides a list of sources from which they gather their data, many of which are related evangelical groups and they too should not be used for ethnological data as they are questionable sources .	1
Kirkus Reviews WP:KIRKUS 📌		1 2 3 4	2021	Most content by Kirkus Reviews is considered to be generally reliable. Kirkus Indie is a pay for review program for independent authors, its content is considered to be questionable and to not count towards notability, in part because the author can choose whether or not the review is published.	1
Know Your Meme (KYM) WP:KNOWYOURMEME 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6	2022	Know Your Meme entries, including "confirmed" entries, are user-generated and generally unreliable. There is no consensus on the reliability of their video series.	1
Kommersant (Коммерсантъ)		2021 1 2 3	2021	Kommersant ( intext attribution .	1   2   3
Last.fm		2019 1	2019	Last.fm was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. The content on Last.fm is user-generated , and is considered generally unreliable.	1
Lenta.ru (12 March 2014–present)		2019 2020 1 2	2020	Due to persistent abuse, Lenta.ru is on the secondary source in articles.	1
LifeSiteNews (Campaign Life Coalition) WP:LIFESITENEWS 📌		2019 1 2 3 4 5 6	2019	LifeSiteNews was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information.	1   2
LinkedIn (LinkedIn Pulse) WP:RSPLINKEDIN 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2020	LinkedIn is a social network. As a living persons .	1
LiveJournal		1 2 3 4	2020	LiveJournal is a living persons .	1
LiveLeak		2019 1 2 3 4	2019	Due to persistent abuse, LiveLeak is on the primary source is questionable in most cases, as the provenance of most of the videos is unclear. LiveLeak shut down in May 2021; website content is no longer accessible unless archived.[14]	1
Los Angeles Times WP:LATIMES 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6	2016	Most editors consider the Los Angeles Times generally reliable. Refer to WP:NEWSBLOG for the newspaper's blog.	1
Lulu.com (Lulu Press)		2008 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2019	Due to persistent abuse, Lulu.com is on the subject-matter expert. Occasionally, a reputable publisher uses Lulu.com as a printer ; in this case, cite the original publisher instead of Lulu.com.	1
Mail & Guardian		2021	2021	The Mail & Guardian is a South African newspaper. There is consensus that it is generally reliable.	1
The Mail on Sunday WP:MAILONSUNDAY 📌		2020 1 2	2020	There is clear and substantial consensus that the Mail on Sunday is generally unreliable, and a slightly narrower consensus that the source should be deprecated. Those supporting deprecation point to factual errors, asserted fabrications, and biased reporting identified on the part of the source, with reference to specific instances, and to common ownership of the source with a previously deprecated source.	1   2   3   4
Marquis Who's Who (Who's Who in America)		1 2 3 4 5 6	2022	Marquis Who's Who, including its publication Who's Who in America, is considered generally unreliable. As most of its content is provided by the person concerned, editors generally consider Marquis Who's Who comparable to a notability for article topics. See also: Who's Who (UK) .	1   2
Mashable (non-sponsored content) WP:MASHABLE 📌		2021 1 2 3 4 5 6	2021	In a 2021 RfC, editors achieved a consensus while non-sponsored content from Mashable is generally fine, Mashable tends towards less formal writing and is geared at a particular niche (tech news and pop culture). As such, non-sponsored content should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, especially if the subject matter is outside of Mashable's usual focus. Extra attention needs to be paid when it comes to sponsored content, especially ensuring that the content was written by Mashable staff and not the sponsor themselves.	1
Mashable (sponsored content)		2021 1 2 3 4 5 6	2021	In a 2021 RfC, editors achieved a consensus while non-sponsored content from Mashable is generally fine, Mashable tends towards less formal writing and is geared at a particular niche (tech news and pop culture). As such, non-sponsored content should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, especially if the subject matter is outside of Mashable's usual focus. Extra attention needs to be paid when it comes to sponsored content, especially ensuring that the content was written by Mashable staff and not the sponsor themselves.	1
The Mary Sue		1 2 3 A B	2022	There is consensus that The Mary Sue is generally reliable. Most editors consider The Mary Sue biased or opinionated . Opinions should be attributed.	1
MDPI (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute) WP:MDPI 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2021	Publications in MDPI journals are considered questionable. Editors have raised concerns about the robustness of MDPI's peer review process and their lack of selectivity in what they publish. Originally placed on Norwegian Scientific Index .	1
Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) WP:MBFC 📌 WP:MB/FC 📌		1 2 3 4	2021	There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published . Editors have questioned the methodology of the site's ratings.	1
Media Matters for America (MMfA) WP:MEDIAMATTERS 📌		2010  2019 10[af]	2019	There is consensus that Media Matters is attributed .	1
MRCTV , NewsBusters)		2010  2019  2020 6[ag]	2020	There is consensus that the Media Research Center and its subdivisions (e.g. CNSNews.com, MRCTV, and NewsBusters) are generally unreliable for factual reporting. Some editors believe these sources publish false or fabricated information. As attributed .	1   2   3   4
Mediaite		1 2 3	2019	There is some consensus that Mediaite is only marginally reliable, and should be avoided where better sources are available. Editors consider the source to inappropriately blur news and opinion, and due weight should be considered if no other reliable sources support a given statement.	1
Medium WP:MEDIUM 📌		2022 1 2 3 4	2022	Medium is a Cuepoint , Medium's music publication, is marginally reliable, with editors stating that its reliability depends on the qualification of the author.	1
Metacritic (GameRankings)		10[ah]