View source for Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide

{{Information page|WP:NPPSG|WP:NPPSOURCEGUIDE|WP:SOURCEGUIDE|WP:NPRSG}}The purpose of this page is to centralize information about [[wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] for use by [[Wikipedia:NPP|new page reviewers]] when reviewing new articles. It is intended as a supplement to the [[Wikipedia:RSN|reliable sources noticeboard]] and [[Wikipedia:RSP|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.

{{TOC limit|4}}

== Instructions ==
===How to use and improve this page===
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 [[WP:RSP|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 [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#How to improve this list|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 {{tl|main}} or {{tl|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.

Objections to a listing's assessment of a Wikipedia discussion's level of consensus can be addressed at this page through normal editing processes. However, if you disagree with the reasoning of a discussion listed here or have reason to update a source's reliability assessment, you should open a discussion at [[WP:RSN|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 [[WP:N|notability]] and uncontroversial topics. However, more care may need to be taken when evaluating an article's [[WP:NEUTRAL|neutrality]].

=== Adding entries ===

* All information in this page should be written to reflect existing [[wikipedia:Consensus|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 ===

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

* ''[[The New York Times]]'' [https://nytimes.com], description here.<ref>Link to [[WP:RSN]] discussion or other location</ref>

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 ==

=== International reporting ===
These sources have extensive coverage of many different countries and regions

; Reliable
*[[.coda]] [https://www.codastory.com/] English and Russian, generally reliable per an April 2021 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 337#RfC: Coda Story]]</ref>
*[[Agence France-Presse]] (AFP) [https://www.afp.com/], several languages, reliable international news agency per a May 2020 RSN discussion. Note that it does also publish clearly-marked sponsored content.<ref name=":afp01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 294#AFP|WP:RSN/Archive 294#AFP]]</ref>
*''[[The Africa Report]]'' [https://www.theafricareport.com/], English, small consensus for reliability in a May 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_403#Reliability_of_theafricareport]]</ref>
* [[Al Jazeera]] [https://aljazeera.net/] and [[Al Jazeera English]] [https://www.aljazeera.com/], Arabic and English respectively, generally reliable with editors perceiving Al Jazeera English as more reliable than Arabic-language reporting. Some editors assert that it is a partisan source for politics in Southwest Asia, describing the source as anti-Israel and pro-Muslim Brotherhood.<ref name=":1">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources]]</ref>
*[[Amnesty International]] [https://www.amnesty.org/], many languages, generally reliable, may need to attribute opinions for controversial topics.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Associated Press]] [https://apnews.com/][https://ap.org/], English, generally reliable.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Balkan Insight]]'' [https://balkaninsight.com/], English, generally reliable although the discussion meanders into irrelevant questions about due weight.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 285#Balkan Insight, N1|WP:RSN/Archive 285#Balkan Insight, N1]]</ref>
*[[BBC]] [https://www.bbc.com/][https://www.bbc.co.uk/], many languages, generally reliable. Some BBC projects are less reliable.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Bellingcat]] [https://www.bellingcat.com/], English and Russian, generally reliable, although preferably with attribution.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[The Christian Science Monitor]]'' [https://www.csmonitor.com/], English, generally reliable for news reporting.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Bureau of Investigative Journalism]] [https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/], English, generally reliable per a February 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_397#Bureau_of_Investigative_Journalism]]</ref>
*[[CNN]] [https://www.cnn.com/], primarily English, generally reliable for news reporting.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Financial Times]]'' [https://www.ft.com/], British<ref name=":1" />
*''[[The Guardian]]'' [https://www.theguardian.com/], English, reliable for news reporting.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Human Rights Watch]] [https://www.hrw.org/], reliable, but generally requiring attribution due to it being an advocacy organization per an October 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_453#Human_Rights_Watch]]</ref> Previously reliable, per a large 2008 RSN discussion, and compared to [[Amnesty International]]. The lone dissenter objected to HRW's anti-Israel bias.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 15#Human Rights Watch|WP:RSN/Archive 15#Human Rights Watch]]</ref>
*[[International Crisis Group]], [https://www.crisisgroup.org/], generally reliable per a June 2021 RSN discussion.<ref name=:hrorg0621 />
*[[International Fact-Checking Network]] [https://www.poynter.org/ifcn/]<ref name=":1" />
*[[Inter Press Service]] (IPS) [https://ipsnews.net/][https://ipsnoticias.net/][https://ipscuba.net/], news agency, generally reliable for news.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Jeune Afrique]]'', [https://www.jeuneafrique.com/] French, described as an above average source for coverage of francophone Africa per a June 2021 RSN discussion. Note that it also carries sponsored content, which is indicated at the bottom of the page.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 342#Jeune Afrique]]</ref>
* [[N1 (TV channel)]] [https://n1info.com/], English, Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, generally reliable although the discussion meanders into irrelevant questions about due weight.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 285#Balkan Insight, N1|WP:RSN/Archive 285#Balkan Insight, N1]]</ref>
*''[[The Nation]]'' [https://www.thenation.com/], English, generally reliable, progressive political stance.<ref name=":1" />
*[[The New Humanitarian]] [https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/], English, generally reliable per a June 2021 RSN discussion.<ref name=:hrorg0621>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 342#Some organizations I wanted to talk about.]]</ref>
*''[[The New York Times]]'' [https://www.nytimes.com/], English, generally reliable,<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Newsweek]]'' (pre-2013) [https://www.newsweek.com/], many languages, generally reliable. However, more recent coverage may not be reliable.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Pew Research Center]] [https://www.pewresearch.org/], English, generally reliable.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Quartz (publication)]] [https://qz.com/], headquartered in USA, owned by a Japanese company, business-focused, generally reliable per [[WP:NEWSORG]] per a July 2020 RSN discussion,<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301#Quartz|WP:RSN/Archive 301#Quartz]]</ref> reaffirmed in October 2020.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 316#Quartz|WP:RSN/Archive 316#Quartz]]</ref>
*[[Radio Free Asia]] [https://rfa.org/], English, generally reliable, although it may need attribution for politically controversial topics.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Reuters]] [https://www.reuters.com/], many languages, generally reliable. Note that press releases republished by Reuters are not automatically reliable.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Der Spiegel]]'' [https://www.spiegel.de/], German, generally reliable. Articles written by [[Claas Relotius]] are generally unreliable as this particular journalist has been found to fabricate articles.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Time (magazine)]]'' [https://time.com/], English, generally reliable. Time's [[Wikipedia:NEWSBLOG|magazine blogs]], including Techland, should be handled with the appropriate policy.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'' [https://www.wsj.com/][https://opinionjournal.com/], English, generally reliable business publication.<ref name=":1" />

; No consensus
*Antifascist Europe [https://antifascist-europe.org/], no consensus in a May 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_405#is_antifascist-europe.org_reliable]]</ref>
*''[[Asharq Al-Awsat]]'' [https://aawsat.com/], Arabic, no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion.<ref name="akhbar asharq01"/>
*[[Genocide Watch]] [https://www.genocidewatch.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 316#Genocide Watch: Unreliable source?|WP:RSN/Archive 316#Genocide Watch: Unreliable source?]]</ref>
*[[Global Voices]] [https://globalvoices.org/], no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 325#GlobalVoices.org|WP:RSN/Archive 325#GlobalVoices.org]]</ref>
*[[Middle East Eye]] [https://www.middleeasteye.net/], English, no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 324#Is Middle East Eye a reliable source for contentious claims about a BLP|WP:RSN/Archive 324#Is Middle East Eye a reliable source for contentious claims about a BLP]]</ref>
*[[Middle East Monitor]], [https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/] no consensus in an April 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_436#Middle_East_Monitor]]</ref> 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".<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 343#Middle East Monitor]]</ref>
*''[[Mondoweiss]]'' [https://mondoweiss.net/], English, largely reports on issues related to Israel/Palestine. Opinionated source backed by an advocacy group, statements should be attributed.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Newsweek]]'' (2013–present) [https://www.newsweek.com/], many languages, changes in editorial leadership have led to a decline in the magazine's reliability, evaluate on a case-by-case basis.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Radio Free Europe]] [https://www.rferl.org/], no consensus in a May 2024 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_440#RfC:_RFE/RL]]</ref>
*''Resumen Latinoamericano'', [https://www.resumen-english.org/] English and Spanish, no clear consensus in a September 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 352#Resumen Latinamericano]]</ref>
* [[RIA Novosti]] [https://ria.ru/], 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.<ref name=":1" />
*[[TRT World]] [https://www.trtworld.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 267#RfC: TRT World|WP:RSN/Archive 267#RfC: TRT World]]</ref>
*[[Vice Media]] <small>(''[[Garage Magazine]]'', ''[[i-D]]'', ''Motherboard'', ''[[Vice (magazine)]]'', [[Vice News]])</small> [https://www.vice.com/], 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.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Worldcrunch]] [https://worldcrunch.com/], primarily an aggregator, no consensus in a February 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_429#Worldcrunch]]</ref>
*''World Christian Database'', ''[[World Christian Encyclopedia]]'', and ''World Religion Database'' (''WCD'', ''WCE'', ''WRD'') [https://worldchristiandatabase.org/][https://worldreligiondatabase.org/], additional considerations apply, see RSP listing.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[World Socialist Website]]'' [https://www.wsws.org/], no consensus in a September 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 353#World Socialist Web Site]]</ref> Previously considererd unreliable, although individuals writing pieces for it or stories that it republishes may be usable.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 292#The 1619 Project and the World Socialist Web Site|WP:RSN/Archive 292#The 1619 Project and the World Socialist Web Site]]</ref>

; Unreliable
*[[Anadolu Agency]] [https://www.aa.com.tr/]<ref name=":1"/>
*Asia Harvest [https://www.asiaharvest.org/], generally unreliable per a February 2024 RSN discussion.<ref name="evang0224" />
*BNN Breaking, blacklisted by request following a February 2024 RSN discussion that found it generally unreliable.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_428#bnnbreaking.com_?]]</ref>
*[[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 [[Wikipedia:BIASED|biased or opinionated]] source, and its content is likely to constitute [[Wikipedia:UNDUE|undue weight]]. As it often covers [[Wikipedia:FRINGE|fringe]] material, [[Wikipedia:PARITY|parity of sources]] should be considered.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Consortium News]] [https://consortiumnews.com/], described as an unreliable and fringe outlet in a September 2019 discussion.<ref name=":meforum1" />
*The Cradle [https://thecradle.co/], deprecated in a Decembeer 2023 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_423#RFC:_The_Cradle]]</ref>
*[[The Grayzone]] Report [https://thegrayzone.com/], English, deprecated in a 2020 RfC.<ref name=":1" />
*[[HispanTV]] [https://www.hispantv.com/], deprecated, Spanish language, republishes conspiracy theories and Iranian propaganda.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Independent Media Center]] <small>(IndyMedia)</small> [https://indymedia.org/], many languages, insufficient fact checking and effectively self-published.<ref name=":1" />
* ''[[International Business Times]]'' [https://www.ibtimes.com/], many languages, quality is inconsistent, significant amounts of content are syndicated and not clearly marked.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Joshua Project]] [https://joshuaproject.net/], generally unreliable per a February 2024 RSN discussion.<ref name="evang0224" />
*Meaww [https://meaww.com/], tabloid with no positive reputation to speak of per an April 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name=":1" /><ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 289#Is Meaww a reliable source?|WP:RSN/Archive 289#Is Meaww a reliable source?]]</ref>
*[[Middle East Forum]] [https://meforum.org/], 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.<ref name=":meforum1">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 272#Are meforum.org , consortiumnews.com, and theguardian.com/commentisfree RSs?|WP:RSN/Archive 272#Are meforum.org , consortiumnews.com, and theguardian.com/commentisfree RSs?]]</ref>
*''Modern Diplomacy'' [https://moderndiplomacy.eu/], unreliable per a November 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_389#Modern_Diplomacy_.eu]]</ref>
*Newsreports.com [https://www.newsreports.com/], rough consensus for unreliability in an August 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_448#Reliability_of_NewsReports]]</ref>
*[[Operation World]] [http://www.operationworld.org/], generally unreliable per a February 2024 RSN discussion.<ref name="evang0224">[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_428#Operation_World,_Joshua_Project_and_Asia_Harvest]]</ref>
*[[Press TV]] [https://www.presstv.com/], English and French, owned by the government of Iran. Usable as a primary source for opinions and official lines from the Iranian government.<ref name=":1" />
*[[RT (TV network)]] <small>(Russia Today, ANO TV-Novosti, Ruptly, Redfish, Maffick)</small> [https://www.rt.com/], unreliable and deprecated for publishing fabricated information.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Sputnik (news agency)]] [https://sputniknews.com/], 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.<ref name=":1" />
*Stalkerzone [https://www.stalkerzone.org/], described as marginal and unreliable in a July 2020 RSN discussion that specifically focused on its coverage of bellingcat.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301#stalkerzone as a source for claim about Bellingcat|WP:RSN/Archive 301#stalkerzone as a source for claim about Bellingcat]]</ref>
* TakeToNews [https://taketonews.com/], consists of machine translations of other non-English sources that may violate copyright. Unreliable per October 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 388#taketonews.com: Machine generated translations as standalone WP:RS ?|WP:RSN/Archive 388#taketonews.com: Machine generated translations as standalone WP:RS ?]]</ref>
*[[Telesur (TV channel)]] [https://www.telesurtv.net/][https://www.telesurenglish.net/], deprecated. Useful only for statements of opinion from the government of Venezuela.<ref name=":1" />
*''Today News Africa'' [https://todaynewsafrica.com/], small consensus for unreliability in a July 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#Today_News_Africa]]</ref>
*[[WikiLeaks]] [https://wikileaks.org/], a repository of [[Wikipedia:PRIMARY|primary source]] documents [[News leak|leaked]] by [[Anonymous sources|anonymous sources]]. Most editors believe that documents from WikiLeaks fail the [[Wikipedia:V|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 [[Wikipedia:PRIMARY|primary source]], but only if it is discussed by a [[Wikipedia:RS|reliable source]]. However, linking to material that violates copyright is prohibited by the [[Wikipedia:ELNEVER|external links guideline]].<ref name=":1" />
*[[Wikinews]] [https://wikinews.org/], insufficient editorial oversight.<ref name=":1" />

===Africa===
{{See also|WP:WikiProject Arab world#Notability|Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Africa Sources List}}

====Cameroon====
;No consensus
*[[CamerounWeb]] [https://www.camerounweb.com/], one editor made a case for reliability in a June 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#CamerounWeb]]</ref>

====Ethiopia====
;Unreliable
*Tghat, [https://www.tghat.com/] reliable only for its own perspectives per a January 2022 RSN discussion,<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 362#RfC: tghat.com]]</ref> previously no consensus in an August 2021 RSN discussion as to whether they provide sufficient editorial oversight for their publications.

====Ghana====

; No consensus
*''Graphic Ghana'' [https://www.graphic.com.gh/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 269#RfC: Daily Graphic and graphic.com.gh|WP:RSN/Archive 269#RfC: Daily Graphic and graphic.com.gh]]</ref>
*''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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#Who's_Who_in_Ghana]]</ref>
*[[Yen.com.gh]] [https://yen.com.gh/], one editor described it as generally unreliable in a November 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_419#Yen.com.gh]]</ref>

====Nigeria====
{{for|an up-to-date list|Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources}}
; Reliable
* Allure [http://allure.vanguardngr.com], pull out fashion magazine inside Sunday Vanguard<ref name=":0">[[Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 26#Expertise in Nigerian sources?]]</ref>
* [[The Guardian (Nigeria)]] [https://guardian.ng/], major Nigerian newspaper, generally reliable per a November 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 319#The Guardian (Nigeria)|WP:RSN/Archive 319#The Guardian (Nigeria)]]</ref> A December 2022 RSN discussion noted that unbylined articles or those attributed to "Editor" are likely promotional and should not be considered reliable.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_391#WP:LTA_writing_articles_at_LA_Weekly_and_guardian]]</ref>
* [[The Nation (Nigeria)]] [http://www.thenationonlineng.net], national paper<ref name=":0" />
* [[Premium Times]] [http://www.premiumtimesng.com]<ref name=":0" />
* [[The Punch]] [http://punchng.com], national paper<ref name=":0" />
* [[Radio Nigeria]] [https://www.radionigeria.gov.ng/], reliable per a July 2024 RSN discussion.<ref name="nigeria0724">[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_446#Nigerian_News_Sources]]</ref>
* [[Silverbird TV]] [http://silverbirdtv.com], national TV<ref name=":0" />
* [[The Sun (Nigeria)]] [http://sunnewsonline.com], national paper<ref name=":0" />
* [[Vanguard (Nigeria)]] [http://www.vanguardngr.com], marginally reliable per a September 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_414#Vanguard_(Nigeria)]]</ref>
* The Voice [http://www.voice-online.co.uk], seems to be a British magazine<ref name=":0" />
* [[Voice of Nigeria]] [https://von.gov.ng/], reliable per a July 2024 RSN discussion </ ref name="nigeria0724" />

; No consensus
* Pulse.ng [http://www.pulse.ng], mostly gossip; sometimes serious reporting; known corporate headquarters and other publications/broadcast<ref name=":0" />

; Unreliable
* African Prints in Fashion [http://www.africanprintinfashion.com]<ref name=":0" />
* Austine Media [http://austinemedia.com], gossip blog<ref name=":0" />
* Bella Naija [http://www.bellanaija.com], gossip blog<ref name=":0" />, reaffirmed in a June 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 343#Bellanaija.com]]</ref>
* Buzz Nigeria [http://buzznigeria.com], gossip<ref name=":0" />
* Chioma Jesus [http://www.chiomajesus.org], one man blog. May be defunct.<ref name=":0" />
* G Music Plus [http://www.gmusicplus.com], unreliable blog<ref name=":0" />
* Gospel Music Naija [http://gospelmusicnaija.com], fan blog. May be defunct.<ref name=":0" />
* Information Nigeria [http://www.informationng.com], gossip blog<ref name=":0" />
* Linda Ikeji's Blog [https://www.lindaikejisblog.com]<ref name=":0" />
* Loudest Gist [http://loudestgist.com], gossip, nonsense compilation blog. May be defunct.<ref name=":0" />
* Nairaland Forum <nowiki>https://www.nairaland.com/</nowiki>, forum<ref name="Nairaland">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 272#Nairaland|WP:RSN/Archive 272#Nairaland]]</ref>
* Ono Bello [http://onobello.com], one man blog<ref name=":0" />
* Stargist [http://stargist.com], celeb gossip blog. May be defunct.<ref name=":0" />
* STARS [http://www.stars.ng], unreliable blog<ref name=":0" />
* Youth Village [http://youthvillageng.com], a "youth magazine", unreliable blog<ref name=":0" />

====Namibia====

; No consensus
*''[[The Namibian]]'' [https://www.namibian.com.na/], mentioned favorably by one editor in a November 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name="namibia01" />
* [[New Era (Namibia)]] [https://www.newera.com.na/], government run outlet of unclear reliability per a November 2020 RSN disccussion.<ref name="namibia01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 317#New Era|WP:RSN/Archive 317#New Era]]</ref>

==== Somalia ====

; Reliable
* ''Horseed Media'' [https://horseedmedia.net/], probably reliable.<ref name=":2">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 263#Somalia news sources|WP:RSN/Archive 263#Somalia news sources]]</ref>

; No consensus
* ''Allssc.com'' [https://allssc.com/], may be defunct.<ref name=":2" />
* [[Somalia Report]] [http://piracyreport.com/][https://piracyreport.com/]<ref name=":2" />

; Unreliable
*''Somali Dispatch'' [https://www.somalidispatch.com/], no indication of reliability per a January 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 323#Somali Dispatch|WP:RSN/Archive 323#Somali Dispatch]]</ref>

====South Africa====

; Reliable
*''African Independent'' [https://www.africanindy.com/], deemed to likely be reliable in a May 2020 RfC.<ref name="africanindependent01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 293#RfC: Is African Independent a reliable source?|WP:RSN/Archive 293#RfC: Is African Independent a reliable source?]]</ref>
*''[[Cape Times]]'' [https://www.iol.co.za/capetimes], implicitly treated as reliable in a May 2020 RfC about ''African Independent''.<ref name ="africanindependent01/>
*''[[Mail & Guardian]]'' [https://mg.co.za/], unanimous consensus that it is a reliable newsorg in an abbreviated September 2021 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 352#Reliability of the Mail & Guardian]]</ref>
*[[TimesLIVE]] [https://www.timeslive.co.za], reliable NEWSORG per an October 2023 RSN discussion.<ref name="SA10-23" />

; No consensus
*''[[The South African]]'' [https://www.thesouthafrican.com/], an October 2024 RfC drew primarily "considerations apply" responses.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_453#RFC_on_The_South_African]]</ref> Previously, no consensus in a June 2024 RSN discussion that identified examples of AI use, possible circular referencing and possible promotional content without proper disclosure.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_442#The_South_African_(3rd_time_of_asking)]]</ref> Previously considered reliable NEWSORG per an October 2023 RSN discussion.<ref name="SA10-23>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_418#South_African_sources]]</ref>

====Uganda====

; Reliable
* ''[[New Vision (newspaper)]]'' [https://www.newvision.co.ug/], large national newspaper, cited frequently by scholarly sources. Unclear if it has a conflict of interest with the government of Uganda.<ref name="PMLD">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 267#PML Daily article about political bloggers|WP:RSN/Archive 267#PML Daily article about political bloggers]]</ref>

; No consensus
* PML Daily [https://www.pmldaily.com/], raised for discussion in June 2019, no editors made any claims to its reliability or lack thereof.<ref name="PMLD" />

====Zambia====

; No consensus
*''[[Zambia Daily Mail]]'' [http://www.daily-mail.co.zm/], no clear consensus in a January 2021 discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 325#Zambia Daily Mail|WP:RSN/Archive 325#Zambia Daily Mail]]</ref>

===Asia===
{{See also|WP:WikiProject Arab world#Notability}}

====Afghanistan====

; No consensus
*''Hasht e Subh'' [https://8am.media/], no consensus in an April 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_401#Unreliability_of_Hasht_e_Subh]]</ref>

====Armenia====

; No consensus
*Panarmenian.net [https://panarmenian.net/], no consensus in a July 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_445#panarmenian.net]]</ref> Previously disparaged as overly biased on topics related to Armenia in an October 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 314#Panarmenian.net and pan.am (PanARMENIAN.Net)|WP:RSN/Archive 314#Panarmenian.net and pan.am (PanARMENIAN.Net)]]</ref>

====Azerbaijan====
;No consensus
*APA [https://apa.az/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 366#RFC on apa.az use for Armenia/Nagorno-Karabakh articles]]</ref>
*GunazTV, [https://www.gunaz.tv] no consensus in a 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_387#Gunaz_TV]]</ref>

====Bangladesh====

;No consensus
*Banglar Alo [https://banglaralonews.com/], no consensus in an August 2024 RSN discussion.<ref name="bd0824">[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_449#Banglar_Alo_and_Sylnewsbd.com]]</ref>
*OurTimeBD [https://www.ourtimebd.com/], no consensus in an April 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_402#OurtimeBD]]</ref>
*Sylnewsbd.com [https://sylnewsbd.com/], no consensus in an August 2024 RSN discussion.<ref name="bd0824" />
*Quick News BD [https://quicknewsbd.com/],  no consensus in an August 2024 RSN discussion.<ref name="bd0824" />

;Unreliable
*[[Somoy TV]] ([https://en.somoynews.tv/], [https://www.somoynews.tv/]), unreliable per a May 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 340#Reliability of Somoy News]]</ref>

==== China ====

; Reliable
*[[Caixin]] [https://www.caixin.com/?HOLDZH], [https://www.caixinglobal.com/], rough consensus for reliability in a November 2021 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 357#RfC: Perennial sources consideration for Caixin?]]</ref>
*[[Hong Kong Free Press]] [https://hongkongfp.com/], the majority of participants in a 2019 discussion consider it as reliable as any other news source in Hong Kong.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 279#Is the Hong Kong Free Press a reliable source?|WP:RSN/Archive 279#Is the Hong Kong Free Press a reliable source?]]</ref>
* [[South China Morning Post]] [https://www.scmp.com/], English, editorial bias toward the Chinese government since its buyout by Alibaba in 2016. Rough consensus for reliability in an August 2020 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 309#South China Morning Post (and Lin Nguyen, a fabricated writer)|WP:RSN/Archive 309#South China Morning Post (and Lin Nguyen, a fabricated writer)]]</ref>

; No consensus
*''[[Apple Daily]]'' [https://appledaily.com/], a June 2020 RfC did not reach any sort of consensus on this source's reliability.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 297#RfC: Apple Daily|WP:RSN/Archive 297#RfC: Apple Daily]]</ref>
*Bamboo Works [https://thebambooworks.com/], promotional site per one editor in a March 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_431#Bamboo_Works]]</ref>
*[[Central Tibetan Administration]] [https://tibet.net/], no consensus in a September 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 313#Views on Central Tibetan Administration|WP:RSN/Archive 313#Views on Central Tibetan Administration]]</ref>
*[[China Central Television]] [https://cctv.com/], may be usable in certain contexts with attribution.<ref name=":china-8-29-19" />
*''[[China Daily]]'' [http://www.chinadaily.com/][http://www.chinadailyasia.com/][http://www.chinadailyhk.com/], may be usable in certain contexts with attribution.<ref name=":china-8-29-19" /> No consensus in a March 2021 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 332#RfC: China Daily|WP:RSN/Archive 332#RfC: China Daily]]</ref>
* Guancha.cn [https://www.guancha.cn/], a 2020 RfC was split between editors saying that it varied from case to case and editors saying that it was generally unreliable.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 285#RfC: guancha.cn|WP:RSN/Archive 285#RfC: guancha.cn]]</ref>
*''[[People's Daily]]'' [https://people.cn/], may be usable in certain contexts with attribution.<ref name=":china-8-29-19">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 271#Chinese news sources|WP:RSN/Archive 271#Chinese news sources]]</ref><ref name=":china-12-8-19" />
*''[[Qiushi]]'' [https://qstheory.cn/], 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.<ref name=":china-12-8-19">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 279#People's Daily and Qiushi as opinion pieces and non CoI BLP realiable sources|WP:RSN/Archive 279#People's Daily and Qiushi as opinion pieces and non CoI BLP realiable sources]]</ref>
*''[[Sixth Tone]]'' [http://www.sixthtone.com/], English, not reliable for politics but usable for general non-political topics, such as Chinese society or culture.<ref name=":1" />
* ''What's on Weibo'' [https://www.whatsonweibo.com/], likely reliable for claims related to Chinese social media and pop culture, but not generally reliable, per a 2020 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 285#RfC: What's on Weibo|WP:RSN/Archive 285#RfC: What's on Weibo]]</ref>
*[[Xinhua News Agency]] [http://www.xinhuanet.com/], may be usable in certain contexts with attribution. Prefer over other Chinese state media sources, comparable to [[TASS]].<ref name=":china-8-29-19" /><ref name="xinhua1">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 274#Xinhua reliability|WP:RSN/Archive 274#Xinhua reliability]]</ref>

; Unreliable
* [[Baidu Baike]], crowd-sourced with minimal fact checking.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Bitter Winter]] [https://bitterwinter.org/], 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 [[WP:RSP#CESNUR|an unreliable source]].<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_376#RFC:_Bitter_Winter]]</ref>
*[[China Global Television Network]] [https://www.cgtn.com/], while it may be usable in certain uncontroversial contexts with attribution,<ref name=":china-8-29-19" /> a majority of editors in a May 2020 RSN discussion felt that it is generally not reliable and serves primarily as a propaganda outlet.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 293#CGTN (China Global Television Network)|WP:RSN/Archive 293#CGTN (China Global Television Network)]]</ref> 
*Douban [https://www.douban.com/], user generated source per an October 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 313#Douban|WP:RSN/Archive 313#Douban]]</ref>
*''[[Epoch Times]]'' [https://www.theepochtimes.com/], English, published in US, bias toward [[Falun Gong]], may not give appropriate weight to controversial issues.<ref name=":1" />
*faluninfo.net [https://faluninfo.net/], usable for ABOUTSELF claims about Falun Gong but otherwise unreliable per a July 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 302#faluninfo.net|WP:RSN/Archive 302#faluninfo.net]]</ref>
*''[[Global Times]]'' [https://www.globaltimes.cn/], less reliable than other Chinese state media and includes hyperbolic editorials and unreliable editorials reporting on news outside of China.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[New Tang Dynasty Television]]'' [https://www.ntd.com/][https://www.ntdtv.com/], deemed to be equivalent to other Falun Gong publications such as ''Epoch Times'' in a May 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name=":tang01" />
*''[[Wen Wei Po]]'' [https://www.wenweipo.com/], all participants in an August 2020 RFC considered it unreliable in most contexts, with many advocating deprecation.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 306#RfC: Wen Wei Po|WP:RSN/Archive 306#RfC: Wen Wei Po]]</ref>

====Georgia====
; No consensus
*''Georgia Today'' [https://georgiatoday.ge/], one editor argued that it is reliable per [[WP:NEWSORG]] in a small January 2023 discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_395#georgia_today]]</ref>

====India====
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.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Biswas|first=Soutik|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-16524711|title=Why are India's media under fire?|date=2012-01-12|work=BBC News|access-date=2020-03-06|language=en-GB}}</ref> 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]] [https://www.altnews.in/], 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.<ref name= :"manyindia01" />
*Boom! [https://www.boomlive.in/], small consensus for reliability in a September 2020 RSN discussion, citing an IFCN certification.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 313#Boom! ( www.boomlive.in )|WP:RSN/Archive 313#Boom! ( www.boomlive.in )]]</ref>
*''[[Business Line]]'' [https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/], English, described favorably in a broad discussion of Indian sources.<ref name= :"manyindia01" >[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 248#Scroll, OpIndia, The Wire, The Quint, The Print, DailyO, postcardnews, rightlog etc.]]</ref>
*''[[Business Standard]]'' [https://www.business-standard.com/], English, described favorably in a broad discussion of Indian sources.<ref name= :"manyindia01" />
*''[[The Caravan]]'' [https://caravanmagazine.in/], English, one of the most premier magazines in India<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 280#Use of caravanmagazine in Asaram article|WP:RSN/Archive 280#Use of caravanmagazine in Asaram article]]</ref>
*Cinestaan, [https://www.cinestaan.com], usable for uncontroversial claims and media coverage, no consensus on its usage for contentious BLP claims per a November 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_389#Cinestaan]]</ref>
* [[Deepika (newspaper)|Deepika]], [https://www.deepika.com/#google_vignette], Malayalam, oldest Malayalam newspaper now in circulation. Generally considered reliable. 
*''[[Dina Thanthi]]'' [https://www.dailythanthi.com/], Tamil, paper of record?
*Feminism In India [https://feminisminindia.com/], rough consensus for reliability in a September 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 352#Feminism in India]]</ref>
*''[[The Financial Express (India)]]'' [https://www.financialexpress.com/], English, described favorably in a broad discussion of Indian sources.<ref name= :"manyindia01" />
* ''[[The Hindu]]'' [https://www.thehindu.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 67#The Hindu|WP:RSN/Archive 67#The Hindu]]</ref><ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 305#The Hindu|WP:RSN/Archive 305#The Hindu]]</ref>
*''[[Hindustan Times]]'' [https://www.hindustantimes.com/], English, not much discussion but generally considered reliable by editors,<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 145#News rack: Is it a reliable source|WP:RSN/Archive 145#News rack: Is it a reliable source]]</ref>
* ''[[The Indian Express]]'' [https://indianexpress.com/][https://expressindia.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 248#General discussions|WP:RSN/Archive 248#General discussions]]</ref> Reaffirmed in a May 2020 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 293#RfC: The Indian Express|WP:RSN/Archive 293#RfC: The Indian Express]]</ref>
*''[[Kerala Kaumudi]]'', [https://keralakaumudi.com/news/mobile/], Malayalam paper of record?
*LiveMint [https://www.livemint.com/], reliable per an August 2020 RSN discussion, although it also republishes a lot of content including clearly-marked press releases.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 307#LiveMint - increasingly used in India. Reliability disputed|WP:RSN/Archive 307#LiveMint - increasingly used in India. Reliability disputed]]</ref>
*''[[Madhyamam]]'' [https://www.madhyamam.com/], Malayalam, generally considered reliable, but has some Muslim pro slant.
*''[[Malayala Manorama]]'' [https://www.manoramaonline.com/], Malayalam, paper of record.
*''[[Mangalam Publications]]'' [https://www.mangalam.com/] Malayalam, generally considered reliable
*''[[Mathrubhumi]]'' [https://www.mathrubhumi.com/], Malayalam, paper of record.
*[[The Milli Gazette]] [https://www.milligazette.com/], suggested in an RSN discussion as reliable for Indian Muslim news.<ref name = ":jamaat01"/>
*''[[Newslaundry]]'' [https://www.newslaundry.com/], a May 2020 RSN discussion was closed with a consensus for general reliability, although in some cases it may need attribution.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 296#Newslaundry on OpIndia|WP:RSN/Archive 296#Newslaundry on OpIndia]]</ref>
*''[[ThePrint]]'' [https://theprint.in/], rough consensus that it is reliable, while noting a left wing editorial slant.<ref name= :"manyindia01" />
*''[[Rajasthan Patrika]]'' [https://www.patrika.com/rajasthan-news/], described by one editor in an October 2020 RSN discussion as one of the more reliable Hindi papers.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 316#Rajasthan Patrika|WP:RSN/Archive 316#Rajasthan Patrika]]</ref>
*Sahapedia [https://www.sahapedia.org/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_390#Sahapedia]]</ref>
*''[[The Statesman (India)]]'' [https://www.thestatesman.com/], English, generally reliable
*[[SheThePeople]], [https://www.shethepeople.tv/], generally reliable per a September 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Shethepeople.TV]]</ref>
*''[[The Telegraph (India)]]'' [https://www.telegraphindia.com/], English, casually endorsed by an editor in a January 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 323#Nithyananda|WP:RSN/Archive 323#Nithyananda]]</ref>
*''[[The Wire (India)]]'' [https://thewire.in/], generally reliable per a March 2023 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_402#RfC:_The_Wire_(India)]]</ref> Previously asserted by editors to meet NEWSORG, while others were concerned that it should not be used for notability.<ref name= :"manyindia01" />


; No consensus
*123Telugu [https://www.123telugu.com/], no consensus in an October 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name="indiafilm01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 314#123 Telugu, Idlebrain, and FullHyderabad|WP:RSN/Archive 314#123 Telugu, Idlebrain, and FullHyderabad]]</ref>
* [[ABP News]] [https://www.abplive.com/], some editors consider it to be NEWSORG RS, others consider them to be biased to the point of unreliability.<ref name= :"manyindia01" />
*[[Asian News International]] [https://aninews.in/], no consensus in a March 2021 RfC, with many editors !voting for either 1 or 4 in the poll.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 331#RfC: Asian News International (ANI)|WP:RSN/Archive 331#RfC: Asian News International (ANI)]]</ref>
*[[Bollywood Hungama]] [https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/], one editor described them as sometimes reliable in a July 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301#Bollywood Hungama|WP:RSN/Archive 301#Bollywood Hungama]]</ref>
*East India Story [https://eastindiastory.com/], editors raised neutrality and reliability concerns in a June 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_442#East_India_Story]]</ref>
*''[[The Economic Times]]'' [https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/], English, no consensus in a September 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Economic Times Brand Equity]]</ref>
*FirstPost [https://www.firstpost.com/], no consensus in a January 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_424#Unreliable_sources?_FirstPost_/TimeNow]]</ref>
*FullHyderabad [https://www.fullhyderabad.com/], no consensus in an October 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name="indiafilm01" />
*Heritage Times ,[https://www.heritagetimes.in/] no consensus in an April 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_403#Heritage_Times_(India)]]</ref>
*Idlebrain [http://www.idlebrain.com/], no consensus in a small July 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_445#Reliablity_of_idlebrain.com_for_Telugu_cinema]]</ref> Previously no consensus in an October 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name="indiafilm01" />
*Indiaglitz [https://www.indiaglitz.com/] described by one editor in a September 2021 RSN discussion as usable for coverage of films.<ref name=:"sifyindiaglitz01 />
*''Jant Ka Reporter'' [http://www.jantakareporter.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 320#Janta Ka Reporter|WP:RSN/Archive 320#Janta Ka Reporter]]</ref>
*Myneta.info [https://myneta.info/] described as reliable with some caveats by one editor in a small October 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_453#Reliablity_of_Myneta.info]]</ref>
*''[[National Herald (India)]]'' [https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/], may be [[WP:NEWSORG]] but is also effectively a mouthpiece of the [[Indian National Congress]].<ref name= :"manyindia01" /><ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 286#National Herald|WP:RSN/Archive 286#National Herald]]</ref>
*[[NDTV]] [https://www.ndtv.com/], no consensus in an August 2021 RSN discussion that noted that it is a major Indian news publication.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 350#WP:NDTV]]</ref>
*''[[New Indian Express]]'' [https://www.newindianexpress.com/], briefly described by one editor as unreliable in a broad discussion of Indian sources.<ref name= :"manyindia01" />
*[[Newsclick]] [https://www.newsclick.in/], no consensus in an August 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_449#RfC:_NewsClick]]</ref>
*Orissapost.com [https://www.orissapost.com/], ok for non-controversial news reporting<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 268#Orissapost.com|WP:RSN/Archive 268#Orissapost.com]]</ref>
*[[Oneindia]] [https://www.oneindia.com/], no consensus in a February 2023 RSN discussion where one editor gave a detailed argument for unreliability.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_397#Oneindia_as_a_reliable_source]]</ref>
*[[The Pioneer (India)]], [https://www.dailypioneer.com/], no consensus in a November 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_389#Use_of_The_Pioneer_(India)_for_an_Indian_author's_Reception_section]]</ref>
*''[[The Quint]]'' [https://www.thequint.com/], 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.<ref name= :"manyindia01" />
*''Radiance Weekly'' [http://radianceweekly.in/], published by [[Jamaat-e-Islami]], likely not independent for most subjects where it would be relevant to cite it.<ref name = ":jamaat01"/>
*[[Scroll.in]] [https://scroll.in/], fails to distinguish news reporting and opinion, a poor source for controversial topics.<ref name= :"manyindia01" />
*Sify.com, [https://www.sify.com/] described by one editor in a September 2021 RSN discussion as usable for coverage of scifi/fantasy films.<ref name=:"sifyindiaglitz01>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 353#Sify.com and Indiaglitz]]</ref>
*''[[The Sunday Guardian]]'' [https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/], English, no consensus in a September 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 310#The Sunday Guardian|WP:RSN/Archive 310#The Sunday Guardian]]</ref>
*''Times of Assam'', [https://www.timesofassam.com/] a February 2022 RSN discussion noted a few reasons to be wary of the source but did not come to a firm consensus.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 368#Times of Assam]]</ref>
*''[[Times of India]]'' [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/], English, major Indian news publication with a pro-government slant, frequently includes rather promotional articles and interviews for individuals in the film industry.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 158#Times of India|WP:RSN/Archive 158#Times of India]]</ref> Most participants in a 2020 RfC considered its reliability to be unclear.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 285#Times of India RFC|WP:RSN/Archive 285#Times of India RFC]]</ref><ref name= ":1" />
*''[[Times Now]]'' [https://www.timesnownews.com/], compared by one editor to Fox News, denounced as unreliable by others.<ref name= :"manyindia01" />
*[[Zee News]] [https://zeenews.india.com/], some editors consider it to be NEWSORG RS, others consider them to be biased to the point of unreliability.<ref name= :"manyindia01" />

; Unreliable 
*Connexionblog [https://www.connexionblog.com/], consensus that it is an unreliable group blog in a small December 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#Connexionblog]]</ref>
*DailyO.in [https://www.dailyo.in/], primarily opinion pieces.<ref name= :"manyindia01" />
*e-pao.net [http://e-pao.net/], reliant on user-generated content per a small April 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_401#e-pao.net]]</ref>
*EastMojo [https://www.eastmojo.com], small consensus for unreliability in a December 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#EastMojo]]</ref>
*The Frustrated Indian, TFIpost <nowiki>https://tfipost.com/</nowiki>, Rightlog.in, described by one editor as a fringe source with no editorial policies.<ref name= :"manyindia01" /><ref name=":postcard01"/>
*Hindi 2News [https://hindi2news.com/], an April 2020 RSN discussion concluded that it is unusable per [[WP:COPYLINK]].<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 290#Is Hindi 2News a reliable source?|WP:RSN/Archive 290#Is Hindi 2News a reliable source?]]</ref>
*HinduPost [https://hindupost.in/], generally unreliable per a small February 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 366#Hindu Post Reliability]]</ref>
*Indiafacts [https://www.indiafacts.org.in/], small consensus for unreliability as an essentially fringe source in a December 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_391#Indiafacts]]</ref>
*Insistposthindi.in [http://insistposthindi.in/], possibly defunct, self-described marketing website.<ref name= :"manyindia01" />
*Live History India [https://www.livehistoryindia.com/], small consensus for unreliability in a September 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 313#Live History India|WP:RSN/Archive 313#Live History India]]</ref>
*''The Logical Indian'' [https://thelogicalindian.com/], news aggregator, consider citing the original piece if originally published in a reliable outlet.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 290#The Logical Indian for Jai Shri Ram|WP:RSN/Archive 290#The Logical Indian for Jai Shri Ram]]</ref>
*Masala! [https://www.masala.com/], small consensus for unreliability in a September 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 313#Masala!|WP:RSN/Archive 313#Masala!]]</ref>
*''[[Moneylife]]'' [https://moneylife.in/], an August 2021 RSN discussion, two editors raised concerns about the degree of editorial oversight, noting both factual and copyediting errors.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 350#RfC - Moneylife]]</ref>
*onefivenine.com considered a hobbyist site with numerous issues per January 2016 discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 236#onefivenine.com - broad consensus sought]]</ref>
*[[OpIndia]] described by an editor as a right-wing propaganda mill.<ref name= :"manyindia01" /> They also doxx people, including Wikipedia editors.<ref name= :"opindia01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288#OpIndia and Swarajya|WP:RSN/Archive 288#OpIndia and Swarajya]]</ref> It is currently blacklisted.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Postcard News]] [https://postcard.news/], possibly defunct, regarded as completely unreliable by several editors.<ref name= :"manyindia01" /><ref name=":postcard01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 292#postcard.news and tfipost.com|WP:RSN/Archive 292#postcard.news and tfipost.com]]</ref>
*''[[Republic TV]]'' [https://www.republicworld.com/], deprecated in an October 2021 RfC.<ref name=":1" />
*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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 311#Sarup & Sons|WP:RSN/Archive 311#Sarup & Sons]]</ref>
*''[[Swarajya (magazine)]]'', vast majority of editors in a 2020 discussion voted to deprecate it.<ref name= :"opindia01" /> It is currently blacklisted.<ref name=":1" />
*TimesNext, [https://timesnext.com/], described as overwhelmingly trading in sponsored content in a November 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_389#TimesNext_-_reliable?]]</ref>
*WION [https://www.wionews.com/], unreliable per a May 2024 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_437#RfC:_Reliability_of_WION]]</ref> Previously no consensus in an October 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 315#Is WION a reliable source?|WP:RSN/Archive 315#Is WION a reliable source?]]</ref>
*[[Youth Ki Awaaz]] [https://www.youthkiawaaz.com/], user generated content.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288#Youth Ki Awaaz|WP:RSN/Archive 288#Youth Ki Awaaz]]</ref>
*Yuva TV, a BJP internet TV channel and generally unreliable per a December 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 322#Yuva TV|WP:RSN/Archive 322#Yuva TV]]</ref>

====Indonesia====

; No consensus
*[[Tapol Bulletin]] [https://www.tapol.org/resources/bulletin], small consensus for reliability in a January 2021 RSN discussion, although some concerns of bias and advocacy were noted.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 323#Tapol bulletin|WP:RSN/Archive 323#Tapol bulletin]]</ref>

==== Iran ====

; Reliable
*''[[Encyclopaedia Iranica]]'' [https://www.iranicaonline.org/], generally reliable per an August 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 305#Encyclopædia Iranica|WP:RSN/Archive 305#Encyclopædia Iranica]]</ref> Reaffirmed in a February 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 368|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 368#Encyclopaedia Iranica RS?]]</ref>

; No consensus
*[[Fars News Agency]] [http://www.farsnews.ir/], state-backed, weak consensus that it can be used for statements of fact but unreliable for political affairs, according to a July 2014 discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 174#FARS News Agency (Iranian news source)|WP:RSN/Archive 174#FARS News Agency (Iranian news source)]]</ref>
*[[Iran International]] [https://www.iranintl.com/en], no consensus in an August 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_448#Iran_International_in_Iran_related_topics]]</ref> Previously no consensus in a 2020 RSN discussion that identified it as a Saudi-aligned publication. <ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_305#Arab_News_on_Iran_International]]</ref>
*Iranwire [https://iranwire.com/en/], reliable according to one editor in a small June 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_442#Iranwire]]</ref>
*[[Islamic Republic News Agency]] [https://www.irna.ir/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 332#Islamic Republic News Agency|WP:RSN/Archive 332#Islamic Republic News Agency]]</ref>
*[[Tasnim News Agency]] [https://www.tasnimnews.com/], no consensus in a March 2024 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_431#RfC:_Tasnim_News_Agency]]</ref>
*''[[Tehran Times]]'', [https://www.tehrantimes.com/] an April 2021 RSN discussion raised concerns about citogenesis related to this source.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 337#Possible citogenesis from the Tehran Times]]</ref>

; Unreliable
* [[Press TV]] [https://www.presstv.com/], owned by the government of Iran. Usable as a primary source for opinions and official lines from the Iranian government.<ref name=":1" />
*[[HispanTV]] [https://www.hispantv.com/], deprecated, Spanish language, republishes conspiracy theories and Iranian propaganda.<ref name=":1" />

====Iraq====

; No consensus
*Kurdistan Human Rights Network [https://kurdistanhumanrights.org/], may be usable with attribution<ref name="khrn" />

==== Israel/Palestine ====

; Reliable
*[[B'Tselem]] [https://www.btselem.org/], weak consensus for general reliability for their reporting, with several editors suggesting that they should be cited with attribution.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 296#Is B'Tselem a RS?|WP:RSN/Archive 296#Is B'Tselem a RS?]]</ref>
* ''[[Haaretz]]'' [https://www.haaretz.com/], reliable for news reporting.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Ynet]] [https://www.ynetnews.com/], rough consensus that it is a reliable [[WP:NEWSORG]] per an April 2024 RSN discussion.<ref name="ynet01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_432#Israeli based news sources]]</ref>

; No consensus
*[[+972 Magazine]] [https://www.972mag.com/], generally reliable per a July 2024 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_445#RfC:_+972_Magazine]]</ref> Previously no consensus in a March 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_431#+972_magazine]]</ref>
* Debka [https://www.debka.com], no consensus in a small April 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 337#Debka.com]]</ref>
*[[Middle East Media Research Institute]] (MEMRI) [https://www.memri.org/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 305#RfC: Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)|WP:RSN/Archive 305#RfC: Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)]]</ref>
*i24NEWS [https://www.i24news.tv], no consensus in an August 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_448#I24NEWS]]</ref>
*''[[The Jerusalem Post]]'' [https://www.jpost.com/], no consensus in an April 2024 RSN discussion.<ref name="ynet01" /> 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_414#"Special_Content"_in_The_Jerusalem_Post]]</ref>
*''[[Mondoweiss]]'' [https://mondoweiss.net/], English, largely reports on issues related to Israel/Palestine. Opinionated source backed by an advocacy group, statements should be attributed.<ref name=":1" />
*[[NRG360]] [https://www.makorrishon.co.il/nrg/], closed in 2018, no consensus on its reliability for I/P topics in a May 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 293#NRG360 - formerly nrg|WP:RSN/Archive 293#NRG360 - formerly nrg]]</ref>
*''Palestine Chronicle'' [https://www.palestinechronicle.com/], no consensus in an October 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_454#Palestine_Chronicle]]</ref>
*''[[The Times of Israel]]'' [https://www.timesofisrael.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_442#Stop_using_The_Times_of_Israel_as_a_source_for_Israel-Palestine_conflict_news.]]</ref> Previously no consensus in an April 2024 RSN discussion that described it as a reliable [[WP:NEWSORG]] with a patriotic bias,<ref name="ynet01" /> 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 192#Times of Israel|WP:RSN/Archive 192#Times of Israel]]</ref>
*[[Wafa]] [https://wafa.ps/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 315#Is Wafa.ps a RS?|WP:RSN/Archive 315#Is Wafa.ps a RS?]]</ref>


; Unreliable
* ''[[The Electronic Intifada]]'' [https://electronicintifada.net/], there is a consensus that EI does insufficient fact checking and error correction.<ref name=":1" />
*Israelunwired.com [https://www.israelunwired.com/], unreputable and possibly self-published per a 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 289#israelunwired.com|WP:RSN/Archive 289#israelunwired.com]]</ref>
*[[NGO Monitor]] [https://www.ngo-monitor.org/], 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.<ref name=":1" />

====Japan====

; Reliable
*''[[The Asahi Shimbun]]'' [https://www.asahi.com/], major Japanese newspaper per a June 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 345#Are Buzz Plus News and The Asahi Shimbun reliable source for a BLP]]</ref>
*''[[Japan Times]]'' [https://www.japantimes.co.jp/], English and Japanese, NEWSORG per a July 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_446#Reliability_of_The_Japan_Times?]]</ref> 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.<ref name= ":japan01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 285#Reliability for Japanese newspapers|WP:RSN/Archive 285#Reliability for Japanese newspapers]]</ref>
*[[NHK World-Japan]], [https://www.nhk.or.jp/] reliable as a major news organization per a March 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 334#Is NHK World-Japan reliable?|WP:RSN/Archive 334#Is NHK World-Japan reliable?]]</ref> Discussion reaffirmed in a November 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_390#Add_NHK_World-Japan]]</ref>
*''Nikkei'' [https://nikkei.com/], reliable but shy of controversial stories per an August 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 306#Nikkei|WP:RSN/Archive 306#Nikkei]]</ref>

; No consensus
*Chara Biz [https://www.charabiz.com/], editors in a November 2022 RSN discussion agreed that it is a major industry publication, and produces both reliable analysis and republished press releases.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_390#Chara_Biz.com]]</ref>
*''Japan Forward'' [https://japan-forward.com/], not an RS for history/politics per a September 2024 RSN discussion. Editors opined that it may be usable for non-controversial topics.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_452#Japan_Forward]]</ref>

====Kazakhstan====

; No consensus
*''The Astana Times'' [https://astanatimes.com/], described as not independent of the Kazakhstan government in an October 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name="kazakh01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 315#Kazakh-government funded outlets|WP:RSN/Archive 315#Kazakh-government funded outlets]]</ref>
*Edge.kz [http://edge.kz/], possibly defunct, described as not independent of the Kazakhstan government in an October 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name="kazakh01" />
*EU Reporter [https://www.eureporter.co/], described as not independent of the Kazakhstan government in an October 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name="kazakh01" />


====Lebanon====
;No consensus
*[[Al Akhbar (Lebanon)|''Al Akhbar'']], [https://al-akhbar.com] no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion.<ref name="akhbar asharq01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 339#Reports in Al Akhbar and Asharq Al-Awsat for an alleged Israeli massacre]]</ref>
*''Tahawolat, [http://www.tahawolat.net/], no consensus in a March 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_430#Tahawolat]]</ref>

;Unreliable
*[[Al-Mayadeen]] [https://english.almayadeen.net] [https://almayadeen.net], generally unreliable per a small November 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_420#Al-Mayadeen]]</ref>

====Malaysia====

; No consensus
*newsarawaktribune.com.my [https://www.newsarawaktribune.com.my/], no consensus in an October 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 316#newsarawaktribune.com.my|WP:RSN/Archive 316#newsarawaktribune.com.my]]</ref>
[[The Sun (Malaysia)|''The Sun'']], [https://www.thesundaily.my/], no consensus in a small January 2023 discussion. Previously consensus leaned towards generally unreliable in a June 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 342#The Sun (Malaysia)]]</ref>

;Unreliable

====Mongolia====
;Reliable
*Монголын Туухын Тайлбар Толь <small>Dictionary of Mongolian History</small> [https://mongoltoli.mn/history/], small consensus for reliability for noncontroversial historical details in a November 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_421#Would_https://mongoltoli.mn/history/_be_a_sufficient_source_for_info_on_mongolian_history?]]</ref>

;No consensus
*Mongoltoli.mn [https://mongoltoli.mn/], described by one editor as a reliable, Mongolian government-endorsed source for Mongolian history in a February 2024 RSN discussion.<ref name="mongolflag0224">[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_429#Two_sources_on_Mongol_Flags_that_I_need_confirmation_for]]</ref>

====Myanmar====
;No consensus
*[[Justice for Myanmar]] [https://www.justiceformyanmar.org/], usable for non-controversial statements per a June 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#Justice_for_Myanmar]]</ref>

====Nepal====

; No consensus
* ''Kathmandu Tribune'' [https://www.kathmandutribune.com/], no consensus, editors raised concerns about paid content and syndicated content from ''[[Xinhua]]''.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 266#Is Kathmandu Tribune a Reliable Source|WP:RSN/Archive 266#Is Kathmandu Tribune a Reliable Source]]</ref>

====North Korea====
; No consensus
*''Daily NK'', [https://www.dailynk.com/] no consensus in a February 2022 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 368#RfC Daily NK]]</ref>

====Pakistan====

; Reliable
*''[[Dawn (newspaper)]]'' [https://www.dawn.com/], leading Pakistani newspaper.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 57#Pakistani and Iranian media, and Cageprisoners|WP:RSN/Archive 57#Pakistani and Iranian media, and Cageprisoners]]</ref><ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 236#Are Indian news outlets "always" RS about Pakistani weapons|WP:RSN/Archive 236#Are Indian news outlets "always" RS about Pakistani weapons]]</ref><ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_418#Dawn_newspaper]]</ref>

;No consensus

*''[[The Express Tribune]]'' [https://tribune.com.pk], a December 2023 RSN discussion noted that it is a major [[WP:NEWSORG]], but also apparently runs sponsored content without proper disclosure.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_423#The_Express_Tribune]]</ref>
*FactFocus [https://factfocus.com/], no consensus in an April 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_433#Factfocus.com]]</ref>
*[[Geo TV]], [https://harpalgeo.tv/] no firm consensus but leaning towards reliable in a May 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 339#Questions regarding Geo TV / Geo News (geo.tv)]]</ref>
*Global Village Space [https://www.globalvillagespace.com/], no consensus in an April 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_435#Global_Village_Space]]</ref>
*Hipinpakistan [https://www.hipinpakistan.com/], no consensus in a November 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_389#Hip_in_Pakistan]]</ref>
*[[MM News]], [https://mmnews.tv/] cautiously positively appraised by one editor in a July 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_379#MM_News]]</ref>
*Propakistani.pk [https://propakistani.pk/], a small June 2024 RSN discussion discussion leaned towards unreliability,<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_442#ProPakistani.pk,_again]]</ref> no consensus in a March 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_432#ProPakistani.pk]]</ref>

; Unreliable
*[[BOL News]] [https://www.bolnews.com/], rough consensus for unreliability in a May 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_440#BOL_News]]</ref>
*Dispatch News Desk (DND) [https://dnd.com.pk/], a few editors expressed doubts that DND is reliable in an August 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 306#DND|WP:RSN/Archive 306#DND]]</ref>
*Pakistan Frontier [https://pakistanfrontier.com/], unreliable per a June 2024 RSN discussion. <ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_443#"Pakistan_Frontier"]]</ref>
*Pakmag.net [http://pakmag.net/], one-man blog per a small July 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_445#pakmag.net]]</ref>

====The Philippines====
; Reliable
*''Tempo'', [https://www.tempo.com.ph/], described as one of the better tabloids in the Philippines in an October 2022 RSN discussion.<ref name="philsources01" />
; No consensus
*''Adobo Magazine'' [https://www.adobomagazine.com/], no consensus in a February 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_426#adobo magazine]]</ref>
*''[[Daily Tribune (Philippines)|The Daily Tribune]]'' [https://tribune.net.ph/], [[WP:NEWSORG]] per one editor in a June 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_442#Daily_Tribune]]</ref>
*''[[Pilipino Mirror]]'', [https://pilipinomirror.com/] disparaged in an October 2022 RSN discussion that did not reach firm consensus.<ref name="philsources01" />
; Unreliable
*''[[Hataw!]]'', [https://hatawtabloid.com] disparaged in an October 2022 RSN discussion that did not reach firm consensus. Editors noted libel cases and dubious advertising practices.<ref name="philsources01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_387#Reliability_of_Filipino_tabloids:_Hataw!_and_Pilipino_Mirror]]</ref>
*LionhearTV [https://www.lionheartv.net/], no consensus in an October 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_452#LionhearTV]]</ref>
*''PinoyParazzi'', [https://www.pinoyparazzi.net] described as unreliable in an October 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_387#PinoyParazzi]]</ref>

====Saudi Arabia====
; Reliable
*''[[Asharq News]]'' [https://asharq.com/en/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_402#Asharq_News]]</ref>
; No consensus
*[[Al Arabiya]] [https://www.alarabiya.net/], no consensus in a February 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_428#Al_Arabiya]]</ref> Previously no consensus in an October 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_418#Al_Arabiya]]</ref>
*''[[Arab News]]'' [https://www.arabnews.com/], an April 2020 RfC was closed as "maybe reliable" with concerns raised about its connections to the Saudi government.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 289#Rfc: Arab news is a reliable source?|WP:RSN/Archive 289#Rfc: Arab news is a reliable source?]]</ref>

====Singapore====

; No consensus
*''[[Straits Times]]'' [https://www.straitstimes.com/], major newspaper in Singapore but further concerns persist regarding its ability to cover Singaporean news topics.<ref name=":1" />

; Unreliable
*''Vulcan Post'' [https://vulcanpost.com/], promotional outlet per a February 2024 RSN discussion. May be reliable for uncontroversial factual information.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_429#Vulcan_Post]]</ref>

====South Korea====
{{main|Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources}}

; Reliable
*[[Maeil Business Newspaper]] [https://www.mk.co.kr/], one editor in a September 2024 RSN discussion identified it as a major [[WP:NEWSORG]].<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_450#RfC_Maeil_Business_Newspaper]]</ref>
*[[Naver]] [https://www.naver.com/]
*Newsen [https://newsen.com/]

; No consensus
*[[The Chosun Ilbo]] [https://chosun.com/], major newsorg but has had reliability controversies. No consensus in a small December 2023 discussion about its North Korea coverage.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#Is_chosun.com_a_reliable_source_for_articles_about_North_Korea?]]</ref>
*''The Honey Pop'' [https://thehoneypop.com/], no consensus in an October 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_454#Is_The_Honey_Pop_a_reliable_source?]]</ref>

====Sri Lanka====

; No consensus
*''Colombo Page'' [http://www.colombopage.com/], largely reprints material from other sources per a September 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 311#Colombo Page|WP:RSN/Archive 311#Colombo Page]]</ref>

; Unreliable
* amazinglanka.com [https://amazinglanka.com/wp/], unreliable per a small December 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#amazinglanka.com]]</ref>

====Syria====

; Reliable
*''[[Al-Masdar News]]'' [https://www.almasdarnews.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 286#Al Masdar news|WP:RSN/Archive 286#Al Masdar news]]</ref>

; No consensus
*ARA News [http://aranews.org/][http://aranews.net/], defunct, accused of unreliability and having a bias, insufficient discussion for consensus.<ref name="kurd2">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 274#Sources used in Rojava and related articles|WP:RSN/Archive 274#Sources used in Rojava and related articles]]</ref>
*ANF News [https://anfenglish.com/][https://anfenglishmobile.com/], accused of unreliability having a bias, insufficient discussion for consensus.<ref name="kurd2" />
*Hawar News [http://www.hawarnews.com/], accused of unreliability and having a bias, insufficient discussion for consensus.<ref name="kurd2" />
*Kurdistan24 [https://www.kurdistan24.net/], no consensus in a July 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 347#Kurdistan24]]</ref> Previously no consensus in a discussion where it was accused of unreliability and having a bias, insufficient discussion for consensus.<ref name="kurd2" />
*Kurdistan Human Rights Network [https://kurdistanhumanrights.org/], insufficient discussion for consensus<ref name="khrn" />
*KurdWatch [https://ezks.org/], no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion, editors suggested that it has an anti-YPG bias.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 324#KurdWatch|WP:RSN/Archive 324#KurdWatch]]</ref>
*New Compass [http://new-compass.net/], accused of unreliability having a bias, insufficient discussion for consensus.<ref name="kurd2" />

====Taiwan====

; Reliable
*[[Eastern Broadcasting Company]] <small>(ETToday, ETTV, ettoday.net)</small> [http://www.ebc.net.tw/][https://www.ettoday.net/], a June 2020 RSN discussion had a consensus for reliability per [[WP:NEWSORG]].<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 298#ettoday.net|WP:RSN/Archive 298#ettoday.net]]</ref>
*[[Taiwan News]] [https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/], a February 2021 RfC was split between generally reliable and marginally reliable.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 329#RfC: Taiwan News|WP:RSN/Archive 329#RfC: Taiwan News]]</ref> Previously, there was a small consensus for reliability in a December 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 320#Taiwan News|WP:RSN/Archive 320#Taiwan News]]</ref><ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 298#Taiwan News Online|WP:RSN/Archive 298#Taiwan News Online]]</ref>

; Unreliable
*Peopo.org [https://peopo.org/], may be defunct, a May 2020 RfC considered this to be a self-published citizen journalism source.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 293#RfC: PeoPo.org|WP:RSN/Archive 293#RfC: PeoPo.org]]</ref>

====Thailand====
;Unreliable
*[[The Thaiger]] [https://thethaiger.com], small consensus for unreliability in a November 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_419#The_Thaiger]]</ref>

====Turkey====

; No consensus
*''[[A Haber]]'', [https://www.ahaber.com.tr/] no consensus in a June 2021 RSN discussion which raised concerns about disinformation.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 344#Is "A Haber" a reliable source?]]</ref>
*[[Ahval]] [https://ahvalnews.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 321#Ahval|WP:RSN/Archive 321#Ahval]]</ref>
*Aydınlık [https://www.aydinlik.com.tr/], disparaged as tabloidy in a May 2021 RSN discussion.<ref name=":turknews021" />
*Demokrat Haber [https://www.demokrathaber.org/], no consensus in an August 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_411#Democrat_News/Demokrat_Haber_(Turkish)]]</ref>
*Hürseda Haber [https://hurseda.net], no consensus in a February 2023 RSN discussion where one editor claimed the publication is propaganda outlet for [[Free Cause Party]].<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_397#Hürseda_Haber]]</ref>
*Kurdistan Human Rights Network [https://kurdistanhumanrights.org/], may be usable with attribution<ref name="khrn">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 271#Kurdish Press|WP:RSN/Archive 271#Kurdish Press]]</ref>
*İnternethaber [https://www.internethaber.com/], disparaged as tabloidy in a May 2021 RSN discussion.<ref name=":turknews021">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 340#Turkish News Sites]]</ref>
*[[TRT World]] [https://www.trtworld.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 267#RfC: TRT World|WP:RSN/Archive 267#RfC: TRT World]]</ref>
*Yeniçağ [https://www.yenicaggazetesi.com.tr], disparaged as tabloidy in a May 2021 RSN discussion.<ref name=":turknews021" />

;Unreliable
*[[Anadolu Agency]] [https://www.aa.com.tr/]<ref name=":1"/>
*''[[Daily Sabah]]'' [https://www.dailysabah.com/] unreliable per a December 2020 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_321#RfC:_Daily_Sabah]]</ref>
*Onedio.com [https://onedio.com/], small consensus for unreliability in a November 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_420#Onedio.com]]</ref>

====United Arab Emirates====
;No consensus
*''[[Gulf News]]'' [https://gulfnews.com/], 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.<ref name="gulf0526">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 341#UAE news outlets: Gulf News and thenationalnews.com]]</ref>
*''The National News'' [https://thenationalnews.com], no consensus in a September 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_413#The_National_(Emirati_news_outlet)]]</ref> 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.<ref name="gulf0526" />

;Unreliable
*''The Arabian Post'' [https://thearabianpost.com/], AI-driven content farm per a small May 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_437#Iazzzi:_thearabianpost.com/ipanewspack.com]]</ref>

====Vietnam====

; No consensus
*Thanh Nien, [https://thanhnien.vn/] no consensus in a January 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 363#Is Thanh Nien reliable?]]</ref>
*VietnamNet.vn [https://vietnamnet.vn/], government outlet in a low press freedom country per a December 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 322#Talk: 2020 Pacific typhoon season#Linfa split-RS concerns if death toll is 148|WP:RSN/Archive 322#Talk: 2020 Pacific typhoon season#Linfa split-RS concerns if death toll is 148]]</ref>

===Europe===

====Albania====

; 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 290#Edwin E. Jacques|WP:RSN/Archive 290#Edwin E. Jacques]]</ref>

====Bulgaria====
; No consensus
*Novinite [https://www.novinite.com/], 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. <ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 448#Novinite]]</ref>

====Croatia====

; No consensus
*HKV.hr [https://www.hkv.hr/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 298#HKV.hr|WP:RSN/Archive 298#HKV.hr]]</ref>

====Czech Republic====

; Reliable
* ''[[Hospodářské noviny]]'' [https://ihned.cz/], major Czech newspaper.<ref name=":mlada fronta">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 268#Post-Velvet Revolution Mladá fronta DNES|WP:RSN/Archive 268#Post-Velvet Revolution Mladá fronta DNES]]</ref>
*''[[Lidové noviny]]'' [https://www.lidovky.cz/], major Czech newspaper<ref name=":mlada fronta" />
*''[[Mladá fronta DNES]]'' (iDNES.cz) [https://www.idnes.cz/], generally reliable as a major newspaper, note that it is owned by current PM [[Andrej Babiš]]' company [[Agrofert]], and may not be reliable for controversial political topics. Note that it shares a name with a socialist-era newspaper, but has no connection to it.<ref name=":mlada fronta" />
*''[[Právo]]'' [https://www.pravo.cz/], major Czech newspaper.<ref name=":mlada fronta" />

; No consensus
*''[[Haló noviny]]'' [http://www.halonoviny.cz/], newspaper of the Communist Party.<ref name=":mlada fronta" />

; Unreliable
*Aeronet (aka AE News) [https://aeronet.cz/news/], described by an editor as "fake news" with respect to its coverage of Czech politics.<ref name=":mlada fronta" />
*[[Aha! (tabloid)]] [https://www.ahaonline.cz/], described as a tabloid, unfavorably compared to other Czech sources.<ref name=":mlada fronta" />
*''[[Blesk]]'' [https://www.blesk.cz/], described as a tabloid, unfavorably compared to other Czech sources.<ref name=":mlada fronta" />
*''Parlamentní listy'' [https://www.parlamentnilisty.cz/], described by editors as "horseshit" and "fake news" with respect to its coverage of Czech politics.<ref name=":mlada fronta" />
*''Super'' [https://www.super.cz/], defunct, described as a tabloid, unfavorably compared to other Czech sources.<ref name=":mlada fronta" />

====Finland====

; No consensus
* GB Times [https://gbtimes.com/], probably defunct. Insufficient RSN discussion, one editor expressed concern that they might be a PR mill.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 236#GB Times (gbtimes.com)|WP:RSN/Archive 236#GB Times (gbtimes.com)]]</ref>

====France====

; Reliable
*[[Agence France-Presse]] (AFP) [https://www.afp.com/], several languages, reliable international news agency per a May 2020 RSN discussion. Note that it does also publish clearly-marked sponsored content.<ref name=":afp01"/>
*''[[Le Monde diplomatique]]'' [https://mondediplo.com/][https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/], generally reliable.<ref name=":1" />

==== Germany ====

; Reliable
* [[ARD (broadcaster)]] [https://www.ard.de/], major, reputable German public broadcaster per an August 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_448#Reliability_of_ARD_Documentary]]</ref>
* ''[[Der Spiegel]]'' [https://www.spiegel.de/], generally reliable. Articles written by [[Claas Relotius]] are generally unreliable as this particular journalist has been found to fabricate articles.<ref name=":1" />
* [[Deutsche Welle]] [https://dw.com/], German state-owned international broadcaster.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung]]'' (FAZ) [https://www.faz.net/aktuell/], minimal discussion in a 2019 RSN discussion was unanimous that ''FAZ'' is generally reliable. Compared to the [[Wall Street Journal]].<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 278#FAZ|WP:RSN/Archive 278#FAZ]]</ref>
*[[Historisches Lexikon Bayerns]], [https://www.historisches-lexikon-bayerns.de/Lexikon/Startseite?title=Hauptseite] consensus in a small September 2021 RSN discussion that it has sufficient editorial oversight, despite also crowdsourcing some contributions.[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 353#Historisches Lexikon Bayerns]]
*''Schleswig-Holsteinischer Zeitungsverlag'' [https://www.shz.de/], generally reliable [[WP:NEWSORG]] per a March 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_401#Schleswig-Holsteinischer_Zeitungsverlag]]</ref>

; No consensus
*[[Focus (German magazine)|''Focus'']] [https://www.focus.de/], no consensus in a small March 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_400#Focus_(German_magazine)]]</ref>
*''[[Die Tageszeitung]]'' [https://taz.de/], insufficient discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 278#Die Welt|WP:RSN/Archive 278#Die Welt]]</ref>
*''[[Die Welt]]'' [https://www.welt.de/], insufficient discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 278#Die Welt|WP:RSN/Archive 278#Die Welt]]</ref>
*''[[Neues Deutschland]]'' [https://www.neues-deutschland.de/], insufficient discussion, but placed in the same category as Bild (unreliable) by editor.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 278#Die Welt|WP:RSN/Archive 278#Die Welt]]</ref>

; Unreliable
* ''[[Bild]]'' [https://www.bild.de/], tabloid paper. Compared to [[The Sun (UK)]]<ref name=":1" />

====Greece====


; No consensus
* ''[[Kathimerini]]'' [https://www.ekathimerini.com/][https://www.kathimerini.gr/], no consensus in a November 2020 RSN discussion. Editors noted that it has a conservative political bias.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 317#Is Kathimerini reliable on this page?|WP:RSN/Archive 317#Is Kathimerini reliable on this page?]]</ref>
*[[Proto Thema]] [https://www.protothema.gr/], disparaged by one editor in a November 2021 RSN discussion that did not draw broader participation.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 360#ProtoThema]]</ref>

; Unreliable
* ''Greek City Times'' [https://greekcitytimes.com/], unreliable due to a lack of a reputation for fact-checking and connections to neo-nazi groups per a July 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 347#American Journal of Health Behavior]]</ref> Previously discussed in November 2020 with a similar outcome.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 320#greekcitytimes.com|WP:RSN/Archive 320#greekcitytimes.com]]</ref>

====Ireland====

; Reliable
*''[[Irish Times]]'' [https://www.irishtimes.com/], standard [[WP:NEWSORG]] per a January 2021 RSN discussion.<ref name="ireland01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 323#Irish Times and Irish Examiner|WP:RSN/Archive 323#Irish Times and Irish Examiner]]</ref>
*''[[Irish Examiner]]'' [https://www.irishexaminer.com/], standard [[WP:NEWSORG]] per a January 2021 RSN discussion.<ref name="ireland01" />
* [[RTÉ]] [https://www.rte.ie/], [[WP:NEWSORG]] per a July 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_409#RfC:_Should_RTÉ_(Raidió_Teilifís_Éireann)_be_considered_to_be_a_generally_reliable_source?]]</ref>

;No consensus
*''The Beacon'', [https://the-beacon.ie/], no consensus in a June 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 345#Is the Beacon a reliable source for Irish/international news and/or current affairs?]]</ref>
*''[[The Ditch (website)|The Ditch]]'' [https://www.ontheditch.com/], no consensus in a small April 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_401#Is_The_Ditch_a_reliable_source_for_political_news?]]</ref>

; Unreliable
*''[[An Phoblacht]]'' [https://anphoblacht.com/], usable only for [[WP:ABOUTSELF]] cases for Sinn Feinn and maybe the IRA per a July 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 299#RfC: An Phoblacht|WP:RSN/Archive 299#RfC: An Phoblacht]]</ref>
*Gript Media [https://gript.ie/], opinion publication, a January 2021 RSN discussion had a rough consensus that it is not usable for factual claims.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 325#Is Gript Media a reliable source for Irish/international news and/or current affairs?|WP:RSN/Archive 325#Is Gript Media a reliable source for Irish/international news and/or current affairs?]]</ref>

====Italy====
;No consensus
*''[[Milano Finanza]]'' [https://www.milanofinanza.it], reliable [[WP:NEWSORG]] per one editor in an April 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_401#Milano_Finanza]]</ref>

;Unreliable
*[[Libero (newspaper)]] [https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/], unreliable tabloid per a small November 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_419#Is_Libero_(newspaper)_a_reliable_source?]]</ref>

====Latvia====

; Reliable
*[[Meduza]] [https://meduza.io/], described as generally reliable in a January 2023 RSN discussion.<ref name=":meduza02">[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_396#Meduza_and]]</ref> Previously briefly described as reliable in a June 2020 RSN discussion but did not receive sufficient discussion for consensus.<ref name=":rbc01" />

====Malta====
; Reliable
*''[[Malta Today]]'' [https://www.maltatoday.com.mt/], small consensus for reliability in a December 2022 RSN discussion.<ref name=":malta01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_393#Malta_Today_and_The_Malta_Independent]]</ref>
*''[[The Malta Independent]]'' [https://maltaindependent.pressreader.com], small consensus for reliability in a December 2022 RSN discussion.<ref name=":malta01" />

==== The Netherlands ====

; No consensus
*''[[NRC Handelsblad]]'' [https://www.nrc.nl/], described as one editor as {{tq|considered at least mostly reliable}}.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 285#nrc.nl|WP:RSN/Archive 285#nrc.nl]]</ref>

====Poland====
;Reliable
*''Gazeta.pl'', [https://gazeta.pl], consensus for reliability in an October 2021 RfC.<ref name="polishrfc01" /> 
*''[[Gazeta Wyborcza]]'' [https://wyborcza.pl/], consensus for general reliability in a February 2021 RSN discussion.<ref name=":1" />
*[[OKO.press]] [https://oko.press/], reliable per a March 2024 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_432#oko_press_Poland-_propaganda_can_be_reliable_source?]]</ref> Previously no consensus in an October 2021 RfC,<ref name="polishrfc01" /> no consensus in a February 2021 RSN discussion.<ref name=":gazetawyborcza01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 329#Gazeta Wyborcza and OKO.press|WP:RSN/Archive 329#Gazeta Wyborcza and OKO.press]]</ref>
*''[[Polityka]]'', [https://www.polityka.pl/], consensus for reliability in an October 2021 RfC.<ref name="polishrfc01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 355#RfC: Polish sources]]</ref>
*Trojmiasto.pl, [https://www.trojmiasto.pl/], small consensus in a November 2022 RSN discussion that it is reliable for local news.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_389#Trójmiasto.pl]]</ref>

;No consensus
*NaTemat [https://natemat.pl/], consensus that it is a tabloid and should not be used for controversial topics.<ref name="polishrfc01" /> 

*[[Polskie Radio]], [http://prsa.com.pl/] state run media, no consensus in an October 2021 RfC.<ref name="polishrfc01" /> Previously no consensus in a February 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 329#Polskie Radio|WP:RSN/Archive 329#Polskie Radio]]</ref>
*[[Telewizja Polska]], [https://www.tvp.pl/] no consensus in an October 2021 RfC.<ref name="polishrfc01" /> Previously no consensus in a February 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 329#Telewizja Polska|WP:RSN/Archive 329#Telewizja Polska]]</ref>

;Unreliable

*''[[Do Rzeczy]]'' [https://dorzeczy.pl/], rough consensus for unreliability in an October 2021 RfC,<ref name="polishrfc01" /> previously no consensus in a February 2021 RSN discussion, with a majority of editors arguing that it was unreliable.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 328#Do Rzeczy|WP:RSN/Archive 328#Do Rzeczy]]</ref>
*''[[Gazeta Polska]]'' [https://www.gazetapolska.pl/], unreliable per an October 2021 RfC,<ref name="polishrfc01" /> previously no consensus in a February 2021 RSN discussion with a majority of editors arguing that it was unreliable.<ref name="gazetapolska01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 328#Gazeta Polska & TV Republika|WP:RSN/Archive 328#Gazeta Polska & TV Republika]]</ref>
*''[[Najwyższy Czas!]]'' [https://nczas.com/?a=english], unreliable far-right fringe site per a February 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 328#Najwyższy Czas!|WP:RSN/Archive 328#Najwyższy Czas!]]</ref>
*''[[Nasz Dziennik]]'', [https://naszdziennik.pl/] unreliable per a February 2021 RSN discussion.<ref name="rydzyk01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 328#Rydzyk's media empire|WP:RSN/Archive 328#Rydzyk's media empire]]</ref>
*niezalezna.pl [https://niezalezna.pl], unreliable per an October 2021 RfC,<ref name="polishrfc01" /> previously no consensus in a February 2021 RSN discussion, with a majority of editors arguing that it was unreliable.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 328#niezalezna.pl|WP:RSN/Archive 328#niezalezna.pl]]</ref>
* [[Radio Maryja]] [https://www.radiomaryja.pl/], unreliable per a February 2021 RSN discussion.<ref name="rydzyk01" />
*''[[Sieci]]'' ([https://www.wsieciprawdy.pl/], [https://wNas.pl], [https://wGospodarce.pl], [https://wSumie.pl], [https://stefczyk.info], [https://gazetabankowa.pl], [https://tygodnikpodlaski.pl]), rough consensus for unreliable in a February 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 328#Sieci & wpolityce.pl & associated portals|WP:RSN/Archive 328#Sieci & wpolityce.pl & associated portals]]</ref>
*TV Republika [https://tvrepublika.pl/], unreliable per an October 2021 RfC,<ref name="polishrfc01" /> previously no consensus in a February 2021 RSN discussion with a majority of editors arguing that it was unreliable.<ref name="gazetapolska01" />
*[[TV Trwam]] [https://www.tv-trwam.pl/] unreliable per a February 2021 RSN discussion.<ref name="rydzyk01" />

==== Russia ====

; Reliable
*[[Kommersant]] [https://www.kommersant.ru/]<ref name=":1" />
*[[Meduza]] [https://meduza.io/], described as generally reliable in a January 2023 RSN discussion.<ref name=":meduza02" /> Previously briefly described as reliable in a June 2020 RSN discussion but did not receive sufficient discussion for consensus.<ref name=":rbc01" />
*[[Novaya Gazeta]] [https://novayagazeta.ru/], small consensus for reliability in a February 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_396#Novayagazeta,_noob_question]]</ref> Previously briefly described as reliable in a June 2020 RSN discussion but did not receive sufficient discussion.<ref name=":rbc01" />

; No consensus
*Donbass Today [donbasstoday.ru], no consensus in a September 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_414#donbasstoday.ru]]</ref>
*[[Great Russian Encyclopedia]] [https://bigenc.ru], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#Great_Russian_Encyclopedia_Online]]</ref>
*[[RBK Group]]<small> (rbc.ru, rbc.ua, RBC Group, RosBiznessConsulting)</small> [https://www.rbc.ru/][https://www.rbc.ua/], no consensus in a June 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name=":rbc01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 298#Rbc.ru and rbc.ua|WP:RSN/Archive 298#Rbc.ru and rbc.ua]]</ref>
*Reframing Russia [https://reframingrussia.com/], British university research project, no consensus in a December 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 322#Reframing Russia about East StratCom Task Force|WP:RSN/Archive 322#Reframing Russia about East StratCom Task Force]]</ref>
* [[RIA Novosti]] [https://ria.ru/], 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.<ref name=":1" />

; Unreliable
*[[ANNA News]], [https://anna-news.info/], deprecated in a March 2022 RfC.<ref name=":1" />
*hrvc.net <small>(Human rights violations Chechnya)</small> [http://hrvc.net/], possibly defunct, described as self-published by one editor at RSN in May 2020.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 293#Hrvc.net|WP:RSN/Archive 293#Hrvc.net]]</ref>
*[[Life.ru]] [https://life.ru/], pro-Kremlin propaganda per a June 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_407#Is_Life.ru_reliable?]]</ref>
*peoples.ru [https://www.peoples.ru/]<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 272#Russian websites gimn1567.ru , elib.biblioatom.ru , www.famhist.ru, and www.peoples.ru|WP:RSN/Archive 272#Russian websites gimn1567.ru , elib.biblioatom.ru , www.famhist.ru, and www.peoples.ru]]</ref>
*proza.ru [https://proza.ru/], self-publishing platform per a March 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_399#proza.ru]]</ref>
*''[[The Siberian Times]]'' [https://siberiantimes.com/], editors in a 2020 RSN discussion came to a consensus that it is not a reliable source.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 298#The Siberian Times|WP:RSN/Archive 298#The Siberian Times]]</ref>
*''South Front'', described as a Russian government-backed disinformation site.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 286#South Front|WP:RSN/Archive 286#South Front]]</ref><ref name=":1" />
*''[[Vzglyad (newspaper)|Vzglyad]]'' [https://vz.ru/], Russian state propaganda outlet per a May 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 338#Vzglyad (newspaper)]]</ref>
*[[TASS]] <small>(ТАСС, ITAR-TASS, Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union)</small> [https://tass.com/], In a 2022 RfC, editors achieved a strong consensus that TASS is a [[Wikipedia:BIASED|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 [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 260#RfC:%20TASS|2019 RfC]] had concluded that reliability is unclear or additional considerations apply.<ref name=":1" />

====Sweden====

;Unreliable
*Nordic Times [https://nordictimes.com/], small consensus that it is an unreliable far-right publication in a September 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_450#The_Nordic_Times]]</ref>

==== Switzerland ====

; Reliable
*''[[Neue Zürcher Zeitung]]'' [https://www.nzz.ch/], minimal discussion in a 2019 RSN discussion was unanimous that ''NZZ'' is generally reliable.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 278#NZZ as generally reliable|WP:RSN/Archive 278#NZZ as generally reliable]]</ref>

====Ukraine====
;Reliable
*''[[Ukrainska Pravda]]'' [https://www.pravda.com.ua/], described as a reliable Ukrainian news org in a March 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 369#Ukrainian Pravda (Ukrainska Pravda)]]</ref>
* ''[[Zaborona]]'' [https://zaborona.com/], described as reliable enough to establish notability in a July 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_379#Zaborona]]</ref>

; No consensus
*''[[Euromaidan Press]]'', [https://euromaidanpress.com/] no consensus in a June 2022 discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_376#Reliability_of_Euromaidan_Press]]</ref>
*[[RBK Group]]<small> (rbc.ru, rbc.ua, RBC Group, RosBiznessConsulting)</small> [https://www.rbc.ru/][https://www.rbc.ua/], no consensus in a June 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name=":rbc01" />
*UNIAN.ua [https://www.unian.ua/], described as relatively reliable for reporting on topics other than Ukraine–Russia relations in a January 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 323#Ukrainian sources|WP:RSN/Archive 323#Ukrainian sources]]</ref>
*''[[Kyiv Post]]'' [https://www.kyivpost.com/], 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.<ref name="kyiv2022">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 368#The Kyiv Independent]]</ref>
*''[[Kyiv Independent]]'' [https://kyivindependent.com/], no consensus in a March 2022 RSN discussion.<ref name = "kyiv2022" />

; Unreliable
*[[112 Ukraine]], 112.ua [http://112.ua/][http://112.international/]<ref name=":1" />
*Militarnyi [http://mil.in.ua], unreliable per a September 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_414#Militarnyi_(mil.in.ua)]]</ref>

==== United Kingdom ====

; Reliable
* [[BBC]] [https://www.bbc.com/][https://www.bbc.co.uk/], reliable<ref name=":1" />
*''Byline Times'' [https://bylinetimes.com/], weak consensus for reliability in a January 2022 RSN discussion. Previously, no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 338#Byline Times (bylinetimes.com, NOT byline.com)]]</ref>, no consensus in an October 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 316#Byline Times|WP:RSN/Archive 316#Byline Times]]</ref>
*''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/], generally reliable, except no consensus for its coverage of transgender topics.<ref name=":1" />
*[[The Economist|''The Economist'']] [https://www.economist.com/], reliable<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Financial Times]]'' [https://www.ft.com/], reliable,<ref name=":1" />
*''[[The Guardian]]'' [https://www.theguardian.com/], reliable,<ref name=":1" />
*''[[The Herald (Glasgow)]]'' [https://www.heraldscotland.com/], reliable.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 270#RfC: The Herald (Glasgow)|WP:RSN/Archive 270#RfC: The Herald (Glasgow)]]</ref><ref name="scot01" />
*''[[The Independent]]'' [https://www.independent.co.uk/], reliable for non-specialist information.<ref name=":1" />
*''Lancashire Telegraph'' [https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/], generaally reliable [[WP:NEWSORG]] per a June 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_443#Lancashire_Telegraph]]</ref>
*[[LBC News]], [https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/] rough consensus for reliability as a professional news organization in a November 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_390#LBC_News]]</ref>
*''Liverpool Daily Post'', local [[WP:NEWSORG]] per a small June 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_442#liverpool daily post]]</ref>
*''[[Nation.Cymru]]'' [https://nation.cymru/], weak consensus for reliability as a professional news organization in a discussion that quickly pivoted to due weight concerns.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 285#Nation.Cymru|WP:RSN/Archive 285#Nation.Cymru]]</ref>
*''[[New Statesman]]'' [https://www.newstatesman.com/], reliable per a September 2020 RSN discussion, although editors note that it is primarily a journal of opinion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 313#The New Statesman|WP:RSN/Archive 313#The New Statesman]]</ref>
*''[[PinkNews]]'' [https://www.pinknews.co.uk/], generally reliable for factual reporting.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[The Scotsman]]'' [https://www.scotsman.com/], generally reliable per an October 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name="scot01" />
*[[Scottish Television]] [https://player.stv.tv/] NEWSORG per one editor in an August 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_449#STV]]</ref>
*[[Sky News]], [https://news.sky.com/uk] small consensus for reliability in an April 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 334#Sky News|WP:RSN/Archive 334#Sky News]]</ref>
*''TheyWorkForYou'' [https://www.theyworkforyou.com/], reliable for summaries of politician's voting records per a September 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 313#TheyWorkForYou|WP:RSN/Archive 313#TheyWorkForYou]]</ref>
*''[[The Times]]'' <small>(''The Sunday Times'', ''The Times of London'')</small> [https://www.thetimes.co.uk/][https://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/], generally reliable.<ref name=":1" />
*WhatPub [https://whatpub.com/], rough consensus for reliability in an October 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_418#RfC:_Reliability_of_WhatPub]]</ref>

; No consensus
*[[The Argus (Brighton)|''The Argus'']], [https://www.theargus.co.uk/] no consensus in an October 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_387#The_Argus]]</ref>
*''Asian Express'' [https://www.asianexpress.co.uk/], assessed as unreliable by one editor in a September 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 312#Asianexpress.co.uk|WP:RSN/Archive 312#Asianexpress.co.uk]]</ref>
*Castlewales.com [http://castlewales.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 283#castlewales|WP:RSN/Archive 283#castlewales]]</ref>
* ''[[Daily Mirror]]'' [https://www.mirror.co.uk/], tabloid.<ref name=":1" />
*Desmog Blogs <small>desmog.uk, desmog.co.uk, desmogblog.com</small> [https://desmog.uk/][https://www.desmog.co.uk/][https://desmogblog.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 285#DeSmog Blogs (aka desmog.uk, desmog.co.uk, dsmogblog.com)|WP:RSN/Archive 285#DeSmog Blogs (aka desmog.uk, desmog.co.uk, dsmogblog.com)]]</ref>
* [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] [https://www.britannica.com/], 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.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Evening Standard]]'' [https://www.standard.co.uk/], despite being a free newspaper, considered more reliable than British tabloids.<ref name=":1" />
*''The Eye (Wales)'' [https://the-eye.wales/], a June 2020 RSN discussion was mostly dismissive of the source's coverage but did not come to a clear condemnation.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 298#The Eye Wales|WP:RSN/Archive 298#The Eye Wales]]</ref>
*Gauchoworld [https://www.gauchoworld.com/], no consensus in an August 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_412#Gauchoworld?]]</ref>
*''[[Hansard]]'' [https://hansard.parliament.uk/], primary source of transcripts from Parliament, use with attribution.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Hope not Hate]] [https://www.hopenothate.org.uk/], advocacy group for anti-racism and anti-fascism, reliability must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.<ref name=":1" /> 
*[[The Lobster (magazine)]] [https://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk], no consensus in a small June 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_441#Obituary_in_Lobster_(magazine)_for_Olivia_Frank_(a_transgender_mossad_spy);_is_it_investigative_or_conspiratorial?]]</ref>
*''[[The Jewish Chronicle]]'' [https://www.thejc.com/], generally reliable to 2015, unreliable for PIA reporting post-2020, "with caution" for PIA reporting between those dates, no consensus regarding general coverage per an October 2024 RfC. Previously generally reliable for news reporting, particularly pre-2010 per an April 2021 RfC, no consensus regarding its coverage of the British Left, Islam, Palestine/Palestinians, and related topics.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Morning Star (British newspaper)]]'' [https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/], no consensus, communist political line.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[The National (Scotland)]]'' [https://www.thenational.scot/], generally reliable per [[WP:NEWSORG]] per an April 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_402#The_National_(newspaper,_Scotland)]]</ref> Previously no consensus in a brief October 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name="scot01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 316#Assessment of Scotland's newspapers|WP:RSN/Archive 316#Assessment of Scotland's newspapers]]</ref>
*[[The New European]] [https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/], a July 2020 RSN discussion did not come to a firm consensus.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301#The New European|WP:RSN/Archive 301#The New European]]</ref>
*[[openDemocracy]] [https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/], no consensus in a June 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 345#OpenDemocracy]]</ref> 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 262#Antony Lerman at openDemocracy|WP:RSN/Archive 262#Antony Lerman at openDemocracy]]</ref>
*Scottish-places.info [https://www.scottish-places.info], no consensus in an April 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 337#scottish-places.info: A great source dressed up like a bad one?]]</ref>
*''[[The Skeptic (UK magazine)]]'' [https://www.skeptic.com/], 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.<ref name="skeptics01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 315#Skeptic and Skeptic Inquirer|WP:RSN/Archive 315#Skeptic and Skeptic Inquirer]]</ref>
*''[[The Spectator]]'' [https://www.spectator.co.uk/], a June 2020 RSN discussion came to a rough consensus that it is usable for attributable opinion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 298#The Spectator|WP:RSN/Archive 298#The Spectator]]</ref>
*''[[Spiked (magazine)]]'' [https://www.spiked-online.com/], no consensus in a March 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_429#Spiked (magazine)]]</ref> Previously no consensus in an April 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 289#Spiked|WP:RSN/Archive 289#Spiked]]</ref>
*''[[The Tab]]'' [https://thetab.com/], a January 2021 RSN discussion roughly agreed that it is not a good source, but some editors argued that it may occasionally be usable.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 324#Deprecate The Tab?|WP:RSN/Archive 324#Deprecate The Tab?]]</ref>
*[[UnHerd]] [https://unherd.com/], no consensus, leaning towards unreliability, in an August 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_410#UnHerd]]</ref>

; Unreliable
* [[Anarchist Federation (Britain)]] [http://afed.org.uk/], generally unreliable primary source per a February 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 398#Reliability of Anarchist Federation website as a source for facts on BLP article Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull|WP:RSN/Archive 398#Reliability of Anarchist Federation website as a source for facts on BLP article Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull]]</ref>
*[[The Canary (website)]] [https://www.thecanary.co/], an April 2021 RfC was closed with a consensus of generally unreliable for factual reporting.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 335]]</ref> Prior discussions had resulted in no consensus.<ref name=":ukprogressive1" /> A May 2020 discussion continued to fail to reach a consensus with editors divided on reliability.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 292#The Canary|WP:RSN/Archive 292#The Canary]]</ref>
*[[ConservativeHome]] [https://www.conservativehome.com/], a May 2020 RSN discussion had a consensus that it should be considered a group blog, usable only for attributed opinions in certain contexts.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 296#ConservativeHome|WP:RSN/Archive 296#ConservativeHome]]</ref>
* ''[[Daily Express]]'' [https://www.express.co.uk/], comparable to ''Daily Mail''.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Daily Mail]]'' [https://dailymail.co.uk/][https://thisismoney.co.uk/][https://mailplus.co.uk/][https://travelmail.co.uk/], the unofficial yardstick for bad British sources. Per a November 2020 RfC<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 318#Can we please adapt the Daily Mail consensus to reflect a position on Mail on Sunday?|WP:RSN/Archive 318#Can we please adapt the Daily Mail consensus to reflect a position on Mail on Sunday?]]</ref>, this assessment also applies to the ''Mail on Sunday''<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Daily Sport]]'' [http://dailysport.co.uk/], unreliable tabloid per an August 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 310#Daily Sport|WP:RSN/Archive 310#Daily Sport]]</ref>
*''[[Daily Star (United Kingdom)]]'' [https://www.dailystar.co.uk/][https://thestar.ie/], less reliable than the ''Daily Mail.<ref name=":1" />''
*''Epistle News'' [https://www.epistlenews.co.uk/], an April 2020 discussion concluded that it is a small publication with no track record of use by independent sources.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 290#Epistle News for Dean Schneider|WP:RSN/Archive 290#Epistle News for Dean Schneider]]</ref>
*[[Evolve Politics]] [https://evolvepolitics.com/], essentially self-published, with significant bias as well<ref name=":ukprogressive1">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 274#Seeking acceptance of reliability of UK progressive online only news sites - The Canary, Evolve Politics and Skwawkbox|WP:RSN/Archive 274#Seeking acceptance of reliability of UK progressive online only news sites - The Canary, Evolve Politics and Skwawkbox]]</ref>
*Lesbian and Gay News, [https://lesbianandgaynews.com/], rough consensus in a March 2021 RSN discussion for unreliability, with a minority in dissent. Possibly usable for attributed opinions of authors published therein.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 334#Lesbian and Gay News|WP:RSN/Archive 334#Lesbian and Gay News]]</ref>
*'''[[GB News]]''', [https://www.gbnews.uk/], rough consensus for unreliability in an August 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_449#GB_News]]</ref> Previously rough consensus for unreliability in an August 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_382#Reliability_of_GB_News_as_a_source_for_citations]]</ref> 
*''[[Guido Fawkes (website)]]'' [https://order-order.com/], self-published blog.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Heat Street]]'' [https://heatst.com/], merged with [[MarketWatch]] and shut down in 2017, usable with attribution, but does not sufficiently distinguish news reporting and opinion pieces.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Hello! (magazine)]]'' [https://www.hellomagazine.com/], celebrity tabloid with a reputation for fabrication.<ref name=":hello!">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 279#Hello! magazine (again)|WP:RSN/Archive 279#Hello! magazine (again)]]</ref>
*''Jacobite Magazine'' [https://jacobitemag.com/], opinion publication described as fringe in a November 2020 RSN discussion. Occasionally publishes well-known authors who may be citable.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 317#Jacobite Magazine|WP:RSN/Archive 317#Jacobite Magazine]]</ref>
*''[[The Mail on Sunday]]'' [https://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/][https://www.dailymail.co.uk/], deprecated. Sister paper of the [[Daily Mail]].<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Metro (British newspaper)]]'' [https://metro.co.uk/], comparable to ''Daily Mail''.<ref name=":1" />
*''The Milli Chronicle'' [https://millichronicle.com], consensus for unreliability in a small December 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#The_Milli_Chronicle]]</ref>
*''[[News of the World]]'' [http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/], closed in 2011, deprecated in a 2019 RfC. May still be usable for film reviews with attribution.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[The Sun (United Kingdom)]]'' [https://www.thesun.co.uk/][https://www.the-sun.com/], deprecated. [[Wikipedia:CITE|References]] from ''The Sun'' are actively discouraged from being used in any article and they should not be used for determining the [[Wikipedia:N|notability]] of any subject.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[The Skwawkbox]]'' [https://skwawkbox.org/], essentially a self-published source, with significant bias as well.<ref name=":ukprogressive1" /><ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288#Move Skwawkbox to at least 'no consensus' section|WP:RSN/Archive 288#Move Skwawkbox to at least 'no consensus' section]]</ref>
*[[Taki's Magazine]] [https://www.takimag.com/], deprecated. Largely an opinion outlet.<ref name=":1" />
*tvnewsroom.uk [https://www.tvnewsroom.co.uk/], disparaged as gossip churnalism in an April 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 375#tvnewsroom.co.uk]]</ref>
*UK Defence Journal [https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/], small consensus that it is a low quality source in a June 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 346#UK Defence Journal]]</ref>
*[[WhatCulture]] [https://whatculture.com/], poor record of fact checking, non-expert contributors.<ref name=":1" />

===North America===

====Canada====

; Reliable
*[[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation]] and [[CBC.ca]] [https://www.cbc.ca/], mentioned by one editor as reliable in a 2010 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 63#Bloody-Disgusting|WP:RSN/Archive 63#Bloody-Disgusting]]</ref>
*[[The Canadian Encyclopedia]] [https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/], consensus that it is generally reliable in a November 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 358#Reliability of The Canadian Encyclopedia]]</ref>
*''[[Global News]]'' [https://globalnews.ca/], major Canadian news publication.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 292#RfC: Is Global News generally a reliable source for news and current affairs coverage?|WP:RSN/Archive 292#RfC: Is Global News generally a reliable source for news and current affairs coverage?]]</ref>
* ''[[The Globe and Mail]]'' [https://www.theglobeandmail.com/], generally reliable per a May 2021 RFC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 340#RfC: The Globe and Mail]]</ref>
* ''[[National Post]]'' [https://nationalpost.com/], major Canadian news publication.<ref name=":1" />

; No consensus
*itbusiness.ca [https://www.itbusiness.ca/], described as usable by one editor in an April 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_435#itbusiness.ca]]</ref>
*''[[The Tyee]]'' [https://thetyee.ca/], no consensus in a December 2020 RSN discussion<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 320#Taiwan News|WP:RSN/Archive 320#Taiwan News]]</ref>.

; Unreliable
*[[Centre for Research on Globalization]], generally unreliable due to its propagation of conspiracy theories and lack of editorial oversight. It is a [[Wikipedia:BIASED|biased or opinionated]] source, and its content is likely to constitute [[Wikipedia:UNDUE|undue weight]]. As it often covers [[Wikipedia:FRINGE|fringe]] material, [[Wikipedia:PARITY|parity of sources]] should be considered.<ref name=":1" />
*[[The Dorchester Review]], [https://www.dorchesterreview.ca/], not reliable for subject matter related to the indigenous peoples of Canada per a February 2022 RSN discussion, no significant discussion of general reliability.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 366#The Dorchester Review]]</ref>
*[[LifeSiteNews]] [https://www.lifesitenews.com/], deprecated in a 2019 RfC.<ref name=":1" />
*''Passage'' [https://readpassage.com/], rough consensus that it is a generally unreliable journal of opinion per a February 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_398#Passage]]</ref>
*''[[The Post Millennial]]'' [https://thepostmillennial.com/], consensus for unreliability in a June 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 296#The Post Millennial for article Supervised injection site|WP:RSN/Archive 296#The Post Millennial for article Supervised injection site]]</ref>
*[[Rebel News]] [https://www.rebelnews.com/], disparagingly compared to ''[[Breitbart]]'' in an October 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 316#Rebel News|WP:RSN/Archive 316#Rebel News]]</ref>
*''Toronto Guardian'' [https://torontoguardian.com/], an August 2020 RSN discussion had a consensus that there's no evidence that this publication engages in proper editorial practices.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 307#Toronto Guardian|WP:RSN/Archive 307#Toronto Guardian]]</ref>

====Costa Rica====
;Reliable
*''[[La Teja]]'' [https://www.lateja.cr/], [[WP:NEWSORG]] per a March 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_431#La_Teja_(Costa_Rican_newspaper)]]</ref>
====Cuba====
;Unreliable

*TheCubanHistory.com, [https://www.thecubanhistory.com/] probably unreliable per a June 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 343#TheCubanHistory.com]]</ref>
*U.S. Agency for Global Media and subsidiaries [https://www.martinoticias.com/], generally unreliable and deprecated per a March 2024 RfC.<ref name=":1" />

==== United States ====

; Reliable
* [[ABC News]] [https://abcnews.go.com/][https://abcnews.com/], generally reliable.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Anti Defamation League]] [https://www.adl.org/], generally reliable, although their labeling of groups and individuals should generally be attributed and some editors have cautioned against its use for I/P subjects.<ref name=":1" />
* [[Associated Press]] [https://apnews.com/], generally reliable.<ref name=":1" />
*''Atlanta Black Star'' [https://atlantablackstar.com/], described by one editor in a May 2020 RSN discussion as reliable but needing attribution due to bordering on advocacy at times.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 294#Atlanta Black Star|WP:RSN/Archive 294#Atlanta Black Star]]</ref>
*''[[The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]]'' [https://www.ajc.com/], mentioned as generally reliable. Some editors have expressed concerns with using their blogs.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_19#Huffington Post, AJC, & E&P|WP:RSN/Archive 19#Huffington Post, AJC, & E&P]]</ref>
*''[[The Atlantic]]'' [https://www.theatlantic.com/], generally reliable.<ref name=":1" />
*''Attractions Magazine'', [https://attractionsmagazine.com/], reliable for coverage of theme parks per a small January 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 363#Attractions Magazine]]</ref>
*''[[Axios (website)|Axios]]'' [https://www.axios.com/], There is consensus that Axios is generally reliable. Some editors consider Axios to be a biased or opinionated source. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Bloomberg L.P.|Bloomberg]] [https://www.bloomberg.com/][https://www.businessweek.com/], including [[Bloomberg News]] and ''[[Bloomberg Businessweek]].'' However, Bloomberg Profiles often contains press release content and should be used with caution.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[The Boston Globe]]'' [https://www.bostonglobe.com/], editors mentioned it was reliable in a small 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 283#Boston Globe|WP:RSN/Archive 283#Boston Globe]]</ref>
*''[[BuzzFeed News]]'' [https://www.buzzfeednews.com/], although due to layoffs in 2019 some editors suggest caution with articles from that year onward.<ref name=":1" /> 
* [[CBS News]] [https://www.cbsnews.com/], mentioned in passing as reliable in a 2020 RSN discussion. Probably a typical [[WP:NEWSORG]].<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RealClear media]]</ref>
* ''[[Chicago Tribune]]'' [https://www.chicagotribune.com/], treated like a paper of record in a January 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 323#Chicago Tribune|WP:RSN/Archive 323#Chicago Tribune]]</ref>
*''[[The Christian Science Monitor]]'' [https://www.csmonitor.com/], generally reliable for news reporting.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[CIA Factbook]]'' [https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/], usable for uncontroversial facts, be cautious of bias.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 280#CIA factbook|WP:RSN/Archive 280#CIA factbook]]</ref>
*[[The City (website)]] [https://www.thecity.nyc/], generally reliable [[WP:NEWSORG]] per a July 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_409#The_City_(website)_TheCity.NYC]]</ref>
*Cleveland.com [https://www.cleveland.com/], small consensus for reliable as [[WP:NEWSORG]] in a February 2023 RSN discussion.<ref name=":advance0223>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_396#Cleveland.com_reliability?]]</ref>
*[[CNN]] [https://www.cnn.com/], generally reliable for news reporting.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Congressional Research Service]] [https://crsreports.congress.gov/], non-partisan think tank for the U.S. Congress, described as an exceptional source in a 2012 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 117#Using Congressional Research Service reports at National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012|WP:RSN/Archive 117#Using Congressional Research Service reports at National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012]]</ref>
*[[Courthouse News Service]], [https://www.courthousenews.com/], rough consensus for reliability in a June 2021 RSN discussion; a minority opinion held that the source's reporting is too close to primary for BLP claims.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 343#Healthgrades and Courthouse News]]</ref>
*''The Dedham Times'' [https://www.thededhamtimes.com], local paper of record with no indication of unreliability per a May 2024 RSN discussion.
*''[[Deseret News]]'' [https://www.deseret.com/][https://www.deseretnews.com/], Salt Lake City, Utah newspaper. Reliable for local news. Owned by the [[LDS church]], no consensus on whether it is independent of the LDS church.<ref name=":1" /> Also listed at [[WP:LDS/RS]].
*''[[The Diplomat]]'' [https://thediplomat.com/], reputable current affairs magazine per a June 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 298#thediplomat.com|WP:RSN/Archive 298#thediplomat.com]]</ref>
*''[[Fast Company]]'' [https://www.fastcompany.com/], described as reliable in passing in two RSN discussions.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 77#Fast Company|WP:RSN/Archive 77#Fast Company]]</ref><ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 275#theconversation.com|WP:RSN/Archive 275#theconversation.com]]</ref>
*''Federal News Network'' [https://federalnewsnetwork.com/], described as a conventionally reliable news organization in a May 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 293#Federal News Network Comment|WP:RSN/Archive 293#Federal News Network Comment]]</ref>
*''[[Forbes]]'' [https://www.forbes.com/], not to be confused with Forbes.com contributors.<ref name=":1" /> 
*''[[The Forward]]'' [https://forward.com/], described as generally reliable if not necessarily [[WP:DUE]] in a March 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_401#The_Forward]]</ref>
*''[[Foreign Policy]]'' [https://foreignpolicy.com/], a small discussion at RSN called it "highly reliable".<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 187#Foreign Policy magazine|WP:RSN/Archive 187#Foreign Policy magazine]]</ref> 
*''[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]]'' [https://thehill.com/], reliable for news reporting.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Honolulu Civil Beat]]'' [https://www.civilbeat.org/], generally reliable for news reporting.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 283#Honolulu Civil Beat|WP:RSN/Archive 283#Honolulu Civil Beat]]</ref>
*''[[Houston Chronicle]]'' [https://www.chron.com/], described in passing as reliable in two RSN discussions.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 322#PopSugar|WP:RSN/Archive 322#PopSugar]]</ref><ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 188#Huffington Post|WP:RSN/Archive 188#Huffington Post]]</ref>
*[[The Intercept|''The Intercept'']] [https://theintercept.com/], almost all editors consider ''The Intercept'' a [[wikipedia:BIASED|biased source]], so uses may need to be [[wikipedia:INTEXT|attributed]].<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Jacobin (magazine)]]'' [https://jacobinmag.com/], generally reliable but not always DUE per a July 2020 RSN discussion. It presents a biased perspective but editors seemed generally satisfied with its fact-checking.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 302#Jacobin|WP:RSN/Archive 302#Jacobin]]</ref> A January 2021 RSN discussion had a rough consensus for marginal reliability.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 324#Jacobin|WP:RSN/Archive 324#Jacobin]]</ref> A September 2021 RfC had a rough consensus for reliability.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Rfc: Jacobin (magazine)]]</ref><ref name=":1" />
*''[[The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles]]'' [https://jewishjournal.com/], one editor in a January 2021 RSN discussion provided a strong argument for its reliability on a USEBYOTHERS basis.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 325#The Jewish Journal|WP:RSN/Archive 325#The Jewish Journal]]</ref>
*''[[The Jewish Week]]'' [https://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/], a 2020 May RSN discussion had a consensus that they are a generally reliable news publication.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 293#The Jewish Week reliability?|WP:RSN/Archive 293#The Jewish Week reliability?]]</ref>
*[[KFYR-TV]] [https://www.kfyrtv.com/], reliable [[WP:NEWSORG]] for North Dakota per a June 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_407#KFYR-TV]]</ref>
*[[Lawfare (blog)]] [https://www.lawfareblog.com/], reliable expert blog per a January 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 326#Lawfare Blog|WP:RSN/Archive 326#Lawfare Blog]]</ref>
* Lead Stories fact checker [https://leadstories.com/], described as likely reliable by two editors in a December 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 321#Lead Stories fact checker - reliable?|WP:RSN/Archive 321#Lead Stories fact checker - reliable?]]</ref>
*''[[Los Angeles Times]]'' [https://www.latimes.com/], generally reliable.<ref name=":1" />
*''Mainer News'' [https://mainernews.com/], small consensus for reliability in a 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288#Mainer News|WP:RSN/Archive 288#Mainer News]]</ref>
*Mapping Prejudice [https://mappingprejudice.umn.edu/], rough consensus for reliability per a June 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#Mapping_Prejudice]]</ref>
*MassLive [https://www.masslive.com/], rough consensus in a small October 2024 RSN discussion that it is a conventional news organization for Massachusetts topics.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_452#MassLive]]</ref>
*''[[The Miami Herald]]'' [https://www.miamiherald.com/], mentioned as reliable in passing in an RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 322#Soap Hub as a reliable source|WP:RSN/Archive 322#Soap Hub as a reliable source]]</ref>
*''[[Mother Jones (magazine)|Mother Jones]]'' [https://www.motherjones.com/], generally reliable, but also opinionated (liberal stance). Attribute opinion statements properly.<ref name=":1" />
*[[MSNBC]] [https://www.msnbc.com/], talk show content should be treated as [[wikipedia:RSOPINION|opinion pieces]].<ref name=":1" />
*''[[The Nation]]'' [https://www.thenation.com/], generally reliable, progressive political stance.<ref name=":1" />
*[[NBC News]] [https://www.nbcnews.com/], described as generally reliable per [[WP:NEWSORG]] in a May 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 296#Is NBC a reliable sources for the Wikipedia The Epoch Times (ET) article?|WP:RSN/Archive 296#Is NBC a reliable sources for the Wikipedia The Epoch Times (ET) article?]]</ref>
*''[[The New Republic]]'' [https://newrepublic.com/], generally reliable but biased.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[New York (magazine)|New York]]'' <small>(''Vulture'', ''The Cut'', ''Grub Street'', ''Daily Intelligencer'')</small> [https://nymag.com/][https://www.vulture.com/][https://www.thecut.com/][https://www.grubstreet.com/][https://nymag.com/intelligencer/], generally reliable, no consensus for particularly contentious statements.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[New York Daily News]]'' [https://www.nydailynews.com/], <small>(''Illustrated Daily News''),</small><ref name=":1" />
*''[[The New York Times]]'' [https://www.nytimes.com/], generally reliable,<ref name=":1" />
*''[[The New Yorker]]'' [https://www.newyorker.com/], generally reliable, robust fact-checking,<ref name=":1" />
*''[[The News-Press]]'' [https://www.news-press.com/], generally reliable for local news, owned by ''USA Today'''s parent company.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 287#The News-Press|WP:RSN/Archive 287#The News-Press]]</ref>
*''[[Newsweek]]'' (pre-2013) [https://www.newsweek.com/], many languages, generally reliable. However, more recent coverage may not be reliable<ref name=":1" />
*''[[North Bay Bohemian]]'' [https://bohemian.com/], small consensus for reliability in an August 2023 RSN discussion.<ref name=":northbay01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_411#Two_local_alternative_newspapers_in_the_San_Francisco_area]]</ref>
*[[NPR]] [https://www.npr.org/], generally reliable<ref name=":1"/>
*''[[The Oregonian]]'' [https://www.oregonlive.com/], small consensus for reliable as [[WP:NEWSORG]] in a February 2023 RSN discussion.<ref name=":advance0223 />
*[[PBS NewsHour]] [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/], described in passing as very reliable in two RSN discussions.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 260#Citation for Breitbart News WP article: sufficiently direct?|WP:RSN/Archive 260#Citation for Breitbart News WP article: sufficiently direct?]]</ref><ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 275#theconversation.com|WP:RSN/Archive 275#theconversation.com]]</ref>
*[[Pew Research Center]] [https://www.pewresearch.org/], a think tank, generally reliable.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Playboy]]'' [https://playboy.com], strong reputation for high quality interviews and fact-checking.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Politico]]'' [https://www.politico.com/], generally reliable for American politics.<ref name=":1" /> 
*[[PolitiFact]] [https://www.politifact.com/], reliable for fact checking statements made by politicians.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[PR Week]]'' [https://www.prweek.com], generally reliable trade publication for the advertising industry per an April 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 372#PR Week]]</ref>
*''[[The Press Democrat]]'' [https://www.pressdemocrat.com/], small consensus for reliability in an August 2023 RSN discussion.<ref name=":northbay01" />
*[[ProPublica]] [https://www.propublica.org/], There is a strong consensus that ProPublica is generally reliable for all purposes because of it has an excellent reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Reason (magazine)]]'' [https://reason.com/]<ref name=":1" />
* ''[[Roll Call]]'' [https://www.rollcall.com/], described as generally reliable in a January 2021 RSN discussion that focused on its reporting of income for government officials.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 323#Is Rollcall a reliable source for Rob Portman's wealth?|WP:RSN/Archive 323#Is Rollcall a reliable source for Rob Portman's wealth?]]</ref>
*''[[San Francisco Chronicle]]'' [http://www.sfchronicle.com/][http://www.sfgate.com/], mentioned in passing as reliable in two RSN discussions.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 58#Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross of the San Francisco Chronicle|WP:RSN/Archive 58#Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross of the San Francisco Chronicle]]</ref><ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 188#Huffington Post|WP:RSN/Archive 188#Huffington Post]]</ref>
*[[SCOTUSblog]] [https://www.scotusblog.com/], consensus for general reliability as an expert blog per a February 2021 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 326#RfC on SCOTUSblog|WP:RSN/Archive 326#RfC on SCOTUSblog]]</ref>
*''[[The Seattle Times]]'' [https://www.seattletimes.com/], mentioned in passing as reliable in two RSN discussions.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 284#Obituary|WP:RSN/Archive 284#Obituary]]</ref><ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 188#Huffington Post|WP:RSN/Archive 188#Huffington Post]]</ref>
*[[Slate (magazine)|''Slate'']] [https://slate.com/], considered generally reliable for its areas of expertise. [[Contrarian]] news articles may need to be [[wikipedia:INTEXT|attributed]].<ref name=":1" />
*[[Snopes]] [https://www.snopes.com/], generally reliable. Attribution may be necessary.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Southern Poverty Law Center]] <small>(SPLC)</small> [https://www.splcenter.org/], generally reliable. As an advocacy group, the Southern Poverty Law Center is a [[Wikipedia:BIASED|biased and opinionated source]]. The organization's views, especially when labeling [[Hate group|hate groups]], should be properly attributed per [[WP:RSOPINION]]. Take care to ensure that content from this organization constitutes [[Wikipedia:DUE|due weight]] in the article and conforms to the [[Wikipedia:BLP|biographies of living persons]] policy.<ref name=":1" />
*''Southwest Voices'' [https://www.southwestvoices.news/], local [[WP:NEWSORG]], generally reliable per a small April 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_402#Southwest_Voices]]</ref>
*''Stacker'' [https://stacker.com/], rough consensus for [[WP:NEWSORG]] reliability per an April 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_401#Stacker]]</ref>
*''[[The Star-Ledger]]'' [https://www.nj.com/], small consensus for reliable as [[WP:NEWSORG]] in a February 2023 RSN discussion.<ref name=":advance0223 />
*[[Star Tribune]] [https://www.startribune.com/], the largest newspaper in Minnesota. Mentioned as reliable by two editors in a 2012 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 121#Blogs at Shooting of Trayvon Martin|WP:RSN/Archive 121#Blogs at Shooting of Trayvon Martin]]</ref>
*''[[Staten Island Advance]]'' [https://www.silive.com/] small consensus for reliable as [[WP:NEWSORG]] in a February 2023 RSN discussion.<ref name=":advance0223 />
*[[Street Roots]] [https://www.streetroots.org/], rough consensus that it is reliable if biased for its news reporting per an August 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 309#Street Roots|WP:RSN/Archive 309#Street Roots]]</ref>
*[[TaxProf Blog]] [https://taxprof.typepad.com/], generally reliable for US tax law and related expertise, but not DUE for controversial BLP reporting per an April 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_402#TaxProf_Blog]]</ref>
*''[[Teen Vogue]]'' [https://www.teenvogue.com/], a discussion archived in July 2019 had several editors speak favorably for its news coverage since ~2015, with positive comparisons to Buzzfeed News.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 269#Teen Vogue for political or crime news?|WP:RSN/Archive 269#Teen Vogue for political or crime news?]]</ref>
*''[[The Texas Tribune]]'', [https://www.texastribune.org/] generally reliable per a June 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_376#Texas_Attorney_General's_interview_reliable_or_not?]]</ref>
*''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' [https://time.com/], generally reliable. Time's [[Wikipedia:NEWSBLOG|magazine blogs]], including Techland, should be handled with the appropriate policy.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[USA Today]]'' [https://www.usatoday.com/], generally reliable.<ref name=":1" />
*[[U.S. News & World Report]] [https://www.usnews.com/], praised as one of the better, less partisan US news sources in a June 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 298#U.S. News|WP:RSN/Archive 298#U.S. News]]</ref>
*''[[The Virgin Islands Daily News]]'' [https://www.virginislandsdailynews.com/], paper of record of the US Virgin Islands per a July 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_380#The_Virgin_Islands_Daily_News]]</ref>
* [[Voice of America]] [https://www.voanews.com/covid-19-pandemic/many-questions-after-who-team-visits-wuhan-virology-lab], had a slight majority for being reliable in a 2021 RSN discussion. The other editors were concerned that it was funded by the US government, had past connections with the CIA, and portrayed Iran in a negative light, and recommended attribution for any stories where the US government might have a conflict of interest.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 330#Voice of America (VOA)|WP:RSN/Archive 330#Voice of America (VOA)]]</ref>
*''[[Vox (website)|Vox]]'' [https://www.vox.com/], generally reliable.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'' [https://www.wsj.com/], generally reliable business publication.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[The Washington Post]]'' [https://www.washingtonpost.com/], generally reliable.<ref name=":1" /> 
*''[[The Weekly Standard]]'' [https://www.weeklystandard.com/], generally reliable.<ref name=":1" />

; No consensus
*[[Algemeiner]] [https://www.algemeiner.com/], 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.<ref name=":algemeiner01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 302#Algemeiner Journal & The Jewish News Syndicate|WP:RSN/Archive 302#Algemeiner Journal & The Jewish News Syndicate]]</ref>
*Allsides.com [https://www.allsides.com/]<ref name=":1" />
*Allthatsinteresting.com [https://allthatsinteresting.com/], no consensus in a November 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 358#allthatsinteresting.com]]</ref>
*[[American Community Survey]], [https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs], described as reliable but primary in a June 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 343#American Community Survey]]</ref>
*''[[The American Conservative]]'' [https://www.theamericanconservative.com/], 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.<ref name=":1" />
* [[Ballotpedia]] [https://ballotpedia.org/], election website with editorial team, but Wikipedia editors have expressed concern with their editorial process.<ref name=":1" />
*[[BET]] [https://www.bet.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 323#BET|WP:RSN/Archive 323#BET]]</ref>
* [[The Boston Herald]] [https://www.bostonherald.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 309#What are the absolute least reliable liberal-leaning and conservative-leaning sources?|WP:RSN/Archive 309#What are the absolute least reliable liberal-leaning and conservative-leaning sources?]]</ref><ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 222#All newspapers that publish in tabloid format are not reliable sources?|WP:RSN/Archive 222#All newspapers that publish in tabloid format are not reliable sources?]]</ref><ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 156#tabloids|WP:RSN/Archive 156#tabloids]]</ref>
*[[Brookings Institution]] [https://www.brookings.edu/], think tank, albeit a relatively highly regarded one. Should be considered a primary source for its analysis of subjects.<ref name=:"thinktank">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 253#Are Think Tanks considered reliable sources for politically controversial articles?|WP:RSN/Archive 253#Are Think Tanks considered reliable sources for politically controversial articles?]]</ref>
*''[[Bustle (magazine)]]'' [https://bustle.com/], women's magazine, reliability unclear.<ref name=":1" />
*[[BuzzFeed]] [https://www.buzzfeed.com/], not to be confused with ''[[BuzzFeed News]]''<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Catholic Standard]]'' [https://cathstan.org/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_401#Catholic_Standard]]</ref>
*[[Cato Institute]] [https://www.cato.org/], reliable for opinion statements.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Center for Economic and Policy Research]] [https://cepr.net/], an economic policy think tank. Biased or opinionated, use attribution.<ref name=":1" />
*''Colorado Times Recorder'' [https://coloradotimesrecorder.com/], no consensus in a February 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_398#The_Colorado_Times_Recorder,_Passage,_and_Idavox_as_sources_in_the_Foundation_Against_Intolerance_and_Racism_article]]</ref>
*''[[Cosmopolitan (magazine)]]'' [https://www.cosmopolitan.com/], evaluate on a case-by-case basis.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Council on Foreign Relations]] [https://www.cfr.org/], think tank. Should be considered a primary source for its analysis of subjects.<ref name=:"thinktank" />
*''COURIER'' [https://couriernewsroom.com/], no consensus in a December 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 321#COURIER|WP:RSN/Archive 321#COURIER]]</ref>
*''[[The Daily Beast]]'' [https://www.thedailybeast.com/]<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Democracy Now!]]'' [https://www.democracynow.org/], partisan source, no consensus on reliability.<ref name=":1" />
*Dirt.com [https://www.dirt.com/], no consensus in a June 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#Reliability_of_"Dirt.com"?]]</ref>
*''[[The Dispatch]]'' [https://thedispatch.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 317#The Dispatch on Guo Wengui|WP:RSN/Archive 317#The Dispatch on Guo Wengui]]</ref>
*[[Encyclopedia of Arkansas]] [https://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/], no consensus between two editors in a December 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#Encyclopedia_of_Arkansas]]</ref>
*[[Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting]] [https://fair.org/], progressive bias, do not use to support controversial claims in BLPs<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Fatherly]]'' [https://www.fatherly.com/], described as reliable for lifestyle-magazine reporting by one editor in a June 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_442#Another_season,_another_Bluey_source_up_for_grabs]]</ref>
*[[FITSNews]] [https://www.fitsnews.com/], no consensus in a December 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 322#FITSNews - reliable?|WP:RSN/Archive 322#FITSNews - reliable?]]</ref>
*''[[Fox News]]'' [https://www.foxnews.com/] [https://www.foxbusiness.com/], political and science coverage generally unreliable, no consensus on other news coverage.'<ref name=":1" />
*''The Free Press'' [https://www.thefp.com/], no consensus in an April 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_433#Is_this_article_about_a_Communist_millionaire_from_The_Free_Press_reliable?]]</ref> Previously no consensus on whether it should be considered [[WP:SPS]] in a February 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_397#The_Free_Press]]</ref>
*''[[Gay City News]]'' [https://www.gaycitynews.com/], no consensus in a December 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 322#Gay City News|WP:RSN/Archive 322#Gay City News]]</ref>
*''[[The Green Papers]]'' [http://www.thegreenpapers.com/], April 2020 RfC closed as no consensus, with a slightly stronger case for unreliability.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 290#RfC: Is The Green Papers a generally reliable source for reporting election-related information?|WP:RSN/Archive 290#RfC: Is The Green Papers a generally reliable source for reporting election-related information?]]</ref>
*''[[Hill Rag]]'' [http://capitalcommunitynews.com/], no clear consensus in a December 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_393#Hill_Rag]]</ref> 
*''[[HuffPost]]'' [https://www.huffpost.com/], no consensus with most editors preferring to use more established sources.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Human Events]]'' [https://humanevents.com/], biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed.<ref name=":1" />
*''The Hustle'' [https://thehustle.co/], no clear consensus in a 2020 RSN discussion. Note that much of its material is tertiary summaries of other sources.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288#The Hustle|WP:RSN/Archive 288#The Hustle]]</ref>
*''[[Independent Journal Review]]'' [https://ijr.com/], news reporting is largely syndicated from Reuters, "community member" posts are self-published.<ref name=":1" />
*Independent Political Report [https://independentpoliticalreport.com/], no consensus in an August 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_449#Independent_Political_Report]]</ref> Previously a small consensus for unreliability in a September 2010 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_76#Independent_Political_Report]]</ref>
*Inside Hook [https://www.insidehook.com/], no consensus in a March 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_430#Insidehook.com]]</ref>
*[[Jamestown Foundation]] [https://jamestown.org/], a think tank. Should be considered a primary source for its analysis of subjects.<ref name=:"thinktank" />
*Jewish News Syndicate [https://www.jns.org/], 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.<ref name=":algemeiner01" />
* ''[[LA Weekly]]'' [https://www.laweekly.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_391#WP:LTA_writing_articles_at_LA_Weekly_and_guardian.ng?]]</ref>
*''Law & Crime'' [https://lawandcrime.com/], no consensus in a June 2021 RSN discussion that recapped prior discussions.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 346#Law & Crime]]</ref>
*LawSites <small>(Lawnext.com)</small> [https://www.lawnext.com/], self-published source, no consensus on its status as potential US legal [[WP:SME]] in a November 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_420#Lawnext.com,_LawSites_magazine]]</ref>
*[[Legal Insurrection]] [https://legalinsurrection.com], no consensus in a May 2024 RfC, with a majority of respondents hedging between "considerations apply" and "generally unreliable".<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_441#RfC:_Legal_Insurrection]]</ref>
*[[LGBTQ Nation]] [https://www.lgbtqnation.com/], no consensus in a December 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_391#LGBTQ_Nation]]</ref>
*''The Liberty Herald'', [https://thelibertyherald.com/], described as unreliable by one editor in a June 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 345#The Liberty Herald]]</ref>
*[[Local Government Information Services]] [https://lgis.co/][https://carbondalereporter.com/][https://chambanasun.com/][https://chicagocitywire.com/][https://dupagepolicyjournal.com/][https://dekalbtimes.com/][https://eastcentralreporter.com/][https://galesburgreporter.com/][https://grundyreporter.com/][https://illinoisvalleytimes.com/][https://kanecountyreporter.com/][https://kankakeetimes.com/][https://kendallcountytimes.com/][https://lakecountygazette.com/][https://maconreporter.com/][https://mchenrytimes.com/][https://mcleancountytimes.com/][https://metroeastsun.com/][https://northcooknews.com/][https://northegyptnews.com/][https://nwillinoisnews.com/][https://peoriastandard.com/][https://prairiestatewire.com/][https://quincyreporter.com/][https://rockislandtoday.com/][https://rockfordsun.com/][https://sangamonsun.com/][https://seillinoisnews.com/][https://southcentralreporter.com/][https://southcooknews.com/][https://silnews.com/][https://swillinoisnews.com/][https://westcentralreporter.com/][https://westcooknews.com/][https://willcountygazette.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 323#Local Government Information Services|WP:RSN/Archive 323#Local Government Information Services]]</ref>
*''[[Lifehacker]]'' [https://lifehacker.com/] 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 315#Lifehacker|WP:RSN/Archive 315#Lifehacker]]</ref><ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 330#How's LifeHacker nowadays?|WP:RSN/Archive 330#How's LifeHacker nowadays?]]</ref>
*[[Mediaite]] [https://mediaite.com/], inappropriately blurs news and opinion.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Media Matters for America]]'' [https://www.mediamatters.org/], progressive media-watchdog.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Mental Floss]]'' [https://www.mentalfloss.com/], their history trivia section was described as a poor quality source in a June 2021 RSN discussion, no discussion of other topics or sections.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 343#Mental Floss]]</ref>
*[[The Messenger (website)]], no consensus in an October 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_418#Reliability_of_themessenger.com]]</ref>
*Monkey Cage [https://www.washingtonpost.com/monkey-cage/], opinion publication. Largely staffed by certified experts per a July 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301#Monkey Cage|WP:RSN/Archive 301#Monkey Cage]]</ref>
*More Perfect Union [https://perfectunion.us/], rough consensus for "exercise caution" in a July 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_409#More_Perfect]]</ref>
*MyNorthwest.com [https://mynorthwest.com], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#MyNorthwest.com]]</ref>
*[[National Bridge Inventory]] [https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi.cfm], disparaged by one editor in a June 2023 RSN discussion that did not receive any further responses.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#National_Bridge_Inventory]]</ref>
*''[[National Review]]'' [https://www.nationalreview.com/], no consensus, partisan source (American conservative).<ref name=":1" />
*[[NewsNation]] [https://www.newsnationnow.com/], no consensus in a November 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_419#NewsNation]]</ref>
*''[[Newsweek]]'' (2013–present) [https://www.newsweek.com/], many languages, changes in editorial leadership have led to a decline in the magazine's reliability, evaluate on a case-by-case basis.<ref name=":1" />
*Nosh.com [https://www.nosh.com/], no consensus on reliability in a February 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_397#nosh.com_as_an_RS]]</ref>
*[[Oregon Encyclopedia]] [https://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/], no consensus in a September 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 312#Oregon Encyclopedia|WP:RSN/Archive 312#Oregon Encyclopedia]]</ref>
*''Our Town St. James'', [http://www.ourtownstjames.com/] local newspaper, no consensus regarding its reliability in a March 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 334#Our Town St James|WP:RSN/Archive 334#Our Town St James]]</ref>
*[[Out (magazine)]] [https://www.out.com/], no consensus in an August 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_449#Out,_PinkNews,_and_Pride.com]]</ref>
* ''[[Paper (magazine)|Paper Mag]]'' [https://www.papermag.com/], no consensus in an October 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_416#Reliability_of_Paper_(magazine)?]]</ref>
*''[[Paste (magazine)]]'' [https://www.pastemagazine.com/], no consensus for reliability on political topics.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 287#RfC: Is Paste a generally reliable source for politics-related topics?|WP:RSN/Archive 287#RfC: Is Paste a generally reliable source for politics-related topics?]]</ref>
*''[[Pittsburgh Post-Gazette]]'' [https://www.post-gazette.com/], 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.<ref name="pittsburgh postjan2021">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 324#Pittsburg Post-Gazette and Toledo Blade|WP:RSN/Archive 324#Pittsburg Post-Gazette and Toledo Blade]]</ref>
*[[Pride.com]] [https://www.pride.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 293#RfC: Pride.com|WP:RSN/Archive 293#RfC: Pride.com]]</ref>
*RealClear media [https://www.realclearpolitics.com/] <small>([[RealClearPolitics]], RealClearInvestigations]])</small>, no consensus in an April 2021 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 336#RealClear media]]</ref>
*[[Right Wing Watch]] [https://www.rightwingwatch.org/], a July 2019 discussion yielded no consensus.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 271#Right Wing Watch|WP:RSN/Archive 271#Right Wing Watch]]</ref>
*''[[Rolling Stone]]'' [https://www.rollingstone.com/], generally reliable for pop culture topics, generally unreliable for politics, see RSP for more details.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Salon (website)]]'' [https://www.salon.com/], largely an opinion publication, no consensus on reliability.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Skeptic (US magazine)]]'' [https://www.skeptic.com/], 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.<ref name="skeptics01" />
*''[[Skeptical Inquirer]]'' [https://skepticalinquirer.org/], 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.<ref name="skeptics01" />
* ''Sludge'' [https://readsludge.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 323#'Sludge' magazine article on Douglas Murray's video for PragerU|WP:RSN/Archive 323#'Sludge' magazine article on Douglas Murray's video for PragerU]]</ref>
*''[[Spectrum Culture]]'', [https://spectrumculture.com] no consensus in a June 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 344#Spectrum Culture]]</ref>
*Star Media publications <small>''Michigan Star'', ''Tennessee Star'', ''Ohio Star'', ''Minnesota Sun''</small> [https://themichiganstar.com/][https://tennesseestar.com/][https://theohiostar.com/][https://theminnesotasun.com/], editors in a 2020 RSN discussion identified reasons to suspect unreliability for these publications, but discussion was a bit too sparse to call consensus.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 289#Tennessee Star, Michigan Star, etc.|WP:RSN/Archive 289#Tennessee Star, Michigan Star, etc.]]</ref> ''Tennessee Star'' specifically was described as marginal, and at most usable for the sourcing of uncontroversial facts in a February 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_397#Tennessee_Star_-_reliable_source?]]</ref>
*''[[Talking Points Memo]]'' [https://talkingpointsmemo.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 159#Talking Points Memo as RS for documenting a Senator's vote|WP:RSN/Archive 159#Talking Points Memo as RS for documenting a Senator's vote]]</ref>
*''[[ThinkProgress]]'' [https://thinkprogress.org], 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.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Toledo Blade]]'' [https://www.toledoblade.com/], 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.<ref name="pittsburgh postjan2021" />
*[[Townhall]] [https://townhall.com/], 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.<ref name=":1" /> 
*''[[Washington Examiner]]'' [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/], no consensus about general reliability. There is consensus that opinions in the ''Washington Examiner'' should not be used to substantiate [[Wikipedia:EXCEPTIONAL|exceptional claims]] regarding [[Wikipedia:BLP|living persons]].<ref name=":1" /> 
*''[[The Washington Times]]'' [https://www.washingtontimes.com/], 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.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[The Week]]'' [https://theweek.com/][https://theweek.co.uk][https://theweek.in], editors in a June 2020 RSN discussion raised concerns that it is primarily a publisher of opinion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 298#The Week ( theweek.co.uk / theweek.com )|WP:RSN/Archive 298#The Week ( theweek.co.uk / theweek.com )]]</ref>
*[[Yes! (U.S. magazine)]] [https://www.yesmagazine.org/], described as generally reliable in a small August 2024 RSN discussion, with participants noting that it may not be RS for highly contentious topics.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_449#Yes!_magazine]]</ref>

; Unreliable
*[[Ad Fontes Media]] [https://www.adfontesmedia.com/], 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.<ref name="adfontes01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 290#Ad Fontes Media and AllSides|WP:RSN/Archive 290#Ad Fontes Media and AllSides]]</ref> 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 298#Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart|WP:RSN/Archive 298#Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart]]</ref>
* [[AlterNet]] [https://www.alternet.org/], generally unreliable partisan source that also aggregates articles from other sources.<ref name=":1" />
*The American Bazaar [https://www.americanbazaaronline.com/], small consensus for unreliability in an October 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_417#The_American_Bazaar]]</ref>
*''The American Mail'' [https://theamericanmail.com/], unreliable per a February 2023 RSN discussion.<ref name="ammail01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_398#Are_Daily_Magzines,_The_American_Mail,_and_Vents_Magazine_reliable?]]</ref>
*[[Antiwar.com]] [https://antiwar.com/][https://antiwar.org/], biased and opinionated.<ref name=":1" />
*Attorney At Law Magazine [https://attorneyatlawmagazine.com/], pay-for-play churnalism per an August 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_411#Attorney_at_Law_magazine,_attorneyatlawmagazine.com]]</ref>
*[[Black Agenda Report]], [https://blackagendareport.com/] rough consensus for unreliability in a September 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Black Agenda Report]]</ref>
* [[Big League Politics]] [https://bigleaguepolitics.com/], considered a fringe website that promotes conspiracy theories per a February 2019 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 259#Is Bigleaguepolitics.com a reliable source for an accusation against Rashida Tlaib?|WP:RSN/Archive 259#Is Bigleaguepolitics.com a reliable source for an accusation against Rashida Tlaib?]]</ref>
*[[Blaze Media]] [https://www.theblaze.com/], including [[Conservative Review]] [https://www.conservativereview.com/], is considered generally unreliable for facts, sometimes reliable for opinions.<ref name=":1" />
*TheBlot, [https://www.theblot.com/] consensus in a July 2021 RfC that it is not reliable.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 348#RFC — TheBlot]]</ref>
*[[Breitbart News]], may be ok for opinion but in that case the specific article needs to be whitelisted.<ref name=":1" />
*''The Buffalo Chronicle'', [https://buffalochronicle.com] disparaged by multiple RS and generally unreliable per a February 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 368#Buffalo Chronicle]]</ref>
*''The California Globe'' [https://californiaglobe.com/], generally unreliable per an April 2021 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 336#RfC: California Globe]]</ref>
*[[Capital Research Center]] [https://capitalresearch.org/], deemed an unreliable advocacy think tank in a May 2020 RSN discussion. May be usable as a primary source.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 294#Capital Research Center / InfluenceWatch / Dangerous Documentaries|WP:RSN/Archive 294#Capital Research Center / InfluenceWatch / Dangerous Documentaries]]</ref>
*Chicago YIMBY [https://chicagoyimby.com/], described as a blog in a July 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_409#Reliability_of_Military_Watch_Magazine]]</ref>
*''[[CounterPunch]]'' [https://www.counterpunch.org/][https://www.counterpunch.com/], biased/opinionated<ref name=":1" />
*[[CNSNews.com]] <small>(Cybercast News Service)</small> [https://cnsnews.com/], unanimous consensus for unreliability in a 2019 RfC.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[The Daily Caller]]'' [https://dailycaller.com/][https://dailycallernewsfoundation.org/][https://checkyourfact.com/], deprecated for publishing false information.<ref name=":1" />
*[[The Daily Wire]] [https://www.dailywire.com/], primarily publishes opinion, usable as attributed primary source for opinions, otherwise generally unreliable.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Daily Kos]] [https://www.dailykos.com/], activism blog, consensus to avoid it when better sources are available.<ref name=":1" />
*''Daily Magazines'', unreliable per a February 2023 RSN discussion.<ref name="ammail01" />
*Dissident Voice [https://dissidentvoice.org] not generally reliable per a September 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Dissident Voice]]</ref>
*''[[Epoch Times]]'' [https://www.theepochtimes.com/], also contains lots of reporting on China, bias toward [[Falun Gong]], may not give appropriate weight to controversial issues.<ref name=":1" />
*[[The Federalist (website)]] [https://thefederalist.com/], generally unreliable per an April 2021 RfC.<ref name=":1" /> Previously no consensus.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 274#The Federalist (website)|WP:RSN/Archive 274#The Federalist (website)]]</ref>
*[[Forbes.com]] contributors [https://www.forbes.com/], no editorial oversight<ref name=":1" />
*[[Frontpage Mag]] [https://www.frontpagemag.com/][https://www.frontpagemagazine.com/], consensus for unreliability in an April 2020 discussion,<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 291#FrontPage Magazine|WP:RSN/Archive 291#FrontPage Magazine]]</ref> previously disparaged in a September 2019 discussion<ref name=":meforum1" /> Deprecated in July 2020 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301#RFC: FrontPage Magazine|WP:RSN/Archive 301#RFC: FrontPage Magazine]]</ref>
*''Fuchsia Magazine'' [https://www.fuchsiamagazine.com/], small consensus for unreliability in a March 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_398#Fuchsia_Magazine]]</ref>
*[[Gawker]] [https://gawker.com/], rumors and speculation without attribution.<ref name=":1" />
*Ground News [https://ground.news/], unreliable per an October 2024 RSN discussion that noted that it primarily follows Ad Fontes and Media Bias Fact Check, two publications considered generally unreliable.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_453#What_is_the_reliability_of_Ground_News?]]</ref>
*''[[Heat Street]]'', usable with attribution, but does not sufficiently distinguish news reporting and opinion pieces.<ref name=":1" />
*[[HuffPost#Contributors|''HuffPost'' contributors]] [https://www.huffpost.com/], minimal editorial oversight.<ref name=":1" />
*HS Insider [https://highschool.latimes.com/], probably unreliable according to one editor due to the publication's student-driven nature.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 340#HS Insider (Los Angeles Times)]]</ref>
*Idavox [https://idavox.com/], generally unreliable per a February 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_398#Idavox]]</ref>
*''[[InfoWars]]'', did you really need to look this one up?<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Inquisitr]]'' [https://www.inquisitr.com/], a January 2021 RfC had a rough consensus for being generally unreliable.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 324#Inquisitr revisited|WP:RSN/Archive 324#Inquisitr revisited]]</ref>
*InsideSources [insidesources.com], self-published conspiracy site per a small December 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#InsideSources]]</ref>
*Intellectual Takeout [https://intellectualtakeout.org/], unreliable opinion blog per a May 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_437#Is_intellectualtakeout.org_a_reliable_source?]]</ref>
*K-Love [https://www.klove.com/], rough, small consensus in an October 2024 RSN discussion that it does not operate with editorial oversight.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_455#K-Love]]</ref>
* Law Officer Magazine <small>lawofficer.com</small> [https://www.police1.com/][https://www.lawofficer.com/], unreliable and self-published per a December 2020 RSN discussion, possibly not even a real magazine.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 322#Law Officer Magazine ( lawofficer.com )|WP:RSN/Archive 322#Law Officer Magazine ( lawofficer.com )]]</ref>
*''[[Media Bias/Fact Check]]'' [https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/], generally unreliable, questionable methodology.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Media Research Center]] [https://www.mrc.org/], conservative media-watchdog.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Mises Institute]] [https://mises.org/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 316#Mises Institute articles|WP:RSN/Archive 316#Mises Institute articles]]</ref>
*Money Inc [https://moneyinc.com/], an April 2020 RSN discussion described the source as a self-published group blog.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 289#Money Inc|WP:RSN/Archive 289#Money Inc]]</ref>
*''[[National Enquirer]]'' [https://www.nationalenquirer.com/], supermarket tabloid.<ref name=":1" />
*The National Pulse [https://thenationalpulse.com/], small consensus for unreliability in an October 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 315#Raheem Kassam and https://thenationalpulse.com/ - can they be used for BLPs?|WP:RSN/Archive 315#Raheem Kassam and https://thenationalpulse.com/ - can they be used for BLPs?]]</ref> Reaffirmed as unreliable in a January 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 326#The National Pulse|WP:RSN/Archive 326#The National Pulse]]</ref>
*''[[The New American]]'' [https://thenewamerican.com/]<ref name=":1" />
*''[[New Tang Dynasty Television]]'' [https://www.ntd.com/], deemed to be equivalent to other Falun Gong publications such as ''Epoch Times'' in a May 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name=":tang01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 294#Should we be using this Falun Gong media outfit as a source for BLPs, politics, China, etc?|WP:RSN/Archive 294#Should we be using this Falun Gong media outfit as a source for BLPs, politics, China, etc?]]</ref>
*''[[New York Post]]'' <small>(''New York Evening Post'', Page Six)</small> [https://nypost.com/][https://pagesix.com/], generally unreliable per a September 2020 RfC.<ref name=":1" /> No consensus on the reliability of its entertainment coverage in particular per an April 2024 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_436#RfC:_Entertainment_coverage_of_the_New_York_Post_(including_Decider_and_Page_Six)]]</ref>
*''[[Newsmax]]'' [https://www.newsmax.com/], deprecated at RSP.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Occupy Democrats]] [https://occupydemocrats.com/], deprecated.<ref name=":1" />
*O'Keefe Media Group <small>as well as[[Project Veritas]]</small> deprecated in a July 2023 RfC due to reputation for deliberate fabrication<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_410#O'Keefe_Media_Group_and_Project_Veritas]]</ref>
*[[One America News Network]] (OANN) [https://oann.com/]<ref name=":1" />
*Ourcampaigns.com [https://ourcampaigns.com], unreliable per RfCs in April 2021<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 335#RfC - ourcampaigns.com]]</ref> and February 2021 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 328#RfC - ourcampaigns.com|WP:RSN/Archive 328#RfC - ourcampaigns.com]]</ref>
*''[[PanAm Post]]'' [https://panampost.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 296#RfC: PanAm Post|WP:RSN/Archive 296#RfC: PanAm Post]]</ref>
*[[PETA]] [https://www.peta.org/], consensus that its publications are generally unreliable in an August 2020 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 310#RfC: Reliability of PETA|WP:RSN/Archive 310#RfC: Reliability of PETA]]</ref>
*Politics USA [https://www.politicususa.com/], in a May 2020 RfC, one editor stated flatly that the source is not reliable.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 293#RfC: Is PoliticusUSA a reliable source?|WP:RSN/Archive 293#RfC: Is PoliticusUSA a reliable source?]]</ref>
*[[PragerU]] [https://www.prageru.com/], in a discussion closed January 2020, there was consensus that PragerU is generally unusable.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 283#PragerU - an unreliable source?|WP:RSN/Archive 283#PragerU - an unreliable source?]]</ref>
*''[[The Raw Story]]'' [https://www.rawstory.com/], A January 2021 RfC found this source generally unreliable.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 324#RfC - The Raw Story|WP:RSN/Archive 324#RfC - The Raw Story]]</ref>
*RedState [https://redstate.com/], rough consensus for unreliability in a September 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 313#RedState|WP:RSN/Archive 313#RedState]]</ref>
*''[[Thought Catalog]]'' [https://thoughtcatalog.com/], A March 2019 discussion determined that this source has poor editorial oversight and sometimes publishes fiction.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 262#Thought Catalog|WP:RSN/Archive 262#Thought Catalog]]</ref>
* ''[[The Unz Review]]'' [https://unz.com/][https://unz.org/], antisemitic, pseudoscientific, and fringe content.<ref name=":1" />
*[[VDARE]] [https://vdare.com/], deprecated, consensus that it is generally unusable as a source.<ref name=":1" />
*''Vents Magazine'', unreliable per a February 2023 RSN discussion.<ref name="ammail01" /> Reaffirmed in a July 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#Vents_Magazine]]</ref>
*''[[The Washington Free Beacon]]'' [https://freebeacon.com/], rough consensus in a May 2020 discussion that it is not reliable, with a minority dissenting opinion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 291#Using The Washington Free Beacon in politically related BLPs - is it an RS?|WP:RSN/Archive 291#Using The Washington Free Beacon in politically related BLPs - is it an RS?]]</ref>
*''We Hunted the Mammoth'', [https://wehuntedthemammoth.com/] 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 349#We Hunted the Mammoth]]</ref>
*''[[Western Journal]]'' [https://www.westernjournal.com/], two 2019 discussions elicited only strong condemnations of the source's reliability.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[WorldNetDaily]]'' [https://www.wnd.com/], 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.<ref name=":1" />

===Oceania===

==== Australia ====

; Reliable
*[[ABC News (Australia)]] [https://www.abc.net.au/], described in passing as reliable in two RSN discussions.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 278#Is France 24 a reliable source?|WP:RSN/Archive 278#Is France 24 a reliable source?]]</ref><ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 275#theconversation.com|WP:RSN/Archive 275#theconversation.com]]</ref>
*''[[The Advertiser (Adelaide)]]'' [https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/], generally reliable for regular news coverage per a December 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 321#The Advertiser (Adelaide)|WP:RSN/Archive 321#The Advertiser (Adelaide)]]</ref>
*''[[The Age]]'' [https://www.theage.com.au/], consensus that it is a reliable news organization in an abbreviated September 2021 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 352#Reliability of The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age]]</ref>
*''[[The Australian]]'' [https://www.theaustralian.com.au/], generally reliable per an August 2020 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 309#The Australian|WP:RSN/Archive 309#The Australian]]</ref>
*''[[Australian Financial Review]]'' [https://www.afr.com/], described as a reliable NEWSORG in a December 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 322#The Australian Financial Review and paywalled content|WP:RSN/Archive 322#The Australian Financial Review and paywalled content]]</ref>
*[[The Conversation (website)]] [https://theconversation.com/], generally reliable for subjects in the article author's area of expertise.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Crikey]]'' [https://www.crikey.com.au/], presumed to be a valid [[WP:NEWSORG]] in a small September 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_452#Gregorian_Bivolaru]]</ref>
*''[[The Sydney Morning Herald]]'' [https://www.smh.com.au/], treated as implicitly generally reliable in RSN discussions as an Australian paper of record.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 58#Nash Information Services|WP:RSN/Archive 58#Nash Information Services]]</ref>

; No consensus
*[[Australian Strategic Policy Institute]], [https://www.aspi.org.au/] additional considerations apply per an October 2021 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 357#RfC: Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) as Source]]</ref>
*''Creative Spirits'' [https://www.creativespirits.info/], a May 2020 RSN discussion suggested caution but didn't come to a solid consensus on reliability.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 292#Should this one be added as RS?|WP:RSN/Archive 292#Should this one be added as RS?]]</ref>
*''The Latin Australian Times'' [http://latinaustralian.com.au/], disparaged by one editor in a January 2021 RSN discussion that did not draw further participation.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 325#The Latin Australian Times|WP:RSN/Archive 325#The Latin Australian Times]]</ref>
*[[news.com.au]], [https://www.news.com.au/] described as a Murdoch tabloid, "treat with caution" by one editor in a June 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#news.com.au]]</ref>
*''[[Parramatta Advertiser]]'' [parramattaadvertiser.com.au], no consensus in a June 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_442#The_Parramatta_Advertiser]]</ref>
*''Queensland Places'' [https://www.queenslandplaces.com.au], no consensus in a February 2023 RSN discussion.<ref name=":vic_places0223">[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_396#Victorian_Places]]</ref>
*[[Sky News Australia]], [https://www.skynews.com.au/] 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".<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_384#Sky_News_Australia]]</ref>
*''Victorian Places'' [https://www.victorianplaces.com.au], no consensus in a February 2023 RSN discussion.<ref name=":vic_places0223" />

; Unreliable
*[[The Daily Telegraph (Sydney)]], [https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/] sensationalist tabloid per a September 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 384#The%20Daily%20Telegraph%20(Sydney)|ikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_384#The_Daily_Telegraph_(Sydney)]]</ref>
*Independent Australia [https://independentaustralia.net/], editors disagreed on the exact degree of spin and misinformation published by this source, but agreed that it should be generally considered unreliable and that most of their good-quality reporting is largely lifted from more reliable sources that can be cited instead.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 286#RFC: Independent Australia|WP:RSN/Archive 286#RFC: Independent Australia]]</ref>
*[[Independent Media Center]] [https://indymedia.org/], insufficient fact checking and effectively self-published.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[News Weekly]]'' [https://ncc.org.au/newsweekly/], described by editors as a newsletter run by an advocacy organization. May be usable for [[WP:ABOUTSELF]] for claims related to the [[National Civic Council]].<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288#newsweekly.com.au|WP:RSN/Archive 288#newsweekly.com.au]]</ref>
*[[Newsblaze]] [https://newsblaze.com/], consensus for deprecation in a September 2021 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 353#Historisches Lexikon Bayerns]]</ref>
*[[Quadrant Magazine]] [https://quadrant.org.au/], generally unreliable for factual reporting.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 269#RfC: Quadrant Magazine|WP:RSN/Archive 269#RfC: Quadrant Magazine]]</ref> Note that it is a literary magazine, and thus may still be reliable for literary reviews.
* ''[[Quillette]]'' [https://quillette.com/]<ref name=":1" />
*Whybuy.com.au [https://www.whybuy.com.au/], described by editors as a content farm in a September 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_450#whybuy.com.au]]</ref>

====New Zealand====

; Reliable
*NewsHub, [https://www.newshub.co.nz] described as reliable by two editors in a November 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_389#Newshub]]</ref>
*The Spinoff [https://thespinoff.co.nz/], described as reliable by an editor in a November 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 317#The Spinoff / thespinoff.co.nz|WP:RSN/Archive 317#The Spinoff / thespinoff.co.nz]]</ref>

; No consensus
*NZ on Screen [https://www.nzonscreen.com], no consensus in a small May 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_440#Is_NZ_On_Air_reliable?]]</ref>
*Scoop NZ, [https://www.scoop.co.nz], no consensus in a small March 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 371#Scoop.co.nz]]</ref>

;Unreliable
Oneroof.co.nz [https://oneroof.co.nz/], unreliable per an October 2024 RSN dicussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 455#Oneroof.co.nz|Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_455#Oneroof.co.nz]]</ref>

===South America===

====Argentina====
; Unreliable
*El Rompehielos, [https://elrompehielos.com.ar] one editor in a June 2021 RSN discussion made a case for it being unreliable.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 342#El Rompehielos]]</ref>

====Brazil====

; No consensus
*Instituto Mises Brazil [https://www.mises.org.br/], 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]].<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 305#mises.org.br|WP:RSN/Archive 305#mises.org.br]]</ref>

==== Guyana ====

;No consensus
*''Guyana Times International'' [https://www.guyanatimesinternational.com/], disparaged by one editor in a May 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_407#https://www.guyanatimesinternational.co_and_guardian.co.tt]]</ref>


==== Trinidad and Tobago====
;No consensus
*[[Trinidad and Tobago Guardian]] [https://www.guardian.co.tt/], presumed RS per [[WP:NEWSORG]] in a May 2023 RSN discussion as Trinidad and Tobago's oldest print newspaper.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_407#https://www.guyanatimesinternational.co_and_guardian.co.tt]]</ref>


==== Venezuela ====

; Unreliable
*Belleza Venezolana (dead link), self-published source per a September 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_450#bellezavenezolana.net]]</ref>
*[[Correo del Orinoco (2009)|Correo del Orinoco]] [http://www.correodelorinoco.gob.ve/], unreliable per a November 2023 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_420#RfC:_Correo_del_Orinoco_(Orinoco_Tribune)]]</ref>
* [[Telesur]] [https://www.telesurtv.net/][https://www.telesurenglish.net/], deprecated.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Venezuelanalysis]] [https://venezuelanalysis.com/], not reliable. Though it can be useful for some news related to Venezuela, Venezuelanalysis states that "it is clearly pro-Bolivarian Revolution" and supports the Venezuelan government..<ref name=":1" />

==By topic==
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===
*<small>Note: See [[WP:WikiProject Dogs]] for the ratings of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Reliable sources|dog-related sources]]</small> 
; No consensus
*World Spider Catalog [https://wsc.nmbe.ch/], no consensus in an April 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_402#World_Spider_Catalog]]</ref>
; Unreliable
*animals24-7.org [https://www.animals24-7.org/], unreliable per a September 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name=":dogbite01" />
*daxtonsfriends.com [https://www.daxtonsfriends.com/], unreliable per a September 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name=":dogbite01" />
*dogbitelaw.com [https://dogbitelaw.com/], unreliable per a September 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name=":dogbite01" />
*[[Dogsbite.org]] [https://www.dogsbite.org/], unreliable per a September 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name=":dogbite01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 313#Dogsbite.org, other dog attack-related advocacy websites|WP:RSN/Archive 313#Dogsbite.org, other dog attack-related advocacy websites]]</ref>
*fatalpitbullattacks.com [https://www.fatalpitbullattacks.com/], unreliable per a September 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name=":dogbite01" />
*nationalpitbullvictimawareness.org [https://www.nationalpitbullvictimawareness.org/], unreliable per a September 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name=":dogbite01" />

===Biography===

; Reliable
*BurkesPeerage.com [https://burkespeerage.com/], consensus for reliability for genealogical information in a June 2020 RSN discussion, but most of its other content is not independent of the subjects.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":nobility01" />
*debretts.com [https://debretts.com/]<ref name=":1" />
* ''[[People (magazine)]]'' [https://people.com/], generally reliable for BLPs, do not use for particularly contentious claims.<ref name=":1" />

; No consensus
*Arlingtoncemetery.net [http://arlingtoncemetery.net/], self-published, may have some usable information per an editor in a December 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 320#arlingtoncemetery dot net|WP:RSN/Archive 320#arlingtoncemetery dot net]]</ref>
*BabyNames.com [https://babynames.com/], one editor has argued that this website has insufficient editorial oversight.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 285#BabyNames.com|WP:RSN/Archive 285#BabyNames.com]]</ref>
*[[Biography.com]] [https://www.biography.com/]<ref name=":1" />
*[[E!]] [https://www.eonline.com/], generally usable for celebrity news but may not represent due weight.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Entrepreneur (magazine)]] [https://www.entrepreneur.com/magazine], 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.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting]] [https://fair.org/], no consensus on general reliability, do not use to support controversial claims in BLPs<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Jezebel (website)]]'' [https://jezebel.com/], news and cultural commentary geared towards women, many editors agree that it inappropriately blurs opinion and factual reporting.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Neurotree]] [https://academictree.org/], editors in a September 2024 RSN discussion were divided on the publication's reliability.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_452#Neurotree]]</ref>
*Pando.com [https://pando.com/], no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 323#Pando.com|WP:RSN/Archive 323#Pando.com]]</ref>
*Showbiz411 [https://www.showbiz411.com/], no consensus in a September 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_452#Showbiz411]]</ref>
*[[TMZ]] [https://www.tmz.com/], 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 [[Wikipedia:DUE|due or undue weight]], especially when the subject is a [[Wikipedia:BLP|living person]].<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Us Weekly]]'' [https://www.usmagazine.com/], no consensus. Consensus that it is less reliable than ''People''.<ref name=":1" />

; Unreliable
*Almanach de Saxe Gotha <nowiki>http://almanachdegotha.org</nowiki>, 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.<ref name=":nobility01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 297#More nobility fansites|WP:RSN/Archive 297#More nobility fansites]]</ref>
*[[Ancestry.com]] [https://www.ancestry.com/]<ref name=":1" />
*angelfire.com/realm/gotha [https://angelfire.com/realm/gotha], editors advocated for deprecation in a June 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name=":nobility01" />
*Bradysnario.com [https://bradysnario.com/], may be defunct, disparaged by an editor in an October 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 315#Is brandsynario.com a reliable source?|WP:RSN/Archive 315#Is brandsynario.com a reliable source?]]</ref>
*Celebitchy.com [https://www.celebitchy.com/], unreliable gossip site based on 1 discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 275#Celebitchy.com - Reliable?|WP:RSN/Archive 275#Celebitchy.com - Reliable?]]</ref>
*[[CelebrityNetWorth]] [https://www.celebritynetworth.com/]<ref name=":1" />
*Chivalricorders.com [https://chivalricorders.com/], may be defunct, editors advocated for deprecation in a June 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name=":nobility01" />
*Countere.com [https://www.countere.com/], small consensus for unreliability in a September 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 313#Countere.com|WP:RSN/Archive 313#Countere.com]]</ref>
*Cracroft's Peerage [http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/], unreliable per a June 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name=":nobility01" />
*EarnTheNecklace [https://www.earnthenecklace.com/], unfavorably compared to CelebrityNetWorth.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 286#EarnTheNecklace.com|WP:RSN/Archive 286#EarnTheNecklace.com]]</ref>
*[[Enciclopedia d'arte italiana]], [https://www.enciclopediadarte.eu/] small consensus in a December 2021 RSN discussion that the biographical entries are submitted by the subjects with little to no editorial review.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 361#Enciclopedia d'arte italiana]]</ref>
*englishmonarchs.co.uk [http://englishmonarchs.co.uk/], editors advocated for deprecation in a June 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name=":nobility01" />
*[[FamilySearch]] [https://www.familysearch.org/], user-generated.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Famous Birthdays]], no fact checking.<ref name=":1" />
* FamousBirthsDeaths.com [https://famousbirthsdeaths.com], self published.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 257#famousbirthsdeaths.com|WP:RSN/Archive 257#famousbirthsdeaths.com]]</ref>
*[[Find a Grave]] [https://www.findagrave.com/], user-generated.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Findmypast]] [https://www.findmypast.com/][https://www.findmypast.co.uk/], primary source<ref name=":1" />
*[[Geni.com]] [https://www.geni.com/], open wiki.<ref name=":1" />
*Guide2WomenLeaders.com [https://guide2womenleaders.com/], disparaged as self-published and unreliable in an October 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 314#guide2womenleaders.com|WP:RSN/Archive 314#guide2womenleaders.com]]</ref>
*''[[Hello! (magazine)]]'' [https://www.hellomagazine.com/], celebrity tabloid with a reputation for fabrication.<ref name=":hello!" />
*''The Hustler's Digest'' [https://thehustlersdigest.com/], assessed to include both self-published and pay-to-play material with insufficient editorial oversight in a September 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 311#The Hustler's Digest|WP:RSN/Archive 311#The Hustler's Digest]]</ref>
*[[Internet Speculative Fiction Database]] [https://www.isfdb.org/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 273#The Internet Speculative Fiction Database as a source for BLP data|WP:RSN/Archive 273#The Internet Speculative Fiction Database as a source for BLP data]]</ref>
*jacobite.ca [http://jacobite.ca/], editors advocated for deprecation in a June 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name=":nobility01" />
*Looktothestars.org [https://www.looktothestars.org/], described as a PR site in an October 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 314#Look to the Stars|WP:RSN/Archive 314#Look to the Stars]]</ref>
*''[[Marquis Who's Who]]'' [https://marquiswhoswho.com/], content is not independent of subjects.<ref name=":1" />
* MarriedCeleb.com [https://marriedceleb.com/], consensus that there is no evidence that it is reliable.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 287#Potential reliability of marriedceleb.com|WP:RSN/Archive 287#Potential reliability of marriedceleb.com]]</ref>
* Media Entertainment Arts WorldWide, [https://meaww.com/], small consensus that it is a gossip tabloid in a March 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 332#News Website MEAWW Reliable or Unreliable Source?|WP:RSN/Archive 332#News Website MEAWW Reliable or Unreliable Source?]]</ref>
*[[Medium (website)]] [https://medium.com/], self-publishing site, do not use for BLPs. (See also the entry for ''Cuepoint'', a ''Medium''-owned publication with editorial oversight)<ref name=":1" />
*NetWorthPost [https://networthpost.org/], unreliable per a June 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#Net_Worth_Post]]</ref>
*[[NNDB]] (Notable Names Database) [https://www.nndb.com/], poor reputation for fact checking, sometimes sources from Wikipedia.<ref name=":1" />
*NickiSwift.com [https://www.nickiswift.com/], gossip blog.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 272#Nickiswift.com|WP:RSN/Archive 272#Nickiswift.com]]</ref>
*odssf.com [http://odssf.com/], consists of unsourced articles and has a blank "about us" page. Unreliable per January 2018 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 236#odssf.com|WP:RSN/Archive 236#odssf.com]]</ref>
*[[PopSugar]] [https://www.popsugar.com/], disparaged as a gossip site in an October 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 314#PopSugar?|WP:RSN/Archive 314#PopSugar?]]</ref> Described as potentially usable for non-BLP content in a December 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 322#PopSugar|WP:RSN/Archive 322#PopSugar]]</ref>
*Royal Central, [http://royalcentral.co.uk/], deprecated per a September 2022 RfC.<ref name=":1" />
*StarsUnfolded [https://starsunfolded.com], self-published source.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Who's Who (UK)]]'' [https://www.ukwhoswho.com/]<ref name=":1" />

===Books, fashion, music, television, video games, entertainment, and other popular culture===
{{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}}

[http://cse.google.com/cse?cx=003516479746865699832:leawcwkqifq Google custom search for generally reliable sources for video games] (External link)

; Reliable
*[[ArtNet]], [https://news.artnet.com/], consensus that its art news coverage is generally reliable in a July 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 348#Artnet news]]</ref> Also described by one editor as a good source in a March 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_430#Artnet News + artist's estates]]</ref>
*Automaton media [https://automaton-media.com/], small consensus for reliability in a January 2023 RSN discussion.<ref name=":jpvg0123" />
* ''[[The A.V. Club]]'' [https://www.avclub.com/]<ref name=":1" />
*[[AVN (magazine)]], [https://avn.com/] consensus for general reliability in an August 2021 RfC.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Billboard (magazine)]] [https://www.billboard.com/], generally reliable for music news per a September 2020 RSN discussion. Major publisher of US record charts.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 312#Question about Billboard|WP:RSN/Archive 312#Question about Billboard]]</ref>
*Behind the Voice Actors, [https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/] generally reliable but typically not significant coverage per a March 2022 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 370#RfC: Behind the Voice Actors]]</ref>
*''[[Blender (magazine)]]'' [https://blender.com/], defunct, reliable for music.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 284#Blender|WP:RSN/Archive 284#Blender]]</ref>
*[[British Film Institute]] [https://www.bfi.org.uk/], generally reliable per a January 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_396#British_Film_Institute]]</ref>
*[[Cartoon Brew]] [https://www.cartoonbrew.com/], rough consensus for reliability in a May 2024 RSN discussion,<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_440#RfC:_Cartoon_Brew]]</ref> previously no consensus in a January 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_423#Cartoon_Brew]]</ref>
*''[[Deadline Hollywood]]'' [https://deadline.com/][https://deadlinehollywooddaily.com/], reliable for entertainment-related articles.<ref name=":1" />
*''Den Fami Nico Gamer'' [https://news.denfaminicogamer.jp], small consensus for reliability in a January 2023 RSN discussion.<ref name=":jpvg0123">[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_396#Reliability_of_two_Japanese_gaming_websites_(Den_Fami_Nico_Gamer_and_Automaton_Media)]]</ref>
*''Dicebreaker'' [https://www.dicebreaker.com/], marginally reliable for reviews per a July 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_379#Reliability_of_The_Dicebreaker_(News)]]</ref> Previous consensus was that they are reliable for claims related to board games per a May 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 337#Dicebreaker]]</ref>
*[[Digital Spy]] [https://digitalspy.com][https://digitalspy.co.uk]<ref name=":1" />
*The Direct [https://thedirect.com/], small consensus for reliability for pop culture coverage in a December 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_391#thedirect.com]]</ref>
*''[[Entertainment Weekly]]'' [https://ew.com/], reliable for entertainment-related articles, no consensus for other topics.<ref name=":1" />
*ESTNN, [https://estnn.com/], small consensus for reliability for video game topics in a February 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_425#ESTNN]]</ref>
*''[[Exclaim!]]'' [https://exclaim.ca/], reliable for music reviews.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 284#Exclaim!|WP:RSN/Archive 284#Exclaim!]]</ref>
*Filmcompanion.in [https://www.filmcompanion.in/], generally reliable for entertainment, not including the crowdsourced ''Readers Write'' segments, per a July 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#Filmcompanion.in_(2)]]</ref>
*''Foreword Reviews'' [https://www.forewordreviews.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_425#Foreword_Reviews]]</ref>
* ''[[Game Developer]]'' [https://gamedeveloper.com/][https://gamasutra.com/], generally reliable for video games.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[GQ]]'' [https://www.gq.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 271#GQ|WP:RSN/Archive 271#GQ]]</ref>
*''[[Gizmodo]]'' [https://gizmodo.com/], generally reliable for techonology, pop culture, and entertainment. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for controversial statements.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Glamour (magazine)|''Glamour'']], [https://www.glamour.com/] well-established fashion magazine per a July 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 348#Glamour Magazine as a Reliable Source in the Fashion Industry]]</ref>
*HighSnobiety [https://www.highsnobiety.com/], described favorably by one editor in a November 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 317#Highsnobiety|WP:RSN/Archive 317#Highsnobiety]]</ref>
*''[[The Hollywood Reporter]]'' [https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/], reliable for entertainment-related articles.<ref name=":1" />
*HorrorNews.net [https://horrornews.net/], consensus for reliability in an October 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 314#HORRORNEWS.NET|WP:RSN/Archive 314#HORRORNEWS.NET]]</ref>
*''[[Igromania]]'', [https://www.igromania.ru/] reliable according to one editor in a June 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 343#Igromania as a reliable Gaming Source]]</ref>
*[[Idolator (website)]] [https://www.idolator.com/], reliable for music, evaluate for due weight on a case-by-case basis.<ref name=":1" />
*[[IGN]] [https://www.ign.com/], reliable for entertainment-related subjects, although they also host blogs which should be treated as regular blogs.<ref name=":1" />'
*''[[io9]]'' [https://io9.gizmodo.com/], reliable for critical reviews as a Tomatometer-approved publication.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 277#Kissyfur|WP:RSN/Archive 277#Kissyfur]]</ref>
*[[Kirkus Reviews]] [https://kirkusreviews.com/], most content by Kirkus Reviews is considered to be generally reliable, except for its paid content Kirkus Indie.<ref name=":1" />
*[[The Mary Sue]] [https://www.themarysue.com/], reliable for reviews and opinion, not reliable for reblogged content.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Metacritic]] [https://www.metacritic.com/], 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 [[wikipedia:SPS|self-published sources]]. Reviewers tracked by Metacritic are not automatically reliable for their reviews.<ref name=":1" />
*''Mixdown'' [https://mixdownmag.com.au/], professional publication per a July 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_446#Mixdown_(music_website)]]</ref>
*''[[The Music Trades]]'' [https://www.musictrades.com/], reliable trade publication per a small September 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_452#The_Music_Trades]]</ref>
*''[[New Musical Express]]'' <small>(NME)</small> [https://www.nme.com/], generally reliable per a November 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 318#New Musical Express / NME / www.nme.com|WP:RSN/Archive 318#New Musical Express / NME / www.nme.com]]</ref>
*[[People Make Games]] [https://www.youtube.com/@PeopleMakeGames], generally reliable in a February 2023 RfC that elicited responses between "generally reliable" and "considerations apply".<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_399#RFC:_People_Make_Games]]</ref>
*[[Polygon (website)]] [https://www.polygon.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 302#Is video game website polygon.com a RS for information on allegations of sexual misconduct against BLPs?|WP:RSN/Archive 302#Is video game website polygon.com a RS for information on allegations of sexual misconduct against BLPs?]]</ref>
*''[[Rolling Stone]]'' [https://www.rollingstone.com/], There is consensus that Rolling Stone is generally reliable. Rolling Stone's [[Wikipedia:RSOPINION|opinion pieces]] and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding [[Wikipedia:BLP|living persons]], should only be used with proper attribution. The publication's [[Capsule reviews|capsule reviews]] deserve [[Wikipedia:DUE|less weight]] than their full-length reviews, as they are subject to a lower standard of fact-checking.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Rotten Tomatoes]] [https://www.rottentomatoes.com/], 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 [[Wikipedia:SPS|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.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Soap Hub]] [https://soaphub.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 322#Soap Hub as a reliable source|WP:RSN/Archive 322#Soap Hub as a reliable source]]</ref>
* [[Stylist (magazine)]] [https://www.stylist.co.uk/], reliable for uncontroversial pop culture reviews per a small consensus in a February 2022 discussion about its reliability for TV/film reviews.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 368#Stylist magazine]]</ref>
*Sweety High [https://sweetyhigh.com], one editor described it as marginally reliable in a February 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 328#Sweety High|WP:RSN/Archive 328#Sweety High]]</ref>
*[[Tatler]] [https://www.tatler.com/], small consensus for reliability on fashion topics in a 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288#Tatler|WP:RSN/Archive 288#Tatler]]</ref>
*''[[TheWrap]]'' [https://www.thewrap.com/], 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.<ref name=":1" />
*[[TubeFilter]] [https://tubefilterinc.com/], generally reliable per an October 2023 RSN discussion, but also hosts sponsored content.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_418#Reliablity_of_Tubefilter]]</ref>
*''[[TV Guide]]'' [https://www.tvguide.com/], generally reliable, some consider it to be a primary source.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Variety (magazine)]]'' [https://variety.com/], generally reliable entertainment trade magazine.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Vice Media]] <small>(''[[Garage Magazine|Garage]]'', ''[[i-D]]'', ''Motherboard'', ''[[Vice (magazine)|Vice]]'', [[Vice News]])</small> [https://www.vice.com/], while there is no consensus for general reliability, it is reliable for arts and entertainment.''<small><ref name=":1" /></small>''
*''[[Vogue (magazine)]]'' [https://www.vogue.com/], generally reliable.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Uproxx]] [https://uproxx.com/], weak consensus for reliability in a 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 284#Uproxx again|WP:RSN/Archive 284#Uproxx again]]</ref>
*[[Vanity Fair (magazine)]] [https://www.vanityfair.com/],<ref name=":1" />

; No consensus
*[[AfterEllen]] [https://afterellen.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 302#AfterEllen|WP:RSN/Archive 302#AfterEllen]]</ref>
*allaccess.com [https://www.allaccess.com/], reliable for some information such as release dates per a July 2020 RSN discussion, may not be sufficiently independent for notability.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301#allaccess.com|WP:RSN/Archive 301#allaccess.com]]</ref>
*Allmusic, [https://www.allmusic.com/] 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 331#AllMusic (allmusic.com): summary of previous AllMusic and/or "All Music" discussions|WP:RSN/Archive 331#AllMusic (allmusic.com): summary of previous AllMusic and/or "All Music" discussions]]</ref>
*[[Allocine]] [https://www.allocine.fr/], no consensus in a September 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_450#Allocine]]</ref>
* [[AskMen]] [https://www.askmen.com/], editors in a 2020 discussion were concerned that the publication does not distinguish between sponsored and independent content, and that it engages in churnalism.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 284#AskMen|WP:RSN/Archive 284#AskMen]]</ref>
*AwardsWatch [https://awardswatch.com], no consensus in a small December 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#AwardsWatch]]</ref>
*Beebom.com, [https://beebom.com/] no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 338#Beebom.com]]</ref><ref name=":1" />
*Blabbermouth [https://blabbermouth.net/], no firm consensus in an August 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_448#Blabbermouth]]</ref>
*''[[Boing Boing]]'' [https://boingboing.net/], however there is no consensus regarding their reliability for topics other than pop culture.<ref name=":1" />
*Bounding Into Comics [https://boundingintocomics.com/], no consensus in a May 2020 RSN discussion, some several editors suggesting that article quality varies.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 293#The Reliability of "Bounding into Comics"|WP:RSN/Archive 293#The Reliability of "Bounding into Comics"]]</ref>
*British Comedy Guide [https://www.comedy.co.uk], no consensus in a November 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_419#British_Comedy_Guide]]</ref>
*''[[Chortle]]'' [https://www.chortle.co.uk/], described by one editor in a February 2024 RSN discussion as reliable for their reviews but not for their tour details and listings.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_425#Is_Chortle_reliable]]</ref>
*[[CliffsNotes]] [https://www.cliffsnotes.com/], 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.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Collider (website)]], [https://collider.com] no consensus in a March 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_429#Collider]]</ref> Previously no consensus in a March 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 334#Collider|WP:RSN/Archive 334#Collider]]</ref>
*[[Comic Book Resources]] <small>(CBR)</small>[https://www.cbr.com/] 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_379#Is_Comic_Book_Resources_a_reliable_source?]]</ref>
*Comingsoon.net [https://www.comingsoon.net], described by one editor as unreliable in a January 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_424#comingsoon.net]]</ref>
*''Cuepoint'', [https://medium.com/cuepoint] 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_381#RfC:_Cuepoint_Medium_publication_reliability]]</ref>
*Daily.bandcamp.com [https://daily.bandcamp.com], no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion.<ref name="music0521" />
*''[[The Daily Dot]]'' [https://www.dailydot.com/], no community consensus on reliability in a September 2022 RSN discussion, though generally considered fine for non-contentious claims of fact.<ref name=":1" />
*''The Daily Game'' [https://www.dailygame.net/], described by one editor as unreliable in a May 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_404#Daily_Game]]</ref>
*''[[Dancing Astronaut]]'' [https://dancingastronaut.com/], no consensus, leaning towards unreliability in a February 2024 RSN discussion.<ref name="edm0224" />
*datatransmission.co [https://datatransmission.com], no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion.<ref name="music0521" />
*[[The Deli Magazine]] [https://thedelimagazine.com], no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion.<ref name="music0521" />
* [[Dexerto]] [https://www.dexerto.com/][https://www.dexerto.es/][https://www.dexerto.fr/][https://www.dexerto.media/], no consensus (option 2) per an October 2023 RfC. Previously considered unreliable.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 262#Dexerto|WP:RSN/Archive 262#Dexerto]]</ref>. Also listed at [[WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources]], where outright errors have been discussed.<ref>[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 25#Dexerto (part 2 - electric boogaloo)|WT:VGRS/Archive 25#Dexerto (part 2 - electric boogaloo)]]</ref>. A May 2019 RfC deemed that its Dexerto was not unreliable enough to be deprecated.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 266#RfC: Dexerto|WP:RSN/Archive 266#RfC: Dexerto]]</ref>
*Dusted Magazine [https://dustedmagazine.tumblr.com/],[http://www.dustedmagazine.com/], no consensus in a February 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_429#Dusted_Magazine]]</ref>
*EDM.com [https://edm.com/], no consensus, leaning towards unreliability in a February 2024 RSN discussion.<ref name="edm0224" />
*Film Music Reporter [http://filmmusicreporter.com/], no consensus in an October 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_455#Film_Music_Reporter]]</ref>. Previously treated skeptically at a September 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 313#Film Music Reporter|WP:RSN/Archive 313#Film Music Reporter]]</ref> May be usable for basic information such as track listings for films per an April 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 335#Film Music Reporter]]</ref>
*Flamesrising.com, [https://www.flamesrising.com/] no consensus in a June 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 344#Flamesrising.com]]</ref>
*[[Fryderyk Chopin Institute]] [https://nifc.pl/], described as reliable for claims related to classical music by one editor in a January 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 323#Fryderyk Chopin Institute|WP:RSN/Archive 323#Fryderyk Chopin Institute]]</ref>
*[[Genius (website)]] [https://genius.com/], song lyrics and annotations are user-generated. No consensus about articles with bylines published on the website.<ref name=":1" />
*Get Ready to Rock [https://www.getreadytorock.com/], no consensus in a small June 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_441#Get_Ready_to_Rock_(getreadytorock.com)]]</ref>
*[[Grand Comics Database]] [https://www.comics.org/], no consensus in a February 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_398#Grand_Comics_Database]]</ref>
*Horror Obsessive [https://horrorobsessive.com], no consensus in a January 2023 discussion where one editor made a case for unreliability.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_395#Horror_Obsessive]]</ref>
*Hype Beast, [https://hypebeast.com], no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion.<ref name="music0521" />
*LateNighter [https://latenighter.com/], described as reliable by one editor in an April 2024 RSN post.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_435#Notes_on_LateNighter_source]]</ref>
*[[Locus (magazine)|''Locus'']] [https://locusmag.com] no consensus ın a small August 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_448#Locus_Mag]]</ref>
* [[Mashable]], [https://mashable.com/]<ref name=":1" />
*Metalmaidens.com [http://metalmaidens.com/], consensus that further considerations apply in a November 2021 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 357#RfC: Metalmaidens.com]]</ref> 
*Metalreviews.com [https://www.metalreviews.com/], no consensus in a November 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 319#Is Metalreviews.com a reliable source|WP:RSN/Archive 319#Is Metalreviews.com a reliable source]]</ref>
* [[MetalSucks]] [https://www.metalsucks.net/], 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.<ref name=":1" />
*[[The Needle Drop]] [https://www.theneedledrop.com/], no consensus in a January 2021 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 326#The Needle Drop|WP:RSN/Archive 326#The Needle Drop]]</ref><ref name=":1" />
*''[[News of the World]]'' [http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/], defunct, while deprecated as unreliable for general news reporting, some editors hold that it is usable with attribution for film reviews.<ref name=":1" />
*Numetalagenda [http://numetalagenda.com/], no consensus in an October 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_453#numetalagenda.com]]</ref>
*[[Ones to Watch]] [https://onestowatch.com/] no consensus in a May 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_440#Ones_To_Watch's_reliability_and_use_for_notability]]</ref> 
*Player.One [https://www.player.one/], no consensus in a September 2019 WP:Video Games/Sources discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_22#Player.One]]</ref>
*Popspoken [https://popspoken.com/], no consensus in an April 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_433#Popspoken.com]]</ref>
*Public Art in Public Places [https://www.publicartinpublicplaces.info/], no consensus in an August 2023 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_412#RfC:_Public_Art_in_Public_Places]]</ref>
* ''Punknews'', [https://www.punknews.org], no consensus in a February 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 368#Punknews.org]]</ref>
*[[PureWow]] [https://www.purewow.com/], no consensus in an April 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_435#PureWow_review_on_animated_episode]]</ref>
*''The Ronin'' [https://theronin.org/], no consensus in a November 2021 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 358#RfC: The Ronin]]</ref>
*[[Screen Rant]] [https://screenrant.com/], might not be appropriate for controversial statements in BLPs, but it is reliable enough for other uses.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Singersroom]] [https://singersroom.com/], small, rough consensus that it is unreliable following an unclear cutoff date ~2019 per a March 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_400#singersroom.com_revisited]]</ref>
*Soap Opera News [https://www.soapoperanews.net/2022/04/days-of-our-lives-mike-manning.html], one editor argued that it is likely not reliable in a January 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_395#Soap_Opera_News_for_the_dob_of_an_actor?]]</ref>
*[[Social Blade]] [https://socialblade.com/], usable primary source for Youtube statistics but not a reliable source of analysis or evidence of notability per a January 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_425#Is_Social_Blade_a_reliable_source_for_YouTube_statistics?]]</ref>
*[[SparkNotes]] [https://www.sparknotes.com/]<ref name=":1" />
*Sputnik Music [https://www.sputnikmusic.com/], no consensus in a September 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_414#Sputnikmusic.com]]</ref>
*[[TMZ]] [https://www.tmz.com/], 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 [[Wikipedia:DUE|due or undue weight]], especially when the subject is a [[Wikipedia:BLP|living person]].<ref name=":1" />
*TohoKingdom [https://www.tohokingdom.com/], self-published but has some claim to being an expert for Godzilla-franchise related subjects.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 287#TohoKingdom|WP:RSN/Archive 287#TohoKingdom]]</ref>
*[[UKGameshows.com]] [http://www.ukgameshows.com/], no consensus in a May 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 375#UKGameshows.com for reviews and opinions]]</ref>
*WeRaveYou [https://weraveyou.com/], no consensus, leaning towards unreliability in a February 2024 RSN discussion.<ref name="edm0224" />
*Winteriscoming.net [https://winteriscoming.net/], no consensus in a December 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#Winteriscoming.net]]</ref>
*Worldofwonder.net [https://worldofwonder.net/], possibly marginally reliable as a primary source for information about [[World of Wonder (company)]] productions per a May 2020 discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 294#Video Vs review|WP:RSN/Archive 294#Video Vs review]]</ref>
*[[XBIZ]], [https://www.xbiz.com/] no consensus in an August 2021 RfC.<ref name=":1" />
*YourEDM [https://www.youredm.com/], no consensus, leaning towards unreliability in a February 2024 RSN discussion.<ref name="edm0224">[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_427#Electronic music sources]]</ref>
*Youth Time [https://youth-time.eu], no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion.<ref name="music0521" />

; Unreliable
*Album of the Year [https://www.albumoftheyear.org/], consensus in a 2020 RSN discussion that the site's review aggregation incorporates reviews from unreliable sources.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 316#Album of the Year|WP:RSN/Archive 316#Album of the Year]]</ref>
*Allkpop [https://www.allkpop.com], unreliable gossip magazine per an April 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_436#RfC:_Allkpop]]</ref>
*''Alternative Vision'' [http://www.alternativevision.co.uk/], an August 2019 discussion had a small consensus that it is not reliable<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 271#Alternative Vision|WP:RSN/Archive 271#Alternative Vision]]</ref>
* [[Amazon (company)]] [https://amazon.com/], content is provided by sellers.<ref name=":1" />
*Amomama [https://news.amomama.com/], unreliable tabloid per a July 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_445#amomama]]</ref>
*Arcade Heroes [https://arcadeheroes.com/], deemed a fansite without editorial controls in an RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288#Arcade Heroes|WP:RSN/Archive 288#Arcade Heroes]]</ref>
*Art of Manliness [https://www.artofmanliness.com/], non-expert blog per an April 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 337#Is The Art of Manliness a reliable source, and is Brett McKay an expert source?]]</ref>
*beatportal.com [https://beatportal.com], unreliable per a May 2021 RSN discussion.<ref name="music0521" />
*''Broadway World'' [https://www.broadwayworld.com/], primarily prints PR per a February 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 398#Concern regarding Broadway World]]</ref> Previously described similarly by one editor in a January 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_394#Broadway_World]]</ref>
*Cinema Cats [https://cinemacats.com/], self-published non-expert website per an October 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 316#Cinema cats|WP:RSN/Archive 316#Cinema cats]]</ref>
*Daily-beat.com [https://daily-beat.com], disparaged by one editor in a May 2021 RSN discussion.<ref name="music0521">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 340#Help identifying these sources as reliable or unreliable]]</ref>
*[[Discogs]] [https://www.discogs.com/], user-generated content.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Distractify]], [https://www.distractify.com/] 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.<ref name=":1" />
*The Electric Hawk [https://theleectrichawk.com], not a journalistic source per a May 2021 RSN discussion.<ref name="music0521" />
*electronicbeats.net [https://electronicbeats.net], described as a promotional site in a May 2021 RSN discussion, may be usable as a primary source.<ref name="music0521" />
*Film Freeway [https://filmfreeway.com/], unreliable [[WP:UGC]] per an April 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_401#FilmFreeway]]</ref>
*Future Mag Music [https://futuremagmusic.org], described as a promotional site in a May 2021 RSN discussion, may be usable as a primary source.<ref name="music0521" />
*Game Skinny, [https://www.gameskinny.com/] generally unreliable per a May 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 339#Game Skinny]]</ref>
*Geeks and Gamers [https://www.geeksandgamers.com/], generally unreliable per an August 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_449#geeksandgamers.com_for_potential_deprecation]]</ref>
*Geek Girl Authority [https://www.geekgirlauthority.com/], small consensus that it is a group blog in a small January 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_425#Geek_Girl_Authority]]</ref>
*[[Goodreads]] [https://www.goodreads.com/], user-generated.<ref name=":1" />
*[[IMDb]] [https://www.imdb.com/], user-generated.<ref name=":1" />
*Inside The Magic [https://insidethemagic.net], unreliable per a small August 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_449#insidethemagic.net]]</ref>
*Insight music [https://insightmusic.co.uk], described as a promotional site in a May 2021 RSN discussion, may be usable as a primary source.<ref name="music0521" />
*[[Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music]] [https://ishkur.com/][http://techno.org/electronic-music-guide/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 309#RfC : Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music|WP:RSN/Archive 309#RfC : Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music]]</ref>
*''Kirkus Indie'', paid publisher that should not be used to assess notability per a March 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 331#Kirkus Indie|WP:RSN/Archive 331#Kirkus Indie]]</ref><ref name=":1" />
* ''[[Know Your Meme]]'' [https://knowyourmeme.com/], "submissions" are user-generated, as are "confirmed" entries. There is no consensus on whether their video series is reliable.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Last.fm]] [https://www.last.fm/], user-generated, deprecated.<ref name=":1" />
*metal-experience.com, [http://metal-experience.com/] consensus for unreliability due to insufficient fact checking per an April 2021 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 334#RfC: metal-experience.com|WP:RSN/Archive 334#RfC: metal-experience.com]]</ref>
*Metalheadzone [https://metalheadzone.com/], insufficient editorial oversight.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 286#RfC: Metalheadzone|WP:RSN/Archive 286#RfC: Metalheadzone]]</ref>
*Nine to Five Records [https://ninetofiverecords.com], promotional website in a May 2021 RSN discussion, may be usable as a primary source.<ref name="music0521" />
*Old Time Music [https://oldtimemusic.com], AI-driven spam per a February 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_429#oldtimemusic.com_is_AI_generated_spam]]</ref>
*Plastic Mag [https://plasticmag.co.uk], described as likely self-published in a May 2021 RSN discussion.<ref name="music0521" />
*The Playground [https://theplayground.co.uk], promotional site according to one editor in a May 2021 RSN discussion.<ref name="music0521" />
*[[Rate Your Music]] <small>(RYM, Cinemos, Glitchwave, Sonemic)</small> [https://rateyourmusic.com/][https://glitchwave.com/][https://sonemic.com/], user-generated, deprecated.<ref name=":1" />
*Ratings Ryan [http://www.ratingsryan.com/], self-published blog per a February 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_398#Ratings_Ryan]]</ref>
*Reviewit.pk [https://reviewit.pk/] small consensus for unreliability in a February 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_425#reviewit.pk]]</ref>
*Rocklistmusic.co.uk [https://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/], self-published source per a January 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_396#rocklistmusic.co.uk_being_used_for_Top_100_Hip_Hop_songs_of_all-time]]</ref>
*Rollingout.com [https://rollingout.com/], small consensus in an RSN discussion that it is not reliable.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288#Rolling Out|WP:RSN/Archive 288#Rolling Out]]</ref>
*Rotoscopers, [https://www.rotoscopers.com], crowdsourced with insufficient oversight according to one editor in a January 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 363#Is Rotoscopers reliable]]</ref>
*Saving Country Music [https://www.savingcountrymusic.com/], rough consensus in a January 2022 RSN discussion that it is a self-published source to be avoided.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 362#Saving Country Music]]</ref>
*Secret Shores music [https://secretshoresmusic.com], likely self-published according to an editor in a May 2021 RSN discussion.<ref name="music0521" />
* [[SongMeanings]] [https://songmeanings.com/], user generated per February 2019 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 259#Songmeanings.com|WP:RSN/Archive 259#Songmeanings.com]]</ref>
*SongMeaningsAndFacts.com [https://www.songmeaningsandfacts.com/], no editorial oversight.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 278#songmeaningsandfacts.com in Party Favor (song)|WP:RSN/Archive 278#songmeaningsandfacts.com in Party Favor (song)]]</ref>
* [[SoundCloud]] [https://soundcloud.com], self published.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 201#Drop the Pilot|WP:RSN/Archive 201#Drop the Pilot]]</ref>
*Spirit of Metal [https://spirit-of-metal.com/], self-published source.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Static Media]] [https://www.static.com/], [https://www.svg.com], rough consensus for unreliability in an October 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_418#Is_SVG.com_reliable?]]</ref>
*Stylecraze.com [https://www.stylecraze.com], unreliable per a small July 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_443#Stylecraze.com]]</ref>
*Thrashocore.com, [https://www.thrashocore.com/] generally unreliable per an April 2021 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 336#RfC: thrashocore.com]]</ref>
*[[TrekNation]] <small>(Trek Today, Trek BBS, Jammers Reviews)</small>[http://www.treknation.com/][https://trektoday.com/][https://www.trekbbs.com/][https://www.jammersreviews.com/], described as a self-published source by an editor in a May 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 293#TrekNation|WP:RSN/Archive 293#TrekNation]]</ref>
*[[Tunefind]] [https://www.tunefind.com/], user-generated.<ref name=":1" />
*[[TV.com]] [http://www.tv.com/], described as primarily user generated and low quality in a September 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 313#TV.com|WP:RSN/Archive 313#TV.com]]</ref>
*[[TV Tropes]] [https://tvtropes.org/], user-generated.<ref name=":1" />
*[[VGChartz]] [https://www.vgchartz.com/]<ref name=":1" />
*Vinylized, [https://vinylized.com], crowdfunding website per one editor in a May 2021 RSN discussion.<ref name="music0521" />
*''The Von Pip Musical Express'' [http://www.thevpme.com/], self published non-expert blog per an October 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 316#The Von Pip Musical Express|WP:RSN/Archive 316#The Von Pip Musical Express]]</ref>
*[[WatchMojo]] [https://watchmojo.com/], content farm with no clear editorial oversight per a May 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 294#WatchMojo|WP:RSN/Archive 294#WatchMojo]]</ref>
*We Got This Covered [https://wegotthiscovered.com/], the lack of its editoral oversight, publication of unsubstantiated or false rumors, speculations claiming as fact, and contributions accepting from non-staff contributors.<ref name=":1" />
*[[WhoSampled]] [https://www.whosampled.com/], user-generated.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Wikia]] <small>(Fandom)</small> [https://www.fandom.com/][https://wikia.org/], 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.<ref name=":1" />

===Business, companies and products===

; Reliable
* [[Bloomberg L.P.|Bloomberg]], including [[Bloomberg News]] and ''[[Bloomberg Businessweek]]'' [https://www.bloomberg.com/]. However, Bloomberg Profiles often contains press release content and should be used with caution.<ref name=":1" />
* The Business Journals / bizjournals.com [https://www.bizjournals.com/], consensus that their original reporting is generally reliable, but be aware that they also run native advertisements, which are generally not reliable.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288#Business Journals / bizjournals.com|WP:RSN/Archive 288#Business Journals / bizjournals.com]]</ref>
*''[[Financial Times]]'' [https://www.ft.com/]<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Forbes]]'' [https://www.forbes.com/], not to be confused with Forbes.com contributors.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Fortune (magazine)|Fortune]]'' [https://fortune.com/], major international business magazine.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 283#Is Fortune (magazine) considered reliable? it is not covered in WP:RSP|WP:RSN/Archive 283#Is Fortune (magazine) considered reliable? it is not covered in WP:RSP]]</ref>
*[[Quartz (publication)|''Quartz'']] [https://qz.com/], some editors argue that caution should be used for science and bitcoin topics.<ref name=":1" />
*[[VentureBeat]] [https://venturebeat.com/], generally reliable for business and technology.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'' [https://www.wsj.com/], generally reliable business publication.<ref name=":1" />

; No consensus
*''[[Better Business Bureau]]'' [https://www.bbb.org/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 292#Better Business Bureau|WP:RSN/Archive 292#Better Business Bureau]]</ref>
*Bitcoin Magazine [https://bitcoinmagazine.com/], a July 2020 RSN discussion did not come to a firm consensus regarding reliability.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301#Bitcoin Magazine reputable|WP:RSN/Archive 301#Bitcoin Magazine reputable]]</ref>
* ''[[Business Insider]]'' [https://www.businessinsider.com/][https://businessinsider.in/][https://insider.com/][https://thisinsider.com/], in 2015 their site had a disclaimer saying information therein may not be correct.<ref name=":1" />
*[[CNBC]] [https://www.cnbc.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 321#CNBC / Cryptocurrency|WP:RSN/Archive 321#CNBC / Cryptocurrency]]</ref>
*[[PitchBook Data]] <small>(Pitchbook, Pitchbook Platform, Pitchbook News and Analysis</small> [https://pitchbook.com/], no consensus due to insufficient discussion, reliability may not be consistent across the company's publications, non-premium content may not be reliable.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 283#PitchBook|WP:RSN/Archive 283#PitchBook]]</ref>
*[[The Motley Fool]], [https://www.fool.com/], no consensus in a February 2021 RSN discussion, with editors leaning describing it as a source to avoid but noting its popularity.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 329#The Motley Fool|WP:RSN/Archive 329#The Motley Fool]]</ref>
*NASDAQ News [https://www.nasdaq.com/news-and-insights], no consensus in a December 2020 RSN discussion, largely publishes reprints.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 320#NASDAQ News|WP:RSN/Archive 320#NASDAQ News]]</ref>
*[[The Next Web]] [https://thenextweb.com/], no consensus, 2014 and 2016 discussions considered it reliable, 2018 discussions leaned toward unreliable.<ref name=":1" />
*Realtor.com [https://www.realtor.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 304#Realtor.com as RS for edits in articles|WP:RSN/Archive 304#Realtor.com as RS for edits in articles]]</ref>
*RetailDive.com [https://www.retaildive.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 350#RetailDive.com]]</ref>
*[[TechCrunch]] [https://techcrunch.com/], 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 [[Wikipedia:V|verifiability]], but may be less useful for purpose of determining [[Wikipedia:N|notability]].<ref name=":1" />

; Unreliable
* [[Amazon (company)|Amazon]] [https://www.amazon.com/]<ref name=":1" />
*Coinmarketcap.com [http://coinmarketcap.com], unreliable even when compared to other cryptocurrency outlets according to a September 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_384#Coinmarketcap.com]]</ref>
*[[Crunchbase]] [https://www.crunchbase.com/], user generated content.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Forbes.com]] contributors [https://www.forbes.com/], no editorial oversight<ref name=":1" />
*''[[International Business Times]]'' [https://www.ibtimes.com/], many languages, quality is inconsistent, significant amounts of content are syndicated and not clearly marked.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Investopedia]] [https://www.investopedia.com/], generally unreliable.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Statista]] [https://www.statista.com/], unreliable per an April 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_403#Statista_-_April_2023]]</ref>
*WallStreetPro [https://wallstreetpro.com/], unreliable clickfarm per a small July 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_380#WallStreetPro]]</ref>
*[[Zero Hedge]] [https://www.zerohedge.com/], self-published blog that publishes conspiracies.<ref name=":1" />

===Film===
{{See also|Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources}}
[https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=5d2d8b509f2b7cc94 Google custom search for generally reliable sources for film] (External link)

; Reliable
* [[Academy Award]]s [http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas awards/BasicSearchInput.jsp], Awards database<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* ''[[Ain't It Cool News]]'' [http://www.aintitcool.com/], Articles and reviews. Dedicated to news, rumors and reviews of upcoming and current films, television and comic projects, with an emphasis on science fiction, fantasy, horror, and action genres<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* [[AllMusic]] [http://www.allmusic.com/], Reviews, track listings<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* [[American Cinematographer]] [http://www.theasc.com/index.php], Articles on cinematography<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* [[Bloody Disgusting]] [http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/], News for horror films and interviews<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* [[Box Office Mojo]] [http://www.boxofficemojo.com], Box office performance, home video sales, news, budget figures<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* [[Boxoffice (magazine)|Boxoffice]] [http://www.boxoffice.com], Box office performance, home video sales, news, budget figures<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* ''Boxoffice.com'' [https://boxoffice.com/], is the [http://www.natoonline.org/publications.htm official web presence] of ''Boxoffice'' magazine, a journal serving the exhibition industry since the silent era. Care should be exercised in regards to their budget figures, since it is not clear what they cover, and are usually inconsistent with other published budget figures; if you decide to use them in this capacity, it would be prudent to corroborate the data with another reliable source.<ref name="wikiproject-film">[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources#General]]</ref>
* ''[[Bright Lights Film Journal]]'' [http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/], Articles, interviews, and reviews of films<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* British Columbia Film Commission [http://www.bcfilmcommission.com/about us/film list.php], Productions (filming dates) currently ongoing in [[Vancouver]], [[British Columbia]], Updated every few weeks<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* Camera Operator [http://www.soc.org/index.php?id=39], Articles on camera operating, camera crew, equipment, and film production<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* CgSociety.org [http://www.CgSociety.org], Articles and interviews about productions and visual effects.<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* ''[[Cineaste (magazine)|Cineaste]]'' [http://www.cineaste.com/], Articles, interviews, and reviews of films/DVDs<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* ''[[Cinefantastique]]'' [http://cinefantastiqueonline.com/], Articles and reviews on fantasy, science fiction and horror films and DVDs<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* [[Cinefex]] [http://cinefex.com/], Articles on visual effects<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
*[[The Cinemaholic]], [https://thecinemaholic.com/], generally reliable for film according to one editor in a September 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 353#The Cinemaholic]]</ref>
*[[Common Sense Media]] [https://www.commonsensemedia.org/], generally reliable for film reviews, although they are an advocacy organization.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 271#Common Sense Media|WP:RSN/Archive 271#Common Sense Media]]</ref> Reaffirmed with a similar consensus in May 2020.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 294#Common Sense Media|WP:RSN/Archive 294#Common Sense Media]]</ref>
* ''[[Deadline Hollywood]]'' [http://www.deadline.com/], General information on films<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* [[Dread Central]] [http://www.dreadcentral.com], News for horror films and interviews<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* ''[[Empire (film magazine)|Empire]]'' [http://www.empireonline.com/], General information on films and DVDs<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* ''[[Entertainment Weekly]]'' [http://www.ew.com/], General information on films and DVDs<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* ''[[Fangoria]]'' [http://www.fangoria.com/], General information on horror films and DVDs<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* Film and Digital Times [http://www.fdtimes.com/], Articles on equipment<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* ''[[Film Journal International]]'' [http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjournal/index.jsp], Articles and reviews of films<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* ''Film Music Magazine'' [http://www.filmmusicmag.com/], News and CD reviews<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* ''[[Filmmaker (magazine)|Filmmaker Magazine]]'' [http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/], News, interviews, and reviews of independent films<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
*[[Film School Rejects]], [https://filmschoolrejects.com/] reliable with attribution per a June 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 344#Film School Rejects?]]</ref>
*''[[The Futon Critic]]'' [http://www.thefutoncritic.com/], reliable for film reviews per an April 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 289#The Futon Critic - is it reliable|WP:RSN/Archive 289#The Futon Critic - is it reliable]]</ref>
* FXGuide [http://www.fxguide.com/index.php], Articles on visual effects, news<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* GBCT Techs [http://www.gbct.org/techs-magazine/], Articles on British camera crews and production<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* [[Georgia Department of Economic Development]] [https://www.georgia.org/industries/film-entertainment/georgia-film-tv-production/now-filming-georgia], Productions currently ongoing in [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]], Updated every few weeks<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* ICG Magazine [http://www.icgmagazine.com/wordpress/], Articles on camera crew, production, and equipment<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* [[IGN]] [http://www.ign.com/], Interviews, video game information,<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* ''[[IndieWire]]'' [http://www.indiewire.com/], News, interviews, and reviews of independent films<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* Kritiker.se (Swedish) [http://www.kritiker.se/film], Aggregate ratings, links to reviews and quotes<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* [[Lumiere (database)|Lumiere]] [http://lumiere.obs.coe.int/web/search/], Database on admissions of films released in Europe<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* [[Metacritic]] [http://www.metacritic.com/], Critic's reviews on films and DVDs<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* Ontario Film Commission [http://www.omdc.on.ca/Page3679.aspx], Productions (filming dates) currently ongoing in [[Ontario]], Also productions from [http://www.omdc.on.ca/Page3598.aspx 1998-2008]. Updated every few weeks<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* [[Rotten Tomatoes]] [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/], Critic's reviews, news, budget figures. See [[Wikipedia:Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic]], [[Fandango Media]]<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* Shock Till You Drop [http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com], News for horror films and interviews<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* ''[[Slashfilm|Slashfilm]]'' <small>(/Film)</small> [https://www.slashfilm.com/], General information on films<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* [[SoundtrackNet]] [http://www.soundtrack.net/], Interviews, reviews, news, track listings<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* ''[[The Hollywood Reporter]]'' [http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/], General information on films<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* [[The Numbers (website)|The Numbers]] [http://www.the-numbers.com/], Box office performance, home video sales, news, budget figures<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* ''[[TheWrap]]'' [https://www.thewrap.com/], General information on films<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* Toronto Film & Television Office [http://www.toronto.ca/tfto/pdf/currentlist.pdf], Productions (filming dates) currently ongoing in [[Toronto]], Updated every few weeks.<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* ''[[Total Film]]'' [https://www.gamesradar.com/totalfilm/], General information on films and DVDs<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* ''[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]'' [http://www.variety.com/], General information on films<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* [[VFX World]] [http://www.awn.com/], Articles on visual effects, news<ref name="wikiproject-film" />

; No consensus
* DiscussingFilm [https://discussingfilm.net/], insufficient discussion in a 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 289#DiscussingFilm|WP:RSN/Archive 289#DiscussingFilm]]</ref>
* Film Threat, [https://filmthreat.com], no consensus in an April 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_432#Film_Threat]]</ref> Previously no consensus in a May 2022 RSN discussion, which noted that some of its content is paid.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 375#Is Film Threat still reliable?]]</ref>
* The Filmik [https://www.thefilmik.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 375#The Filmik]]</ref>

; Unreliable
*Allmovie [https://www.allmovie.com/], a June 2024 RSN discussion raised serious concerns about its reliability.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_442#allmovie.com_now_using_film_descriptions_and_actor_biographies_from_Wikipedia]]</ref>
* Blu-ray.com [https://blu-ray.com/], database is provided by its userbase.<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* Comicbookmovie.com [https://comicbookmovie.com/], user-submitted content.<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* FilmAffinity [https://www.filmaffinity.com/], a social media site with a film database.<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* Filmdaily.co [https://filmdaily.co/], user-generated per an April 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_402#Filmdaily.co]]</ref>
* Film Reference <nowiki>http://www.filmreference.com/</nowiki>, weak consensus for being unreliable due to unclear editorial standards.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 287#www.filmreference.com reliable or not|WP:RSN/Archive 287#www.filmreference.com reliable or not]]</ref>
* Filmibeat [https://www.filmibeat.com/], described as churnalism in a May 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_376#Wanted_to_know_whether_these_websites_are_reliable_sources]]</ref>
* [[IMDB]] [https://www.imdb.com/], content is mostly user submitted.<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* [[TV.com]] <small>(MovieTome, GameFAQs)</small> [https://tv.com/][https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/], database information is user-submitted and reviewed by an "editor" (usually a person who has contributed the most) or a staff member.<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* [[Wikia]] [https://www.fandom.com/], user generated.<ref name="wikiproject-film" />
* [[Wikipedia]] [https://wikipedia.org/], 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.<ref name="wikiproject-film" />

=== Food ===
;Reliable
*Beer Business Daily [https://beernet.com/], hesitant consensus in an April 2023 RSN discussion that it appears to be a well-established industry publication with use by others.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_402#beernet.com]]</ref>
*[[Eater (website)]], generally reliable per an April 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_403#Eater_(website)]]</ref>

; Unreliable
*Craft Coffee Spot [https://craftcoffeespot.com/], commercial blog per an April 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_401#Craft_Coffee_Spot]]</ref>
*[[TasteAtlas]] [https://www.tasteatlas.com/], small consensus for unreliability in a December 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#tasteatlas]]</ref>

=== Geography and history ===

; Reliable
*''Ancient Asia'' [https://www.ancient-asia-journal.com/], peer-reviewed academic journal per a November 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 359#Ancient Asia journal]]</ref>
*''[[CIA Factbook]]'' [https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/], usable for uncontroversial facts, be cautious of bias.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 280#CIA factbook|WP:RSN/Archive 280#CIA factbook]]</ref>
*E-Perimetron [https://www.e-perimetron.org/], reliable per a small February 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_429#Is e-Perimetron a reliable source?]]</ref>
*Marxist Internet Archive ''Encyclopedia of Marxism'' [https://www.marxists.org/glossary], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_404#MIA:_Encyclopedia_of_Marxism]]</ref>
*Ronen Bergman, rough consensus in a September 2021 RSN discussion that their work is generally reliable, although attribution may be necessary.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Ronen Bergman]]</ref>
*Smarthistory [https://smarthistory.org/], small consensus for reliability in a February 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_398#Smarthistory]]</ref>

; No consensus
*[[An Anarchist FAQ]] (book) [https://www.anarchistfaq.org/], reliable for attributed [[WP:ABOUTSELF]]-type statements, other sources preferred, per a November 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 318#Anarchist FAQ used in various -ism articles.|WP:RSN/Archive 318#Anarchist FAQ used in various -ism articles.]]</ref>
*[[Arcadia Publishing]] [https://www.arcadiapublishing.com/], described as "use with caution" and little better than self-publication in a December 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 321#Reliability of Arcadia publishing|WP:RSN/Archive 321#Reliability of Arcadia publishing]]</ref>
*The Art Story [https://www.theartstory.org/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_402#The_Art_Story]]</ref>
*''Defending History'', [https://defendinghistory.com] 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 337#Defending History]]</ref>
*Don's Maps.com [https://www.donsmaps.com/] , described as [[WP:UGC]] by one editor in a March 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_431#Is_donsmaps.com_a_reliable_source_for_Las_Caldas_cave?]]</ref>
*''Encyclopedia of Communist Biographies'' [https://grahamstevenson.me.uk/category/commiepedia/], no consensus in an August 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_411#Encyclopedia_of_Communist_Biographies]]</ref>
*''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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 295#Encyklopedia II wojny światowej|WP:RSN/Archive 295#Encyklopedia II wojny światowej]]</ref>
*Flag Institute [https://www.flaginstitute.org], no consensus in a February 2024 RSN discussion.<ref name="mongolflag0224 />
*[[GEOnet Names Server]] (GNIS) [https://geonames.nga.mil/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 362#GEOnet Names Server (GNS)]]</ref>
* [[Google Maps]] [https://maps.google.com/], is useful for some purposes, but can also be considered original research. For China, [[OpenStreetMap]] is preferable.<ref name=":1" />
*Historynet.com [https://www.historynet.com/], disparaged by one editor in a July 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_379#historynet.com]]</ref>
*History News Network [https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/], no clear consensus in an October 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_455#History_News_Network]]</ref>
* [[Joshua Project]] [https://joshuaproject.net/], two saying unreliable, one saying unsure, one saying reliable across 3 different old RSN discussions.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 80#Reliability of the Joshua Project as source|WP:RSN/Archive 80#Reliability of the Joshua Project as source]]</ref><ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 27#Is Joshua Project reliable?|WP:RSN/Archive 27#Is Joshua Project reliable?]]</ref><ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 74#Joshua Project|WP:RSN/Archive 74#Joshua Project]]</ref>
*Libcom.org [http://libcom.org/], no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 324#Libcom.org|WP:RSN/Archive 324#Libcom.org]]</ref>
*[[Mindat.org]] [https://www.mindat.org/], user-generated per one editor in a July 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_409#Is_Mindat.org_reliable?]]</ref>
*''[[Monthly Review]]'', [https://mronline.org/] no consensus regarding general quality in a July 2022 RSN discussion concerning its reprint of content from deprecated source ''The Grayzone''.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_379#Leaked_Paul_Mason_-_Amil_Khan_correspondence]]</ref>
*Peakbagger.com, [https://peakbagger.com/], no consensus in a January 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 362#Is Peakbagger.com a reliable source?]]</ref>
*PeopleGroups.org [https://www.peoplegroups.org], described as unreliable by one editor in a December 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_423#Is_PeopleGroups.org_Reliable_here]]</ref>
*[[The World History Encyclopedia]] [https://www.worldhistory.org/], criticized by one editor in a June 2024 RSN post that did not receive further discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_441#The_World_History_Encyclopedia]]</ref>
*''Världens Historia'' [https://varldenshistoria.se/], one editor described them as generally reliable, but less so than actual history books.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 285#Världens Historia|WP:RSN/Archive 285#Världens Historia]]</ref>
*[[NCERT]] textbooks [https://ncert.nic.in/], generally geared for grade school education, may be oversimplified and thus inferior to academic sources for Wikipedia. Editors noted that their quality varies considerably.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 285#NCERT (Indian educational board)|WP:RSN/Archive 285#NCERT (Indian educational board)]]</ref>
*rulers.org [https://rulers.org], no consensus in a June 2021 discussion that raised concerns about its reliability.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 346#rulers.org]]</ref>
*spanamwar.com [https://spanamwar.com/], no consensus in a small January 2023 discussion where one editor argued that the blog's editor is a subject-matter expert.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_396#spanamwar.com]]</ref>
*Vexilla Mundi [https://www.vexilla-mundi.com], non-expert blog per 1 editor in an October 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_416#Is_Vexilla_Mundi_Reliable?]]</ref>
*Worldatlas.com [https://www.worldatlas.com/], no consensus in a small July 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_445#Worldatlas.com]]</ref>
*World Economics [https://www.worldeconomics.com/], no consensus in a July 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_409#'World_Economics'_as_a_source_of_economic_data_on_Afghanistan]]</ref>

; Unreliable
*AA Roads [https://aaroads.com], unreliable database per an October 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_454#aaroads.com]]</ref>
*''Arab Humanities Journal'' [https://journals.mejsp.com/], predatory per a small October 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_453#Arab_Humanities_Journal]]</ref>
*Archaeology-World.com [https://archaeology-world.com], consensus for unreliability in a January 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_396#Archaeology-World.com]]</ref>
*Archontology.org, [http://www.archontology.org], small consensus that it is written by non-experts in an October 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_388#Archontology.org]]</ref>
*[[Atlas Obscura]] [https://www.atlasobscura.com/], unreliable due to crowdsourced format per a March 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_399#Atlas_Obscura]]</ref> 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 313#Atlas Obscura|WP:RSN/Archive 313#Atlas Obscura]]</ref>
*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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 289#Allan W. Eckert|WP:RSN/Archive 289#Allan W. Eckert]]</ref>
*Books, particularly encyclopedias, by James B. Minahan.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281#Encyclopedias of James B. Minahan|WP:RSN/Archive 281#Encyclopedias of James B. Minahan]]</ref>
*''[[The Dorchester Review]]'' [https://www.dorchesterreview.ca/], 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.<ref name=":01" />
*EuropeanHeraldry.org [https://europeanheraldry.org/], descirbed as a self-published source in an October 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 314#europeanheraldry.org|WP:RSN/Archive 314#europeanheraldry.org]]</ref>
*Flags of the World (FOTW) [https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/], unreliable per a November 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_389#FOTW_-_[43]]]</ref>
*[[Glaukopis]] [https://glaukopis.pl/], consensus for unreliability in a March 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_400#Glaukopis]]</ref> Previously rough consensus for unreliability regarding the topic of antisemitism in Poland in a February 2021 RSN discussion, without consensus on its general reliability.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 328#Glaukopis journal|WP:RSN/Archive 328#Glaukopis journal]]</ref>
*Geneaology Trails [http://genealogytrails.com/ind/boone/historymariontwp.html], effectively user-generated per a small April 2024 discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_435#genealogytrails.com]]</ref>
*[[History (American TV network)]] (The History Channel) [https://www.history.com/], most editors consider it to be unreliable due to its promotion of conspiracy theories.<ref name=":1"/>
*HistoryOfRoyalWomen.org [https://HistoryOfRoyalWomen.org/], may be defunct, self-published non-expert source per an October 2020 RSN discussion. May have citations to better sources.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 314#historyofroyalwomen.com|WP:RSN/Archive 314#historyofroyalwomen.com]]</ref>
*''International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research'' [https://www.ijfmr.com/], predatory journal per a March 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_430#International_Journal_for_Multidisciplinary_Research_in_relation_to_humanities_based_topics?]]</ref>
*Jadovno.com [https://jadovno.com/], Russian? Editors in an April 2020 RSN discussion raised concerns that it does not have clear editorial policies and advised against using it.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 289#Is Jadovno.com an RS?|WP:RSN/Archive 289#Is Jadovno.com an RS?]]</ref>
*''[[New Eastern Outlook]]'' [https://journal-neo.org], deprecated in a June 2022 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_377#RFC_concerning_New_Eastern_Outlook]]</ref>
*partylike1660.com [https://partylike1660.com/], small consensus for unreliability in a December 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 393#https://partylike1660.com]]</ref>
*''Tibetan Political Review'' [https://sites.google.com/site/tibetanpoliticalreview/], a January 2021 RSN discussion was closed as being not generally reliable as an academic source.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 325#Tibetan Political Review|WP:RSN/Archive 325#Tibetan Political Review]]</ref>
*touregypt.net [http://www.touregypt.net/], self-published and promotional content per March 2019 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 261#touregypt.net|WP:RSN/Archive 261#touregypt.net]]</ref>
*[[Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation]] [https://victimsofcommunism.org/], a February 2021 RSN discussion had a consensus that their website is not a reliable source for claims about mass killings under Communist regimes.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 329#Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation|WP:RSN/Archive 329#Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation]]</ref> Reaffirmed in a January 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 362#victimsofcommunism.org]]</ref>
*Weather2Travel.com [https://weather2travel.com/], website has a disclaimer that it should not be relied upon.<ref name=":1"/>
*Wordspy.com [https://wordspy.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 290#Word Spy|WP:RSN/Archive 290#Word Spy]]</ref>

=== Medicine and health ===
{{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 article|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 review|Peer reviewed]] is not the same thing as a [[review article]]. Most journal articles are peer reviewed.

[[Preprint|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]]<ref>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.</ref>
* [[Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality]] [https://www.ahrq.gov/], a U.S. government agency described as a "major scientific or medical organization".<ref name="why-medrs">[[Wikipedia:Why MEDRS?#About sources again]]</ref>
* [[American Heart Association]] [https://www.heart.org/], a major medical and scientific organization.<ref name=":4" />
* [[American Medical Association]] [https://www.ama-assn.org/], the largest association of physicians in the US, described as a "major scientific or medical organization".<ref name="why-medrs" />
* ''[[Annals of Internal Medicine]]'' [https://www.acpjournals.org/journal/aim]<ref name=":3">[[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#List of core journals]]</ref>
*''[[The BMJ]]'', ''[[The British Medical Journal]]'' [https://www.bmj.com/]<ref name=":3" />
*''[[Canadian Medical Association Journal]]'' [https://www.cmaj.ca/]<ref name=":3" />
*[[Cancer Research UK]] [http://cancerresearchuk.org/], a U.K. cancer charity, described as a "major scientific or medical organization".<ref name="why-medrs" />
*[[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] [https://www.cdc.gov/], the U.S.'s public health agency.<ref name=":4">[[WP:MEDORG]]</ref>
*[[Cochrane (organisation)]] [https://www.cochrane.org/], a group of doctors and scientists who concentrate on writing systematic, critical reviews.<ref name="why-medrs" />
*''[[JAMA (journal)|JAMA]]'' [https://jamanetwork.com/], peer reviewed medical journal.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":3" />
*''[[The Lancet]]'' [https://www.thelancet.com/], top tier peer reviewed journal.<ref name=":3" />
*[[National Academy of Medicine]] [https://nam.edu/], respected U.S. non-profit.<ref name=":4" />
*[[National Academy of Sciences]] [http://www.nasonline.org/], respected U.S. non-profit.<ref name=":4" />
*[[National Health Service]] [https://www.nhs.uk/], Britain's public health agency.<ref name=":4" />
*[[National Institute for Health and Care Excellence]] ([[NICE]]) [http://www.nice.org.uk/], a U.K. government agency described as a "major scientific or medical organization".<ref name="why-medrs" />
*[[National Institutes of Health]] [https://www.nih.gov/], the primary agency of the United States government responsible for biomedical and public health research.<ref name=":4" />
*''[[The New England Journal of Medicine]]'' [https://www.nejm.org/]<ref name=":3" />
*[[World Health Organization]] [https://www.who.int/], rough consensus in an April 2020 discussion that the WHO's publications are generally reliable, although care should be taken with claims that involve speculation. Depending on the nature of the claims in question, it may or may not meet MEDRS.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 291#World Health Organization|WP:RSN/Archive 291#World Health Organization]]</ref><ref name=":4" />

; Reliable
*''[[Science-Based Medicine]]'' [https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/] not peer-reviewed but has strong editorial policies.<ref name=":1" />

; No consensus
* [[Frontiers Media]] [https://www.frontiersin.org/], 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".<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_400#RFC:_Frontiers_Media]]</ref> Previously, consensus that it is unreliable in a 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 329#Sourcing with Frontiers Journal in Public Health|WP:RSN/Archive 329#Sourcing with Frontiers Journal in Public Health]]</ref><ref>[[WP:CITEWATCH]]</ref>
*[[Mayo Clinic]] [https://www.mayoclinic.org/][https://mayoclinic.com/], a "MEDRS of last resort". Marginally reliable for unsurprising claims. Should not be used to support [[WP:EXTRAORDINARY]] claims. Better sources preferred.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 268#Mayo Clinic|WP:RSN/Archive 268#Mayo Clinic]]</ref><ref name="medrs-of-last-resort" />
*[[National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health]] (NCCIH) [https://www.nccih.nih.gov/], 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.<ref name="medrs-of-last-resort">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 304#National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH)|WP:RSN/Archive 304#National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH)]]</ref>
* [[Quackwatch]] [https://quackwatch.org/], no consensus, self-published site run by an expert in the field.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Verywell]] [https://www.verywell.com/] <small>(including <nowiki>https://www.verywellhealth.com/</nowiki> <nowiki>https://www.verywellfamily.com/</nowiki> <nowiki>https://www.verywellmind.com/</nowiki>)</small>, considered marginally reliable in a May 2020 RSN discussion<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 292#Verywell|WP:RSN/Archive 292#Verywell]]</ref> but are currently on the blacklist due to having been spammed.
*[[WebMD]] [https://www.webmd.com/], a "MEDRS of last resort". Marginally reliable for unsurprising claims. Should not be used to support [[WP:EXTRAORDINARY]] claims. Better sources preferred.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 311#WebMD|WP:RSN/Archive 311#WebMD]]</ref><ref name="medrs-of-last-resort" />

; Unreliable
* [[bioRxiv]] [https://www.biorxiv.org/], a preprint repository.
* Health Liberation Now! [https://healthliberationnow.com/], self-published group blog per a November 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_389#Health_Liberation_Now!_Relisted]]</ref>
*[[Healthline]], consensus to deprecate and blacklist in a July 2023 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_409#Healthline:_deprecate_or_blacklist?]]</ref>
*''Journal of Complementary Medicine Research'' [https://www.jocmr.com/], predatory journal per a February 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 326#Is this journal a reliable source? Would its use be a violation of WP:MEDRS?|WP:RSN/Archive 326#Is this journal a reliable source? Would its use be a violation of WP:MEDRS?]]</ref>
*''Journal of Natural Science, Biology and Medicine'' [https://www.jnsbm.org/aboutus.asp], predatory journal per a July 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301#Journal of Natural Science Biology and Medicine|WP:RSN/Archive 301#Journal of Natural Science Biology and Medicine]]</ref>
*''Kinesiology Review'' - non-MEDLINE, low-impact journal not reliable for exceptional claims per a July 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_445#Inclusion_of_Kinesiology_Review_at_Feldenkrais_Method]]</ref>
*Leafly.com [https://www.leafly.com/], promotional, not a MEDRS-quality source for cannabis or health.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 286#Leafly|WP:RSN/Archive 286#Leafly]]</ref>
*Medriva [https://medriva.com/], unreliable per a February 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_429#medriva.com]]</ref>
* [[medRxiv]] [https://www.medrxiv.org/], distributes unpublished eprints.
* Preprints.org [https://preprints.org/], scientific papers that have not undergone peer review.
* [[Social Science Research Network]] [https://www.ssrn.com/], a repository for preprints.

===Military topics and firearms===

; Reliable
*H. I. Sutton <small>hisutton.com</small>[http://www.hisutton.com/], subject matter expert for naval warfare per a November 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 319#www.hisutton.com|WP:RSN/Archive 319#www.hisutton.com]]</ref>
*Oryxspioenkop (Oryx) <small>oryxspioenkop.com</small> [https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/],Consensus reached in a September 2022 Wikiproject discussion that it is a Subject-matter expert for military topics.<ref>[[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Oryxspioenkop_Reliability]]</ref>

; No consensus
*The Arkenstone [http://thearkenstone.blogspot.com/], 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.<ref name="arkenstone01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 311#War is Boring and The Arkenstone|WP:RSN/Archive 311#War is Boring and The Arkenstone]]</ref>
*defensereview.com [http://www.defensereview.com/], leaning toward unreliable on the basis of being self-published, but insufficient discussion to reach a consensus.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 272#defensereview.com|WP:RSN/Archive 272#defensereview.com]]</ref>
*GlobalSecurity.org [https://www.globalsecurity.org/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 285#GlobalSecurity.org|WP:RSN/Archive 285#GlobalSecurity.org]]</ref>
*guns.com [https://www.guns.com/news], weak consensus that the News section is reliable in a July 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 304#guns.com|WP:RSN/Archive 304#guns.com]]</ref>
*[[Institute for the Study of War]] [https://understandingwar.org/] [https://www.iswresearch.org/], no consensus in a September 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_452#Institute for the Study of War]]</ref>
*[[Institute for Strategic Dialogue]] [https://www.isdglobal.org/], no consensus in a small December 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_423#Institute_for_Strategic_Dialogue]]</ref>
*Militant Wire [https://www.militantwire.com/], no consensus in a July 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#militantwire.com]]</ref>
*Military Watch Magazine [https://militarywatchmagazine.com/], one editor described it as unreliable in a July 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_409#Reliability_of_Military_Watch_Magazine]]</ref>
*Pak Military Monitor [https://thepakmilitarymonitor.com/], no consensus in a February 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_429#The_Pak_Military_Monitor]]</ref>
*uboat.net [https://uboat.net/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 271#uboat.net|WP:RSN/Archive 271#uboat.net]]</ref><ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 75#Uboat.net|WP:RSN/Archive 75#Uboat.net]]</ref>
*War is Boring [https://warisboring.com/], 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.<ref name="arkenstone01" />

; Unreliable
*ArmyRecognition.com [https://armyrecognition.com]<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 344#armyrecognition.com|Archive 344#armyrecognition.com]]</ref>
*defence-blog.com [http://defence-blog.com/], unreliable per a March 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_431#defence-blog.com]]</ref> Previously described as self-published in a November 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 320#defence-blog.com|WP:RSN/Archive 320#defence-blog.com]]</ref>
*Defseca.com ([https://www.defseca.com/], [https://www.bdmilitary.com], unreliable blog per a February 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 329#defseca.com|WP:RSN/Archive 329#defseca.com]]</ref>
*forces-war-records.co.uk [https://www.forces-war-records.co.uk/], unreliable due to circular referencing with Wikipedia per an October 2020 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 315#RfC: forces-war-records.co.uk|WP:RSN/Archive 315#RfC: forces-war-records.co.uk]]</ref>
*[[Global Firepower Index]], [https://www.globalfirepower.com/], small consensus for unreliability in a March 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 371#Global Firepower Index]]</ref>
*Military Today, [http://www.military-today.com/] unreliable self-published source per a February 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 330#Military Today|WP:RSN/Archive 330#Military Today]]</ref>
*Militaryland [https://militaryland.net/], self-published source per June 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_378#Is_Militaryland_reliable?]]</ref> Reaffirmed in March 2023<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_401#MilitaryLand.net]]</ref> and April 2023<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_403#Militaryland.net]]</ref> discussions.
*Naval Encyclopedia.com [https://naval-encyclopedia.com], unreliable per a small March 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_431#naval-encyclopedia.com]]</ref>
*Navypedia [https://www.navypedia.org/], fan project with little editorial oversight per November 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 390#Navypedia.org|WP:RSN/Archive 390#Navypedia.org]]</ref>
*[[The Truth About Guns]] [https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/], group blog, not reliable for factual reporting.<ref name=":1" />
*War History Online [https://www.warhistoryonline.com/], rough consensus that the authors are not established subject-matter experts and that the source does not have an established record of accuracy.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 347#War History Online]]</ref>
*weaponsandwarfare.com [https://weaponsandwarfare.com/], blog with no clear editorial oversight, no relation to ''[[Weapons and Warfare]]'', a defunct magazine.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 285#weaponsandwarfare.com|WP:RSN/Archive 285#weaponsandwarfare.com]]</ref>

===Publishers===

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

; Reliable
* [[Cambridge University Press]] [https://www.cambridge.org/]<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 286#Books from Cambridge University Press|WP:RSN/Archive 286#Books from Cambridge University Press]]</ref>
* [[Greenwood Publishing Group]] (and subsidiaries) [https://www.abc-clio.com/]<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 266#The Greenwood Publishing Group|WP:RSN/Archive 266#The Greenwood Publishing Group]]</ref>
* [[HarperCollins Canada]] [https://www.harpercollins.ca/]<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 163#HarperCollins Canada - are reliable publisher%3F|WP:RSN/Archive 163#HarperCollins Canada - are reliable publisher%3F]]</ref>
* [[Springer Science+Business Media]] [https://www.springer.com/], not to be confused with [[Axel Springer SE]] or [[Springer Publishing]]<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 163#Springer are reliable publisher%3F|WP:RSN/Archive 163#Springer are reliable publisher%3F]]</ref>
* [[University of Chicago Press]] [https://press.uchicago.edu/]<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 247#University of Chicago Press|WP:RSN/Archive 247#University of Chicago Press]]</ref>

;No consensus
*[[Arcadia Publishing]] [https://www.arcadiapublishing.com/], described as "use with caution" and little better than self-publication in a December 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 321#Reliability of Arcadia publishing|WP:RSN/Archive 321#Reliability of Arcadia publishing]]</ref>
*''[[Encounter Books]]'' [https://www.encounterbooks.com/], 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.<ref name = ":khomeiniquote01"/>
* [[Jessica Kingsley Publishers]] [https://uk.jkp.com/], history of publishing plagiarized content<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 311#Jessica Kingsley Publishers|WP:RSN/Archive 311#Jessica Kingsley Publishers]]</ref>
* New Leaf Publishing Group [https://www.nlpg.com/], [[WP:FRINGE]] applies<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 284#New Leaf Publishing Group %28publisher%29|WP:RSN/Archive 284#New Leaf Publishing Group %28publisher%29]]</ref>
* University presses, in a discussion, some users felt that they should be considered de facto reliable, while others advocated for a case-by-case basis.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 251#Are university presses legally affiliated with the Univ. independent of the parent ORG of the University%3F|WP:RSN/Archive 251#Are university presses legally affiliated with the Univ. independent of the parent ORG of the University%3F]]</ref>

;Unreliable
* [[Cambridge Scholars Publishing]] [https://www.cambridgescholars.com/], [[vanity press]] (a publishing house where authors pay to have their books published, anybody can publish)<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 209#Cambridge Scholars|WP:RSN/Archive 209#Cambridge Scholars]]</ref>
* Creative Crayon Publishers<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 265#Creative Crayon Publishers|WP:RSN/Archive 265#Creative Crayon Publishers]]</ref>
*Dharma Publications, self-published per one editor in a March 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 331#Dharma Publications|WP:RSN/Archive 331#Dharma Publications]]</ref>
*Diamond Pocket Books Pvt Ltd., vanity press according to a March 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 331#Diamond Pocket Books Pvt Ltd.|WP:RSN/Archive 331#Diamond Pocket Books Pvt Ltd.]]</ref>
* [[Lulu.com]], [[WP:SELFPUBLISH|self-publishing]]; deprecated<ref name=":1"/>
* Pentland Press, vanity press<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 147#Vanity press publication okay%3F|WP:RSN/Archive 147#Vanity press publication okay%3F]]</ref>
*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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 311#Sarup & Sons|WP:RSN/Archive 311#Sarup & Sons]]</ref>
* [[Scribd]] [https://www.scribd.com/], self-publishing<ref name=":1"/>

===Religion===
; Reliable
*[[Catholic News Service]] [https://www.catholicnews.com/], generally reliable per a May 2020 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 294#RFC: Is Catholic News Service a reliable source?|WP:RSN/Archive 294#RFC: Is Catholic News Service a reliable source?]]</ref>
* ''[[Deseret News]]'' [https://www.deseret.com/][https://www.deseretnews.com/], while reliable for local news, it is owned by the [[LDS church]], with no consensus on whether it's independent from the LDS church.<ref name=":1" /> Also listed at [[WP:LDS/RS]].
*''Encyclopedia of Women in World Religions'' (2 books), editors at RSN raised no objections in a brief 2019 discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 278#Encyclopedia of Women in World Religions|WP:RSN/Archive 278#Encyclopedia of Women in World Religions]]</ref>
*[[The Milli Gazette]] [https://www.milligazette.com/], suggested in an RSN discssion as reliable for Indian Muslim news.<ref name = ":jamaat01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 285#Radiance Veiwsweekly (radianceweekly.in)|WP:RSN/Archive 285#Radiance Veiwsweekly (radianceweekly.in)]]</ref>
*''[[Religion News Service]]'' [https://religionnews.com/], an April 2020 RSN discussion considered them to be generally reliable.<ref name="religionnews01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 290#Religion News and Christian Post|WP:RSN/Archive 290#Religion News and Christian Post]]</ref>
*[[The Tablet]], [https://www.thetablet.co.uk/] generally reliable per a March 2021 RSN discussion, although editors noted that it may not always be DUE.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 331#The Tablet|WP:RSN/Archive 331#The Tablet]]</ref>

; No consensus
*''Anglican Ink'' [https://anglican.ink], no consensus in a September 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_413#Anglican.ink]]</ref>
*[[Anti-Defamation League]] [https://www.adl.org/], 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.<ref name=":1" /> 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 302#RfC: Anti-Defamation League (ADL)|WP:RSN/Archive 302#RfC: Anti-Defamation League (ADL)]]</ref>
*[[Association of Religion Data Archives]], ARDA, Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures [https://thearda.com/][https://gordonconwell.edu/][https://globalreligiousfutures.org/]<ref name=":1" />
*''Catholic Culture'' [https://www.catholicculture.org/], no consensus in a February 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_397#Reliability_of_the_Catholic_Culture_website]]</ref>
*''[[Catholic News Agency]]'' [https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/], editors in a June 2020 RSN discussion raised concerns about its role as an advocacy platform for the Catholic church.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 298#Catholic News Agency|WP:RSN/Archive 298#Catholic News Agency]]</ref>
*China Buddhism Encyclopedia [http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/], disparaged by an editor in a July 2020 RSN post that did not draw any further discussion, insufficient discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 305#China Buddhism Encyclopedia|WP:RSN/Archive 305#China Buddhism Encyclopedia]]</ref>
*''[[Christian Post]]'' [https://www.christianpost.com/], an April 2020 RSN discussion did not come to a clear consensus on this source's reliability.<ref name="religionnews01" />
*''Church Executive'' [https://churchexecutive.com/], no consensus in a small February 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_429#Church_Executive]]</ref>
*''[[Crux (online newspaper)]]'' <small>(cruxnow.com)</small> [https://cruxnow.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 277#Life Site News (again)- or rather Crux News|WP:RSN/Archive 277#Life Site News (again)- or rather Crux News]]</ref> No consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 323#Crux (Online Newspaper)|WP:RSN/Archive 323#Crux (Online Newspaper)]]</ref>
*[[Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah]] [https://www.dar-alifta.org], no consensus in an August 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 309#Dar al-Ifta al Misriyyah / www.dar-alifta.org|WP:RSN/Archive 309#Dar al-Ifta al Misriyyah / www.dar-alifta.org]]</ref>
*''[[Encounter Books]]'' [https://www.encounterbooks.com/], 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.<ref name = ":khomeiniquote01"/>
*GCatholic [http://www.gcatholic.org/], no consensus in an October 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 316#GCatholic.org|WP:RSN/Archive 316#GCatholic.org]]</ref>
*[[Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online]] <small>(gameo.org)</small>[https://gameo.org/], Editorial access is restricted, but editors also voiced concerns that it is run by an advocacy group.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 283#Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online|WP:RSN/Archive 283#Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online]]</ref>
*Hymnary.org [https://hymnary.org/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 283#hymnary.org|WP:RSN/Archive 283#hymnary.org]]</ref>
*Islamansiklopedisi.org.tr [https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/], no consensus in a November 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 318#islamansiklopedisi.org.tr|WP:RSN/Archive 318#islamansiklopedisi.org.tr]]</ref>
*IslamQA.info [https://islamqa.info/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 368#Is IslamQA.info a reliable source?]]</ref> Previously considered self-published fringe source in a January 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 283#IslamQA|WP:RSN/Archive 283#IslamQA]]</ref>
*[[Middle East Quarterly]] [https://www.meforum.org/middle-east-quarterly/], 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.<ref name=":islamfringe01" />
*''Radiance Weekly'' [http://radianceweekly.in/], published by [[Jamaat-e-Islami]], likely not independent for most subjects where it would be relevant to cite it.<ref name = ":jamaat01"/>
*Reasonablefaith.org [https://www.reasonablefaith.org/], biased source, other sources preferred per a January 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 325#Is reasonablefaith.org a reliable source or not?|WP:RSN/Archive 325#Is reasonablefaith.org a reliable source or not?]]</ref>
*[[TalkOrigins Archive]] [http://www.talkorigins.org/], 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".<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 305#Are TalkOrigins and rationalrevolution RS for Scientific racism#Charles Darwin?|WP:RSN/Archive 305#Are TalkOrigins and rationalrevolution RS for Scientific racism#Charles Darwin?]]</ref>
*Thesunniway.com [https://www.thesunniway.com/], self-described advocacy platform, has ties to individuals who have been identified as "hate preachers".<ref name=":islamrsn01" />
*Thetorah.com,[https://www.thetorah.com/] no consensus in a November 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_389#Is_thetorah.com_a_reliable_source]]</ref>

; Unreliable
*[[Aleteia]] [https://aleteia.org/], described as low quality by one editor in an October 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 314#Is Aleteia a reliable source?|WP:RSN/Archive 314#Is Aleteia a reliable source?]]</ref>
* [[Amir Taheri]] books and blog, has been caught promoting hoaxes and fabricating quotes, particularly relating to Islam, on multiple occasions.<ref name=":khomeiniquote01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 277#Encounter Books and Adler & Adler Publication reliable?|WP:RSN/Archive 277#Encounter Books and Adler & Adler Publication reliable?]]</ref>
* AnsweringMuslims.com [https://answeringmuslims.com], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 283#AnsweringMuslims.com|WP:RSN/Archive 283#AnsweringMuslims.com]]</ref>
*[[Bitter Winter]] [https://bitterwinter.org/], 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 [[WP:RSP#CESNUR|an unreliable source]].<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_376#RFC:_Bitter_Winter]]</ref>
*catholic-hierarchy.org, self-published source per a July 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301#Catholic-Hierarchy.org|WP:RSN/Archive 301#Catholic-Hierarchy.org]]</ref>
*[[CESNUR]] [https://cesnur.net/][https://cesnur.org/], 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.<ref name=":1" />
*catholicism.org [https://catholicism.org/], reliable for own opinion but not much else according to an RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 277#catholicism.org|WP:RSN/Archive 277#catholicism.org]]</ref>
*Chabad.org [https://www.chabad.org/], usable for [[Chabad]]'s perspectives on ABOUTSELF grounds but otherwise not reliable per a July 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 303#chabad.org|WP:RSN/Archive 303#chabad.org]]</ref> Reaffirmed in an August 2020 RFC, with some editors considering it usable for basic non-controversial claims.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 309#RfC: Chabad.org|WP:RSN/Archive 309#RfC: Chabad.org]]</ref>
*[[Church Militant (website)]] [https://www.churchmilitant.com/], not a publication with a reputation for factual reporting, may be usable with attribution for [[Traditionalist Catholic]] perspectives.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 277#Church Militant|WP:RSN/Archive 277#Church Militant]]</ref>
*[[Daniel Pipes]]'s website [http://www.danielpipes.org/], editors identified it as promoting conspiracy theories in a 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name=":islamrsn01" /> 
*[[Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies]] publications <small>[[Mormon Studies Review]], [[Journal of Book of Mormon Studies]]</small> not reliable for Wikivoice claims per a March 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_431#Foundation_for_Ancient_Research_and_Mormon_Studies_(FARMS)]]</ref> Also listed at [[WP:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Sources]].
*Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch [https://www.globalmbwatch.com/], fringe publication.<ref name=":islamfringe01" />
*haribhakt.com [https://haribhakt.com/], editors were unable to identify its publisher in a 2020 RSN discussion and cast doubts on its reliability based on content on the site.<ref name=":islamrsn01" />
*[[International Fellowship of Christians and Jews]], [https://www.ifcj.org/] 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 330#International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, https://www.ifcj.org|WP:RSN/Archive 330#International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, https://www.ifcj.org]]</ref>
*IslamicStudies.org [https://islamicstudies.org], possibly defunct, appears to be a one-person blog per a 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name=":islamrsn01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 289#Reliable sources?|WP:RSN/Archive 289#Reliable sources?]]</ref>
*[[Jewish Virtual Library]] [https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/], 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.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Jihad Watch]] [https://www.jihadwatch.org/], fringe anti-Muslim conspiracy blog.<ref name=":islamfringe01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 277#Jihad Watch, the Middle East Forum and "Global muslim brotherhood daily watch" in articles about Islam|WP:RSN/Archive 277#Jihad Watch, the Middle East Forum and "Global muslim brotherhood daily watch" in articles about Islam]]</ref><ref name=":robspencer01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 293#Publications by Robert B. Spencer|WP:RSN/Archive 293#Publications by Robert B. Spencer]]</ref>
*The Legal Culture [https://ordoiuris.pl/], journal and news website, advocacy publication published by the Polish fringe Traditionalist Catholic group Ordo Iuris, not reliable per a September 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 311#The Legal Culture - The Journal of Ordo Iuris Institute for Legal Culture|WP:RSN/Archive 311#The Legal Culture - The Journal of Ordo Iuris Institute for Legal Culture]]</ref>
*Legends of America [https://store.legendsofamerica.com/], small consensus for unreliability in a March 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_430#LegendsofAmerica.com]]</ref>
*[[LifeSiteNews]] [https://www.lifesitenews.com/], deprecated in a 2019 RfC.<ref name=":1" />
*Madain Project [https://madainproject.com/], an October 2020 RSN discussion had a small consensus for unreliability due to lack of credentials and use by RS.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 314#Is the "Madain Project" a reliable source? It investigates "Abrahamic faith" sites|WP:RSN/Archive 314#Is the "Madain Project" a reliable source? It investigates "Abrahamic faith" sites]]</ref>
*Monergism.com [https://www.monergism.com/], 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]].<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 283#monergism.com|WP:RSN/Archive 283#monergism.com]]</ref>
*Muflihun.com [https://muflihun.com/], self-published source.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288#Muflihun.com|WP:RSN/Archive 288#Muflihun.com]]</ref>
*Newreligiousmovements.org/Cultdatabase.com [https://newreligiousmovements.org/], generally unreliable per an April 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_433#newreligiousmovements.com_/_cultdatabase.com]]</ref>
*Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe [https://www.intoleranceagainstchristians.eu/], not reliable per an August 2020 RSN discussion<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 306#Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe|WP:RSN/Archive 306#Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe]]</ref>
* OrthodoxWiki [https://orthodoxwiki.org/], open wiki per September 2022 discussion<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 388#Orthodox Wiki|WP:RSN/Archive 388#Orthodox Wiki]]</ref>
* [[Patheos]] [https://www.patheos.com/], collection of blogs.<ref name=":1" />
* PoliticalIslam.com [https://www.politicalislam.com/], run by [[Center for the Study of Political Islam]], small consensus for unreliable per a 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name=":islamrsn01" />
* [[Robert B. Spencer]], fringe anti-Islam author<ref name = ":khomeiniquote01"/><ref name = ":robspencer01" />
*TheReligionOfPeace.com <nowiki>https://thereligionofpeace.com/</nowiki>, per a May 2020 RSN diiscussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 294#Blacklisting thereligionofpeace.com|WP:RSN/Archive 294#Blacklisting thereligionofpeace.com]]</ref>
*Saints.ru [http://saints.ru], unreliable per a June 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_407#saints.ru]]</ref>
* SikhiWiki [https://www.sikhiwiki.org/], open wiki per March 2019 discussion<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 260#Is sikhiwiki.org a reliable source for anything?|WP:RSN/Archive 260#Is sikhiwiki.org a reliable source for anything?]]</ref>
*[[StopAntisemitism]] [https://stopantisemitism.org/], rough consensus in an October 2024 RSN discussion that it is an advocacy group without a reputation for reliability.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_453#StopAntisemitism]]</ref>
*wrldrels.org [https://wrldrels.org/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 305#wrldrels.org|WP:RSN/Archive 305#wrldrels.org]]</ref>

===Science and technology===

; Reliable
*9to5Mac [https://9to5mac.com/], small consensus for reliability in a January 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 323#Thoughts on reliability of apple fan sources 9to5Mac, AppleInsider, and MacRumors|WP:RSN/Archive 323#Thoughts on reliability of apple fan sources 9to5Mac, AppleInsider, and MacRumors]]</ref>
* [[Ars Technica]] [https://arstechnica.com/][https://arstechnica.co.uk/]<ref name=":1" />
* [[Cambridge University Press]] [https://www.cambridge.org/], a generally reputable publisher of books, although some of their work may still be FRINGE.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 286#Books from Cambridge University Press|WP:RSN/Archive 286#Books from Cambridge University Press]]</ref>
*''[[Capitalism Nature Socialism]]'', generally reliable but may need in-text attribution per a July 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 349#The journal Capitalism Nature Socialism]]</ref>
*''[[Cell (journal)]]'' [https://www.cell.com/]<ref name=":3" />
*[[ChemSpider]] [http://www.chemspider.com/], described as reliable by one editor in an August 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name=":pubchem01" />
*[[Climate Feedback]] [https://climatefeedback.org/], a fact-checking website that is considered generally reliable for topics related to climate change.<ref name=":1" />
*Digital.com [https://digital.com/], small consensus for reliability in a July 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#Digital.com]]</ref>
*''[[Discover (magazine)]]'' [https://www.discovermagazine.com/], described as "high quality popular press"<ref name="scirs">[[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (science)]]</ref>
*[[Engadget]] [https://www.engadget.com/]<ref name=":1" />
*''Ethiopian Journal of Biological Sciences'', a May 2020 RSN discussion had a small consensus that this is a reliable academic publication.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 292#Ethiopian Journal of Biological Sciences|WP:RSN/Archive 292#Ethiopian Journal of Biological Sciences]]</ref>
*[[GeekWire]] [https://geekwire.com/], found to be reliable in a small 2015 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 200#GeekWire|WP:RSN/Archive 200#GeekWire]]</ref>
*[[Gizmodo]] [https://gizmodo.com/], generally reliable for techonology, pop culture, and entertainment. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for controversial statements.<ref name=":1" />
*GSMArena [https://www.gsmarena.com/], widely cited by reliable sources for cell-phone coverage. Note that they also host database entries, which are not indicative of notability.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 287#Reliability of GSMArena|WP:RSN/Archive 287#Reliability of GSMArena]]</ref>
*''[[Interesting Engineering]]'', [https://interestingengineering.com/] small consensus for reliability in a December 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_393#Interesting_Engineering]]</ref>
*''Lambda Alpha Journal of Man'' [https://soar.wichita.edu/handle/10057/782], likely reliable for anthropology-related claims.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 272#Lambda Alpha Journal for Man - published by an international student honors society|WP:RSN/Archive 272#Lambda Alpha Journal for Man - published by an international student honors society]]</ref>
* [[NASA]] [https://nasa.gov/], mentioned in passing as reliable in two RSN discussions. It's probably a primary source, careful of [[WP:UNDUE]] weight.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 97#Narrow focus|WP:RSN/Archive 97#Narrow focus]]</ref><ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 112#Use of reliable media reports as secondary sources to support primary sources|WP:RSN/Archive 112#Use of reliable media reports as secondary sources to support primary sources]]</ref>
* NASASpaceFlight.com [https://nasaspaceflight.com/], found to be reliable in a 2009 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 40#NASASpaceFlight.com|WP:RSN/Archive 40#NASASpaceFlight.com]]</ref>
*''[[National Geographic]]'' [https://www.nationalgeographic.com/], for [[wikipedia:FRINGE|fringe]] topics and ideas, [[wikipedia:DUE|due weight]] and [[wikipedia:PARITY|parity of sources]] should be considered.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Nature (journal)]]'' [https://www.nature.com/], top tier peer reviewed journal.<ref name=":sciam" />
*''[[New Scientist]]'' [https://www.newscientist.com/], generally reliable for science coverage.<ref name=":1" />
* ''[[PCMag]]'' [https://pcmag.com/], mentioned in passing as reliable in multiple RSN discussions.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 2#Bose Corporation and the intellexual web page|WP:RSN/Archive 2#Bose Corporation and the intellexual web page]]</ref><ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 70#Analysis of reliability needed at this AfD|WP:RSN/Archive 70#Analysis of reliability needed at this AfD]]</ref><ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 287#Reliability of GSMArena|WP:RSN/Archive 287#Reliability of GSMArena]]</ref>
*''[[Popular Science]]'' [https://www.popsci.com/], generally reliable but not MEDRS-reliable per an August 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 306#Popular Science magazine|WP:RSN/Archive 306#Popular Science magazine]]</ref>
*[[PubChem]] [https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/], described as reliable by one editor in an August 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name =":pubchem01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 306#Question about PubChem , Sigma Aldrich and ChemSpider|WP:RSN/Archive 306#Question about PubChem , Sigma Aldrich and ChemSpider]]</ref>
*''[[The Register]]'' [https://www.theregister.com/][https://www.theregister.co.uk/], a British technology news website, may have relevant biases on topics related to Wikipedia.<ref name=":1" />
* [[Retraction Watch]] [https://retractionwatch.com/], a blog that publishes about retractions of scientific papers, consensus of editors in a 2015 RSN discussion considered it reliable, usable, and an exception to [[WP:SPS]].<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 197#Retraction Watch|WP:RSN/Archive 197#Retraction Watch]]</ref>
*''[[The Skeptic's Dictionary]]'' [http://skepdic.com/], generally reliable. As it often covers [[Wikipedia:FRINGE|fringe]] material, [[Wikipedia:PARITY|parity of sources]] may be relevant.<ref name=":1" />
*''Skeptoid Media'' [https://skeptoid.com/], generally reliable with attribution as a subject matter expert for fringe science and skeptic topics.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 337#Brian Dunning (Skeptoid Media): Reliability as a source]]</ref>
*''[[Science (journal)]]'' [https://www.science.org/], top tier peer reviewed journal.<ref name=":sciam" />
*''[[Scientific American]]'' [https://www.scientificamerican.com/], popular science magazine.<ref name=":sciam">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 272#Science journal magazines (e.g. Nature, Scientific American (SciAm), Science, etc.)|WP:RSN/Archive 272#Science journal magazines (e.g. Nature, Scientific American (SciAm), Science, etc.)]]</ref> Reaffirmed in a July 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301#Scientific American|WP:RSN/Archive 301#Scientific American]]</ref>
* [[Space.com]] [https://space.com/], generally reliable for astronomy and spaceflight, but can have a sensational tone. May publish syndicated content and [[churnalism]].<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 335#RfC: Space.com|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 335#RfC: Space.com]]</ref>
* [[TechRadar]] [https://techradar.com/], mentioned in passing as reliable in two RSN discussions.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 287#Reliability of GSMArena|WP:RSN/Archive 287#Reliability of GSMArena]]</ref><ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 197#Nokia Lumia 920T GPU|WP:RSN/Archive 197#Nokia Lumia 920T GPU]]</ref>
*[[TorrentFreak]] [https://torrentfreak.com/], generally reliable for subjects related to file-sharing. No consensus for reliability on other topics.<ref name=":1" />
*[[VentureBeat]] [https://venturebeat.com/], generally reliable for business and technology.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[The Verge]]'' [https://www.theverge.com/], generally reliable for technology, science, and automobiles. Some editors question the quality of ''The Verge''{{'}}s instructional content on [[Computer hardware|computer hardware]].<ref name=":1" />
*[[Web of Science]] [https://www.webofscience.com], generally reliable per a July 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#WebOfScience]]</ref>
*''[[Wired (magazine)]]'' [https://www.wired.com/], generally reliable for science and technology.<ref name=":1" />
* ''[[Wired UK]]'' [https://www.wired.co.uk/], sister publication to [[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]
*[[ZDNet]] [https://www.zdnet.com/], generally reliable for technology.<ref name=":1" />

; No consensus
*9to5Google [https://9to5google.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 396#RfC: 9to5Google.com reliability?|WP:RSN/Archive 396#RfC: 9to5Google.com reliability?]]</ref>
*[[Alexa Internet]] [https://alexa.com/], defunct website rankings website.<ref name=":1" />
*All About Circuits,[https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/] "probably fine" per one editor in a March 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 331#All About Circuits (allaboutcircuits.com)|WP:RSN/Archive 331#All About Circuits (allaboutcircuits.com)]]</ref>
* Carnot-Cournot Netwerk [https://www.c-c-netzwerk.ch/], Swiss nuclear energy lobby group. Editors in a 2020 RSN discussion did not come to a consensus regarding the reliability of its publications.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 289#Carnot-Cournot Netwerk|WP:RSN/Archive 289#Carnot-Cournot Netwerk]]</ref>
* [[CleanTechnica]] [https://cleantechnica.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 295#CleanTechnica, again|WP:RSN/Archive 295#CleanTechnica, again]]</ref>
*[[CNET]] [https://www.cnet.com/], 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.<ref name=":1" />
*The Debrief [https://thedebrief.org/], no consensus in a February 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_425#Thedebrief.org]]</ref>
*[[Digital Trends]] [https://www.digitaltrends.com/], no consensus (leaning reliable) in a September 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_414#Digital_Trends]]</ref>
*Encyclopedia Astronautica [http://www.astronautix.com/], no consensus in a September 2023 RSN discussion.<ref name=":1" />
*FossForce [https://fossforce.com], no consensus in a July 2023 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 409#RfC: Is FossForce.com a reliable source for Free and open-source software (FOSS) articles?]]</ref>
* Grit Daily [https://gritdaily.com/], 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)]].<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 325#Grit Daily|WP:RSN/Archive 325#Grit Daily]]</ref>
* [[Hackaday]] [https://hackaday.com/], no consensus as to whether its editorial oversight is sufficient to rise above [[WP:BLOGS]].<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281#Hackaday|WP:RSN/Archive 281#Hackaday]]</ref>
* [[HowStuffWorks]] [https://www.howstuffworks.com/], no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 323#How Stuff Works|WP:RSN/Archive 323#How Stuff Works]]</ref>
*MakeUseOf.com [https://www.muo.com/][https://makeuseof.com/], no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 326#Should MakeUseOf.com be considered a reliable source?|WP:RSN/Archive 326#Should MakeUseOf.com be considered a reliable source?]]</ref>
* Mantleplumes.org [https://mantleplumes.org], no consensus in a February 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 327#mantleplumes.org|WP:RSN/Archive 327#mantleplumes.org]]</ref>
*MathWorld [https://mathworld.wolfram.com/], no consensus in an April 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_432#MathWorld]]</ref>
* MobileSyrup, [https://mobilesyrup.com/] no consensus in a July 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_379#Jonathan_Lamont's_review_at_MobileSyrup]]</ref>
* [[Neowin]] [https://neowin.net/], insufficient discussion for a consensus, mentioned by one editor as reliable in a 2015 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 197#Nokia Lumia 920T GPU|WP:RSN/Archive 197#Nokia Lumia 920T GPU]]</ref>
* [[The Next Web]] [https://thenextweb.com/], no consensus, 2014 and 2016 discussions considered it reliable, 2018 discussions leaned toward unreliable.<ref name=":1" />
* ''[[Popular Mechanics]]'' [https://www.popularmechanics.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 323#Popular Mechanics for UFO claims|WP:RSN/Archive 323#Popular Mechanics for UFO claims]]</ref>
* ''Psychology Today'' blogs [https://www.psychologytoday.com/], no consensus, while often written by experts, may not necessarily be experts in fields sufficiently relevant to claims that they may make.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 285#Psychology Today|WP:RSN/Archive 285#Psychology Today]]</ref>
*[[ScienceBlogs]] [https://scienceblogs.com/], no consensus, network of invite-only blogs run by experts. However, some blogs may write about subjects outside of their author's expertise.<ref name=":1" />
* The Shortcut [https://www.theshortcut.com], no consensus in a March 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_432#The_Shortcut:_reliable_source?]]</ref>
* SlashGear [https://slashgear.com/], insufficient discussion, but mentioned as reliable by an editor in a 2015 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 197#Nokia Lumia 920T GPU|WP:RSN/Archive 197#Nokia Lumia 920T GPU]]</ref>
* [[Space News]] [https://spacenews.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 251#SpaceNews|WP:RSN/Archive 251#SpaceNews]]</ref>
*[[Softpedia]] [https://www.softpedia.com/], reliable for reviews, no consensus for news articles.<ref name=":1" />
*TechCaball, [https://techcabal.com/] no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 338#Techcabal]]</ref>
*[[TechCrunch]] [https://techcrunch.com/], 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 [[Wikipedia:V|verifiability]], but may be less useful for purpose of determining [[Wikipedia:N|notability]].<ref name=":1" />
*TechDirt [https://www.techdirt.com/], no consensus in a February 2023 discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 398#Techdirt]]</ref>
* [[Thoughtco.com]] [https://www.thoughtco.com/], weak consensus for reliability for uncontroversial claims, should not be used to support extraordinary claims.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281#ThoughtCo.|WP:RSN/Archive 281#ThoughtCo.]]</ref> Note as well the [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Dotdash|RSP entry for the various publications of its parent company]], Dotdash.
* [[Tom's Guide]] [https://tomsguide.com], mentioned in passing by one editor as reliable. Not enough mentions to generate a consensus.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 287#Reliability of GSMArena|WP:RSN/Archive 287#Reliability of GSMArena]]</ref>

; Unreliable
*[[arXiv]] [https://arxiv.org/], 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.<ref name=":1" />
*chemicalbook.com [chemicalbook.com], commercial marketplace without sufficient editorial oversight per a June 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#chemicalbook.com]]</ref>
*[[CoinDesk]] [https://www.coindesk.com/], 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.<ref name=":1" />
*CPP Reference [https://en.cppreference.com/w/], user-generated source per a May 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_440#cppreference.com]]</ref>
*[[Crunchbase]] [https://www.crunchbase.com/], user generated content.<ref name=":1" />
*EconStor [https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/45683], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#EconStor]]</ref>
*Ed-Tech Press [http://www.edtechpress.co.uk/], disreputable and likely predatory per a July 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 304#Odd publisher: Ed-Tech Press|WP:RSN/Archive 304#Odd publisher: Ed-Tech Press]]</ref>
*Encycolorpedia.com [https://encycolorpedia.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 290#Encycolorpedia|WP:RSN/Archive 290#Encycolorpedia]]</ref>
*Followchain [https://www.followchain.org/], described by 2 editors as unreliable in a February 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_426#Is_Followchain_a_reliable_source]]</ref>
*Garden.org [https://Garden.org], crowdsourced wiki per an August 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 350#Is Garden.org reliable]]</ref>
*Journal of Novel Applied Sciences [http://jnasci.org/], likely predatory per a July 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301#Journal of Novel Applied Sciences|WP:RSN/Archive 301#Journal of Novel Applied Sciences]]</ref>
*KenRockwell.com [https://kenrockwell.com/], self-published source without credentials.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 286#RfC: KenRockwell.com|WP:RSN/Archive 286#RfC: KenRockwell.com]]</ref>
*Liliputing.com [https://liliputing.com/], self-published per a November 2019 RFC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 278#Liliputing.com blog as a reliable source?|WP:RSN/Archive 278#Liliputing.com blog as a reliable source?]]</ref>
*[[Omniglot]] [https://omniglot.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301#Omniglot|WP:RSN/Archive 301#Omniglot]]</ref>
*Pc.net [https://www.pc.net], unreliable per one editor in a February 2023 RSN discussion.<ref name="retrorev01" />
*Phoronix [https://www.phoronix.com/], self-published source per a 2017 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281#Phoronix|WP:RSN/Archive 281#Phoronix]]</ref> Reaffirmed in a September 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_451#www.phoronix.com]]</ref>
*Proprivacy.com [https://proprivacy.com/], appears to be a corporate-affiliate news site and is thus not reliable.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 277#Should proprivacy dot com be considered a reliable source?|WP:RSN/Archive 277#Should proprivacy dot com be considered a reliable source?]]</ref>
*[[ResearchGate]] [https://www.researchgate.net/], user generated content. Papers hosted there may also be published elsewhere, in which case they may be reliable.<ref name=":1" />
*Retroreversing [https://www.retroreversing.com/], unreliable per one editor in a February 2023 RSN discussion.<ref name="retrorev01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_398#retroreversing.com_and_pc.net_reliability?]]</ref>
*Science Publishing Corporation [https://www.sciencepubco.com/], predatory publication on Beal's list per June 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_442#Is_"science_publishing_corporation"_aka_sciencepubco.com_a_reliablesource_for_Khasa_dam?]]</ref>
*[[Stack Exchange]] <small>([[Stack Overflow]], [[MathOverflow]], [[Ask Ubuntu]])</small>[https://stackexchange.com/][https://stackoverflow.com/][https://mathoverflow.net/][https://askubuntu.com/][https://superuser.com/][https://serverfault.com/], user generated.<ref name=":1" />
*The Starship Campaign, [https://starshipcampaign.com/] fansite per a June 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 346#The Starship Campaign]]</ref>
*Tech Times [https://www.techtimes.com/] Pay for play per a January 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 364#Tech Times (techtimes.com), iTech Post( itechpost.com), Gamenguide (gamenguide.com)]]</ref>
*TuttoAndroid [https://www.tuttoandroid.net/], editors in a September 2020 RSN discussion found evidence that it plagiarizes from unreliable sources.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 311#TuttoAndroid.net as a reliable source?|WP:RSN/Archive 311#TuttoAndroid.net as a reliable source?]]</ref>
*Universe Guide [https://www.universeguide.com/], deprecated in an October 2024 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_453#RfC:_Universe_Guide]]</ref>
*VPNPro.com [https://vpnpro.com/], native advertising and sponsored content.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 275#Should vpnpro dot com be considered a reliable source?|WP:RSN/Archive 275#Should vpnpro dot com be considered a reliable source?]]</ref>

=== Sports ===

; Reliable
*''[[The Athletic]]'' [https://theathletic.com/] generally reliable per a March 2024 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_432#The_Athletic]]</ref>
*''[[Bluff (magazine)]]'' [https://bluff.com/], stopped publishing in 2015. Reliable for poker information per an August 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name=":poker01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 306#Poker publications|WP:RSN/Archive 306#Poker publications]]</ref>
*CardsChat News [https://www.cardschat.com/], reliable for poker information per an August 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name=":poker01" />
*[[ESPN]] [https://www.espn.com/][https://espn.co.uk/][https://espn.go.com/], sports publication of record, doesn't appear to have ever been seriously challenged as a source for sports information.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 318#ESPN|WP:RSN/Archive 318#ESPN]]</ref>
*Extratime.ie [https://www.extratime.com/][https://www.extratime.ie], reliable for association football coverage per a January 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 325#Extratime.ie|WP:RSN/Archive 325#Extratime.ie]]</ref>
*Chris Turner's Snooker Archive, reliable expert source per an August 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_382#Chris_Turner's_Snooker_Archive]]</ref>
*[[Sports Illustrated]] [https://www.si.com/]
*Soccerway [https://soccerway.com/], can be used to determine if a player has appeared in a match which meets [[WP:NFOOTY]]
*SwimSwam.com [https://swimswam.com/], asserted as reliable for swimming-related news by one editor in an October 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name="swim01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 314#SwimSwam|WP:RSN/Archive 314#SwimSwam]]</ref>
*[[Swimming World News]] [https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/], asserted as reliable for swimming-related news by one editor in an October 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name="swim01" />

; No consensus
*Baseball Almanac, no consensus in a December 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#Baseball_Almanac]]</ref>
*Baseball in Wartime [http://baseballinwartime.com/], one editor called the source an expert blog in a September 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 311#Website Wartime in Baseball|WP:RSN/Archive 311#Website Wartime in Baseball]]</ref>
*The Blazing Musket [https://www.theblazingmusket.com/], no consensus in a small October 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_453#The_Blazing_Musket_for_sport_BLPs]]</ref>
*[[Heavy.com]] [https://heavy.com/], should not be relied upon for any serious or contentious statements.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Inside the Games]] [https://www.insidethegames.biz], no consensus in an August 2024 RfC that identified varying quality in output and additional concerns regarding the source's coverage following the publication's change in ownership in November 2023.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_449#RfC:_Inside_the_Games/insidethegames.biz]]</ref>
*Lacancha.com [https://lacancha.net], defunct, called an [[WP:SPS]] by one editor in July 2020.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 302#lacancha.com|WP:RSN/Archive 302#lacancha.com]]</ref>
*[[SBNation]] [https://www.sbnation.com/], no consensus in an August 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_410#SB_Nation-staffed_sports_editorial_blogs]]</ref> Previously, all editors involved in a 2020 discussion agree that articles published in this source should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 285#Is it appropriate to use SBNation as a reference?|WP:RSN/Archive 285#Is it appropriate to use SBNation as a reference?]]</ref>
*Sherdog.com [https://www.sherdog.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 318#Sherdog.com|WP:RSN/Archive 318#Sherdog.com]]</ref><ref name=":1" />
*SoccerBible [http://soccerbible.com], no consensus in a September 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_414#Reliability_of_SoccerBible.com_on_reviews_and_product_release_information_of_soccer/football_boots]]</ref>
*Svenskafans [http://svenskafans.com/], no consensus in a May 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_437#Svenska_Fans_(svenskafans.com)]]</ref>

; Unreliable
*[[Bloody Elbow]] [https://bloodyelbow.com/], rough consensus in a September 2024 RfC that it is effectively a blog.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_450#RfC:_Bloody_Elbow]]</ref>
*Fadeaway World [https://fadeawayworld.net/], rough consensus against reliability in a September 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_451#Fadeaway_World]]</ref>
*Footballdatabase.eu [https://www.footballdatabase.eu/en/], user generated and unreliable per a December 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_423#Footballdatabase.eu]]</ref> 
*Highstakesdb [https://www.highstakesdb.com/], self-published poker blog, but may be usable for tournament results per an August 2020 RSN discussion.<ref name=":poker01" />
*Rocket Robin's Soccer In Toronto <nowiki>http://rocketrobinsoccerintoronto.com/</nowiki>, blog compiling primary source information.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 285#Rocket Robin Soccer in Toronto rocketrobinsoccerintoronto.com|WP:RSN/Archive 285#Rocket Robin Soccer in Toronto rocketrobinsoccerintoronto.com]]</ref>
*[[Sportskeeda]] [https://www.sportskeeda.com/], generally unreliable per a June 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 343#Sportskeeda generally unreliable?]]</ref>
*The Sportster, [https://www.thesportster.com/] listed as unreliable by [[WP:WikiProject Professional Wrestling]] due to a lack of proper fact checking.<ref>[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources#Unreliable sources]]</ref>
*[[Transfermarkt]] [https://www.transfermarkt.us/][https://www.transfermarkt.com/], player profiles and statistics can be edited by registered users, making this source unreliable.

===Vehicles (cars, aircraft, trains, ships)===

; Reliable
*''[[Car and Driver]]'' [https://www.caranddriver.com/], generally reliable for non-technical claims per a January 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 326#Car and Driver|WP:RSN/Archive 326#Car and Driver]]</ref>
*One Mile at a Time [https://onemileatatime.com/], an editor in a December 2020 RSN discussion suggested that the source's author is a subject-matter expert for civil aviation.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 322#One Mile at a Time|WP:RSN/Archive 322#One Mile at a Time]]</ref>
*Outandaboutlive, [https://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/], generally reliable for coverage of motor homes per a May 2022 RSN discussion<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 376#Outandaboutlive.co.uk]]</ref>
*tcawestern.org [http://tcawestern.org/], rough consensus in a 2020 RSN discussion for reliability for model-train related claims as a self-published expert source.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 318#Train Collectors Association website?|WP:RSN/Archive 318#Train Collectors Association website?]]</ref>
*[[Trains (magazine)|''Trains'']] [https://www.trains.com/], reliable per a June 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#Trains_(magazine)]]</ref>

; No consensus
*American-rails.com [https://www.american-rails.com/], editors expressed doubts about its reliability in an August 2020 RSN discussion but did not come to a firm consensus.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 305#american-rails.com|WP:RSN/Archive 305#american-rails.com]]</ref>
*Ch-aviation [https://www.ch-aviation.com/], described as a reliable trade publication by one editor in an August 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_411#ch-aviation.com]]</ref>
*The Drive <small>The War Zone</small>[https://www.thedrive.com/], one editor made a case for unreliability in a July 2023 RSN discussion that did not receive further participation.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_409#Internet_magazines:_'The_War_Zone'_and_'The_Drive']]</ref>
*Hotairengines.org [http://hotairengines.org/], no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 323#hotairengines.org|WP:RSN/Archive 323#hotairengines.org]]</ref>
*roads.org.uk [https://roads.org.uk], typically-reliable but self-published source per an October 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 387#roads.org.uk]]</ref>
*Supercars.net [https://www.supercars.net/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 294#Supercars.net|WP:RSN/Archive 294#Supercars.net]]</ref>
*''Superyacht Times'' [https://www.superyachttimes.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 306#Superyacht Times|WP:RSN/Archive 306#Superyacht Times]]</ref>
*ukrailnews, [https://www.ukrailnews.com/] no firm consensus, leaning towards unreliable, in a May 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 339#ukrailnews.com]]</ref>
*Zamaaero [https://zamaaero.com/], no consensus in a February 2024 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_429#zamaaero.com]]</ref>

; Unreliable
*The Aerodrome [http://www.theaerodrome.com/], self-published per a December 2021 RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 361#RfC: Reliability of theaerodrome.com|WP:RSN/Archive 361#RfC: Reliability of theaerodrome.com]]</ref>
*Airfleets.com , self-published, rough consensus in an October 2024 RSN discussion that it is not reliable.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_452#Reliability_of_Airfleets.net]]</ref>
*Belgian Wings [https://www.belgian-wings.be/], not reliable per a December 2019 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281#belgian-wings.be as reliable source|WP:RSN/Archive 281#belgian-wings.be as reliable source]]</ref>
*bozhdynsky.com [https://www.bozhdynsky.com/], self-published and non-expert source per a July 2019 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 270#bozhdynsky.com|WP:RSN/Archive 270#bozhdynsky.com]]</ref>
*Carfolio [https://www.carfolio.com/], small consensus for unreliability in a June 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 296#Request for comment: Carfolio.com|WP:RSN/Archive 296#Request for comment: Carfolio.com]]</ref>
*cahighways.org [https://cahighways.org/], considered a hobbyist website that is not published by a subject-matter expert per April 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 374#cahighways.org|WP:RSN/Archive 374#cahighways.org]]</ref>
*f-16.net [https://www.f-16.net/], not reliable per a March 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 368#f-16.net|WP:RSN/Archive 368#f-16.net]]</ref>
*Fighter Jets World [https://fighterjetsworld.com/], not reliable, caught passing off photohopped images as real per a March 2022 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 368#fighterjetsworld.com|WP:RSN/Archive 368#fighterjetsworld.com]]</ref>
*Land Transport Guru [https://landtransportguru.net] consensus in a December 2023 RSN discussion that it is a self-published enthusiast site.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#Land_Transport_Guru]]</ref>
*Planespotters.net [https://www.planespotters.net/], consensus that it is self-published in a March 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 399#Planespotters.net|WP:RSN/Archive 399#Planespotters.net]]</ref>
*[[Wikipedia:Simple Flying|Simple Flying]] [https://simpleflying.com/]<ref name=":1" />
*Teslarati [https://www.teslarati.com/], effectively PR per an August 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_412#Teslarati]]</ref>

=== Unclassifiable ===

; Reliable
*[[Aon]] [https://www.aon.com/home/news], consensus in a September 2022 RfC that it is reliable for its weather-related coverage.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_383#RFC_on_Aon,_particularly_in_weather_related_articles]]</ref>
* [[National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]] [https://www.noaa.gov/], a U.S. agency with weather information. Mentioned in passing as reliable in a 2011 RSN discussion. Used in featured articles such as [[Hurricane Kenna]].<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 101#The Weather Channel|WP:RSN/Archive 101#The Weather Channel]]</ref>
; No consensus
*etymonline [https://www.etymonline.com/], 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.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 306#etymonline|WP:RSN/Archive 306#etymonline]]</ref>

; Unreliable
*[[Answers.com]] / WikiAnswers [https://answers.com], incorporates user-generated content.<ref name=":1" />
*[[BitChute]] [https://www.bitchute.com], self-published.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Bored Panda]] [https://www.boredpanda.com/], dubbed low-quality clickbait in a June 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 297#boredpanda.com|WP:RSN/Archive 297#boredpanda.com]]</ref>
*Choicely.com [https://www.choicely.com/], self-published sites/blogs/surveys per a small June 2023 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_408#choicely.com]]</ref>
*[[Cracked (magazine)]] [https://www.cracked.com/], humor publication.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Examiner.com]], spam blacklist.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Facebook]] [https://facebook.com/], self-published social networking site.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Flickr]] [https://flickr.com], self-published image hosting site.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Goodreads]] [https://goodreads.com/], a social cataloging site comprising user-generated content.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[Guinness World Records]]'' [https://guinnessworldrecords.com/], should not be used to establish notability. Editors have expressed concern that post-2008 records include paid coverage.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Instagram]] [https://instagram.com/], user generated.<ref name=":5">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources#User-generated content]]</ref>
*The Joshua Project [https://joshuaproject.net/], self-published blog by Christian missionary group per an August 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 350#Joshuaproject.net]]</ref>
*[[Jrank]] [https://www.jrank.org/], considered a content farm. Has been caught plagiarizing from other sources. Unreliable per numerous past discussions.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?fulltext=Search+the+noticeboard+archives&fulltext=Search&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&search=jrank&ns0=1&searchToken=aaquwl2x82xpapo6e0ejqzfog past RSN discussions]</ref>
*[[LinkedIn]] [https://linkedin.com/], business-oriented social networking site. Self-published.<ref name=":1" />
* Listverse [https://listverse.com/], denounced as unreliable clickbait by editors after an IP suggested that it should be considered a reliable source in a May 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 295#Listverse as a reliable source|WP:RSN/Archive 295#Listverse as a reliable source]]</ref>
*[[LiveJournal]] [https://www.livejournal.com/], self-published.<ref name=":1" />
*MobileReference [https://mobilereference.com/], described by one editor in a January 2021 RSN discussion as a publisher of books based on Wikipedia articles.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 323#MobileReference/MobileReference.com|WP:RSN/Archive 323#MobileReference/MobileReference.com]]</ref>
* [[News Break]] [https://www.newsbreak.com/], a news aggregator that only provides a snippet of the article. Uses low quality sources such as Communities Digital News and [[Breitbart]]. Deprecated in a July 2020 RSN RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301#News Break|WP:RSN/Archive 301#News Break]]</ref>
*[[Officer Down Memorial Page]] [https://www.odmp.org/], user generated.<ref name=":5" />
* [[The Onion]] [https://www.theonion.com/], satire.<ref name=":1" />
* [[Quora]] [https://www.quora.com/], crowd-sourced.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Reddit]] [https://reddit.com/], user-generated content.<ref name=":1" />
*''[[The Signpost]]'' ([[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost]]), an April 2020 RSN discussion had a rough consensus that it should not be cited in Wikipedia articles except in very rare circumstances as a primary source.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 290#Is The Signpost a RS?|WP:RSN/Archive 290#Is The Signpost a RS?]]</ref>
* [[SourceWatch]] [https://sourcewatch.org], an open wiki.<ref name=":1" />
* Today I Found Out [http://www.todayifoundout.com/], generally unreliable per a September 2021 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 352#TodayIFoundOut.com]]</ref>
*[[Tumblr]] [https://www.tumblr.com/], user generated.<ref name=":5" />
*[[Twitter]] [https://twitter.com/], self-published.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Urban Dictionary]] [https://urbandictionary.com/], described as unreliable due to its crowdsourced nature in a May 2020 RSN discussion.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 293#Urban Dictionary|WP:RSN/Archive 293#Urban Dictionary]]</ref>
*[[Wikidata]] [https://www.wikidata.org/], user-generated. However, uniquely among WMF sites, Wikidata's statements can be directly transcluded into articles; this is usually done to provide external links or infobox data.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Wikipedia]] [https://wikipedia.org/], user-generated.<ref name=":1" />
* [[Wikispaces]] [https://www.wikispaces.com/], wiki hosting service per March 2019 RSN discussion. Now defunct.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 261#Is wikispace reliable?|WP:RSN/Archive 261#Is wikispace reliable?]]</ref>
*[[WordPress.com]] [https://wordpress.com/], self-published blogs.<ref name=":1" />
*[[Worldometer]] [https://worldometers.info/], self-published.<ref name=":1" />
*[[YouTube]] [https://www.youtube.com/], self-published. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia, according to the [[Wikipedia:ELNEVER|external links guideline]].<ref name=":1" />

== News aggregators ==

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.

* [[AOL]] [https://aol.com/]
* [[Boston.com]] [https://boston.com/]
* BuzzFlash [https://buzzflash.com/] - Pulls from some low quality sources such as the [[Daily Kos]].
* [[Canada.com]] [https://canada.com/]
* [[Daum (web portal)]] [https://daum.net/], South Korean web portal
*''The Logical Indian'' [https://thelogicalindian.com/], news aggregator, consider citing the original piece if originally published in a reliable outlet.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 290#The Logical Indian for Jai Shri Ram|WP:RSN/Archive 290#The Logical Indian for Jai Shri Ram]]</ref>
* [[MSN]] [https://msn.com/]
* [[Naver]] [https://naver.com/], South Korean web portal
* [[Netscape]] [https://netscape.com/]
* [[News Break]] [https://www.newsbreak.com/], a news aggregator that only provides a snippet of the article. Uses low quality sources such as Communities Digital News and [[Breitbart]]. Deprecated in a July 2020 RSN RfC.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301#News Break|WP:RSN/Archive 301#News Break]]</ref>
* Online Focus [https://www.focus.de/], a German news aggregator
* [[Phys.org]] [https://phys.org/], aggregates science press releases.
* The World News [https://theworldnews.net/] - Pulls from some low quality sources such as the [[New York Post]] and [[DailyMail]].
* [[Yahoo]] [https://yahoo.com/] - Mostly pulls from high quality sources, with one exception being the [[National Review]]. Produces some original material, such as certain [[Yahoo Sports]] and [[Yahoo Finance]] articles.

==Scripts and tools==
{{Main|Wikipedia:User scripts/List#References}}
Several scripts and tools exist that will flag issues and problems with sources.
;Scripts
*[[User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen]] – a user script that adds categorical icons to Wikipedia citations, to help guide users on the nature and reliability of sources at just a glance
*[[User:Headbomb/unreliable]] – a user script that identifies various unreliable and potentially unreliable sources. Very good at finding [[predatory journal|predatory sources]].
*[[User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter]] - a user script that highlights citations green, yellow, or red depending on their reliability.

;Tools
:[[Wikipedia:CiteWatch]] (see [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-03-31/In focus|''Signpost'' article]])

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Wikipedia new pages patrol]]