Redirect to:
This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|
missing articles at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Shortcut WP:LISTVERIFYWP:LISTVERIFY Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines...
Click to read more »article should be deleted because it is unsourced meaning it fails WP:LISTVERIFY. Also, The core principle is not-noteable and would not be expected to...
Click to read more »list would be all but unmaintainable per the sourcing requirements of WP:LISTVERIFY - RSes rarely note market cap of cryptos (because it's a publicity number...
Click to read more »random collection of country links that fail notability WP:LISTN and WP:LISTVERIFY. No significant coverage in published reliable sources are found. Only...
Click to read more »WP:OR, with not a single source to support the list, in violation of WP:LISTVERIFY. — kashmiri TALK 00:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC) Delete largely per nom. To assist...
Click to read more »article contains no references and thus does not meet the requirement of WP:LISTVERIFY. A look at some of the individual articles listed shows that not all of...
Click to read more »reason for its existence, it fails WP:LISTN, WP:LISTCRITERIA, and WP:LISTVERIFY. Hzh (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included...
Click to read more »references don't go towards notability of the cahracters, and fail WP:LISTVERIFY. This is in-universe fan-base cataloging. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:41, 4...
Click to read more »etc.) would be a start. Estheim (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC) WP:LISTVERIFY states It is generally presumed that obviously appropriate material, such...
Click to read more »every sentence on a page to be cited, only certain classes of fact. WP:LISTVERIFY explicitly says It is generally presumed that obviously appropriate material...
Click to read more »Thanks, — Music1201 talk 15:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC) Delete - per WP:LISTVERIFY - Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines...
Click to read more »Aviation and Lists. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Keep WP:LISTVERIFY clearly states: It is generally presumed that obviously appropriate material...
Click to read more »listing (that also flogs the author's book on the same subject), hence WP:LISTVERIFY is not satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC) As there...
Click to read more »December 2021 (UTC) Delete does not meet even the basic sourcing needs WP:LISTVERIFY - WP:MINREF ....Moxy- 04:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC) Did you read the last...
Click to read more »seemingly allows lists to be created without the need for sources: WP:LISTVERIFY. Removing lists like these can be difficult because there are few policies...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Unsourced and subjective list: fails WP:LISTVERIFY and no explanation is given as to what "heritage" means or how we could...
Click to read more »14:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC) I think that folks really need to read WP:LISTVERIFY - this specifies that the sources need to appear on the list itself, not...
Click to read more »Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE. Fails WP:LISTCRITERIA and WP:CSC. WP:LISTVERIFY: Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines...
Click to read more »there the collective will to bring this list into compliance with WP:LISTVERIFY by providing sources establishing the films as "adult" and deleting the...
Click to read more »18 July 2019 (UTC) @Bkissin: - I was looking over this, and reading WP:LISTVERIFY and WP:MINREF, I wouldn't say that inline sources are needed for this...
Click to read more »(talk) 15:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC) To continue this further, of course WP:LISTVERIFY does apply. And there's so much content that is currently unreferenced...
Click to read more »would that satisfy you? Doing so isn't actually a requirement of WP:LISTVERIFY, but if the answer was yes, would that change your view about the nomination...
Click to read more »buidhe 04:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Discography and Tours section: Per WP:LISTVERIFY, should be cited inline (t · c) buidhe 11:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC) I will...
Click to read more »index articles are subject to guidance for standalone list articles at WP:LISTVERIFY. If the surname SIA is only a list of persons with the name, I think merely...
Click to read more »woodcuts, so originally I was linking to pages on Wikidata to satisfy WP:LISTVERIFY guideline. After all, all the information in the list were generated using...
Click to read more »list would be all but unmaintainable per the sourcing requirements of WP:LISTVERIFY - RSes rarely note market cap of cryptos (because it's a publicity number...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Unsourced and subjective list: fails WP:LISTVERIFY and no explanation is given as to what "heritage" means or how we could...
Click to read more »article should be deleted because it is unsourced meaning it fails WP:LISTVERIFY. Also, The core principle is not-noteable and would not be expected to...
Click to read more »31 May 2022 (UTC) Zindor The closest I can find to this policy is WP:LISTVERIFY and WP:MINREF, but I agree it could be spelled out more clearly. Shantavira|feed...
Click to read more »article contains no references and thus does not meet the requirement of WP:LISTVERIFY. A look at some of the individual articles listed shows that not all of...
Click to read more »every sentence on a page to be cited, only certain classes of fact. WP:LISTVERIFY explicitly says It is generally presumed that obviously appropriate material...
Click to read more »random collection of country links that fail notability WP:LISTN and WP:LISTVERIFY. No significant coverage in published reliable sources are found. Only...
Click to read more »there the collective will to bring this list into compliance with WP:LISTVERIFY by providing sources establishing the films as "adult" and deleting the...
Click to read more »references don't go towards notability of the cahracters, and fail WP:LISTVERIFY. This is in-universe fan-base cataloging. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:41, 4...
Click to read more »(talk) 15:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC) To continue this further, of course WP:LISTVERIFY does apply. And there's so much content that is currently unreferenced...
Click to read more »listing (that also flogs the author's book on the same subject), hence WP:LISTVERIFY is not satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC) As there...
Click to read more »etc.) would be a start. Estheim (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC) WP:LISTVERIFY states It is generally presumed that obviously appropriate material, such...
Click to read more »seemingly allows lists to be created without the need for sources: WP:LISTVERIFY. Removing lists like these can be difficult because there are few policies...
Click to read more »Thanks, — Music1201 talk 15:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC) Delete - per WP:LISTVERIFY - Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines...
Click to read more »December 2021 (UTC) Delete does not meet even the basic sourcing needs WP:LISTVERIFY - WP:MINREF ....Moxy- 04:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC) Did you read the last...
Click to read more »Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE. Fails WP:LISTCRITERIA and WP:CSC. WP:LISTVERIFY: Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines...
Click to read more »majority of them meet WP:SOAPS's notability standards, WP:GNG and WP:LISTVERIFY. From WP:LISTCRIT: one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is...
Click to read more »WP:OR, with not a single source to support the list, in violation of WP:LISTVERIFY. — kashmiri TALK 00:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC) Delete largely per nom. To assist...
Click to read more »reason for its existence, it fails WP:LISTN, WP:LISTCRITERIA, and WP:LISTVERIFY. Hzh (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included...
Click to read more »reply here 16:19, 13 November 2025 (UTC) First, rude. Second, per WP:LISTVERIFY there is no need to source when there is obviously appropriate material...
Click to read more »of an outline page. I and other editors pointed out essays such as WP:LISTVERIFY and Wikipedia:Inline citation#When you must use inline citations to ask...
Click to read more »tlak was removed. Got some serious issues with zero sources here. WP:LISTVERIFY - Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines...
Click to read more »unreferenced. Hack (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC) @Hack: Please see WP:LISTVERIFY. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC) John Podesta...
Click to read more »kind of obviously known facts (such as the sky appears blue etc.). WP:LISTVERIFY, as well as WP:PROVEIT, apply. Shearonink (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2016...
Click to read more »sourcing regarding living people and contentious claims. See also WP:LISTVERIFY - although that is mainly for stand alone lists, its principles generally...
Click to read more »words etc.. We have some major Bio violation here. Let alone the fact WP:LISTVERIFY states "Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies...
Click to read more »buidhe 04:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Discography and Tours section: Per WP:LISTVERIFY, should be cited inline (t · c) buidhe 11:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC) I will...
Click to read more »Wikipedia talk:Notability (NLIST) or Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists (LISTVERIFY). Concerns about the editor's editing should be discussed on their talk...
Click to read more »majority of them meet WP:SOAPS's notability standards, WP:GNG and WP:LISTVERIFY. From WP:LISTCRIT: one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is...
Click to read more »but at the time it listed general nineteen references in line with WP:LISTVERIFY. Draft:List of Scheduled Castes in Uttarakhand and Draft:List of Scheduled...
Click to read more »would that satisfy you? Doing so isn't actually a requirement of WP:LISTVERIFY, but if the answer was yes, would that change your view about the nomination...
Click to read more »Aviation and Lists. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Keep WP:LISTVERIFY clearly states: It is generally presumed that obviously appropriate material...
Click to read more »how do you square this new requirement with WP:MINREF, WP:GENREF, WP:LISTVERIFY, and WP:LEADCITE? What is a "third-party source"? Elsewhere, that phrase...
Click to read more »depends on the list. The guidance is at MOS:LISTS and WP:SAL, especially WP:LISTVERIFY. Please ask again here if you have further specific questions after reading...
Click to read more »reply here 16:19, 13 November 2025 (UTC) First, rude. Second, per WP:LISTVERIFY there is no need to source when there is obviously appropriate material...
Click to read more »@Jonrbrix, and welcome to the Teahouse! The relevant guideline here is WP:LISTVERIFY, according to which lists need to follow the same standards for verifiability...
Click to read more »