Redirect to:
This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|
which have subsequently been published reliably. Shortcut WP:NEWSORGWP:NEWSORG News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News...
Click to read more »WP:NEWSORG. another reference http://www.myfashion19.com/ipsito-das-fashion-photographers-terns-magazine-publisher/ website under category WP:NEWSORG Kindly...
Click to read more »reviewed in at least three reliable sources (Radio Times, Screen Rant (a WP:NEWSORG as it has an editorial team and professional reviewers), and a book on...
Click to read more »page. The first is a 2007 review in Al Riyadh, which appears to be a WP:NEWSORG. Whilst the machine translation is hard to read, it appears to be a laudatory...
Click to read more »text is rewritten and not a copy of EIN, making it acceptable under WP:NEWSORG. The Atmosphere Press interview is only used for basic biography, not to...
Click to read more »include it in article Z'. As Reliable Sourcing policy notes (at section WP:NEWSORG): Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement...
Click to read more »through machine translation. reproduktor.net appears to be a pass for WP:NEWSORG based on the list of editors here and the "about" section here and did...
Click to read more »sources. Editors have treated the original reporting as an ordinary WP:NEWSORG, and thus presumed generally reliable. Take care with syndicated content...
Click to read more »NEWSORG per an August 2025 RSN discussion. Okinawa Times [341] local NEWSORG per an August 2025 RSN discussion. Shikoku Shimbun [342] local NEWSORG per...
Click to read more »opinion. Others argue that ThinkProgress is generally reliable under WP:NEWSORG, albeit with due consideration for their political leanings. ThinkProgress...
Click to read more »The second and third sources fails WP:RS by a few miles or so, per WP:NEWSORG. N The fourth source (a Bengali daily) dated 20 May, 2018 mentions that...
Click to read more »article on Isvestia (a Russian WP:NEWSORG, was covered in Taday (another newsorg), and on UGRA-NEWS (another newsorg). Passes WP:BASIC.FOARP (talk) 07:44...
Click to read more »2012 (UTC) I don't see anything in WP:NEWSORG that suggests that non-mainstream sources are not reliable. WP:NEWSORG isn't about mainstream vs. non-mainstream...
Click to read more »summarizes it here for convenience. Sky News (UK) is considered an ordinary WP:NEWSORG and is thus presumed generally reliable. Sky News UK is unaffiliated with...
Click to read more »including Techland, should be handled with the appropriate policy. Refer to WP:NEWSORG for guidance on op-eds, which should only be used with attribution. Time...
Click to read more »- I see two reviews - one in Irish Tech News (which appears to be a WP:NEWSORG) and very brief one in Entrepreneur Europe list. I think the first review...
Click to read more »appears to be a WP:NEWSORG. There's also an extensive review of the model-kit for the Cylon Raider here in what appears to be a WP:NEWSORG - the model is...
Click to read more »this is just PR anyway? This Italian site appears to be a pass for WP:NEWSORG based on its editorial staff and had a full review, so that's at least...
Click to read more »are numerous newspapers that can be used, including Dawn, ie. from WP:NEWSORG - "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered...
Click to read more »reliable then, being a WP:NEWSORG, 3) "Contributor", otherwise known as a free-lancer, but is still a pass for WP:NEWSORG. Forbes is unreliable because...
Click to read more »unknown, self-described webzine/blog and therefore neither falls under WP:NEWSORG nor WP:NEWSBLOG. With regard to the filmography section, the subject only...
Click to read more »re-read WP:RS. However, having re-read WP:RS, and more specifically WP:NEWSORG just now, the only caution I see that would apply to this article is the...
Click to read more »an apparent blog with no visible editorial names or policy (so not a WP:NEWSORG) and the bio byline of an article by Archbridge's founder. A WP:BEFORE...
Click to read more »Sections are almost certainly lifted from press releases, which under WP:NEWSORG aren't considered SIGCOV. I mean, both start with "It's a great day to...
Click to read more »Saeed, Asiya Andrabi and Ashiq Hussain Faktoo are mainly sourced with WP:NEWSORG and contain both factual content and opinion content. We should improve...
Click to read more »has editorial board. But indiawest is not. My apologies. You can read WP:NEWSORG. This person still fails GNG. Harshil want to talk? 01:08, 9 January 2020...
Click to read more »candidate for this body, covering the same issue). Multiple books. Multiple NEWSORG covering this. The identity of the youngest of the bodies recovered from...
Click to read more »demonstrating that this is RS or equivalent in reliability with a credible WP:NEWSORG. Ref 3 briefly covers minor production details, ref 4 is a few sentences...
Click to read more »L'aut'journal all appear to be credible newspapers that appear to meet WP:NEWSORG and demonstrate a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Additionally...
Click to read more »including an article in Mainichi Shimbun and this (which appears to be a WP:NEWSORG). The state of referencing in the article does not matter, per WP:NEXIST...
Click to read more »newspaper published in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It clearly satisfies WP:NEWSORG of WP:RS. She does pass notability guidelines, little work is needed on...
Click to read more »two sentence about us page, with no editorial policies showing that WP:NEWSORG is met. WP:BEFORE found trivial mentions, e.g., 1. Article is also promotionally...
Click to read more »indications of "editorial policies" as a reason to disregard sources? When WP:NEWSORG states "News organizations are not required to publish their editorial...
Click to read more »the machine translation. - A 2009 story in Strill.it (apparently a WP:NEWSORG covering Calabria nb., Calabria is a region of Italy, equivalent to a US...
Click to read more »found. Of the total three reviews, two are WP:RS newspapers that meet WP:NEWSORG and another is potentially RS due to publication by Daily News and Analysis...
Click to read more »unreliable and consist mostly of general news reports and announcements WP:NEWSORG; some of the sources even pertain to other individuals. Furthermore, this...
Click to read more »established reputation for editorial discretion and fact-checking per WP:NEWSORG, and in any case a single source generally isn't sufficient to establish...
Click to read more »accounts. Furthermore, the question in the essay appears to be answered by WP:NEWSORG (editorials are considered the same as opinion pieces, opinion pieces are...
Click to read more »Rothes#Titanic disaster. Cherry has some coverage (including in contemporary NEWSORG reporting - e.g. [1][2], as well as several books) - however almost all...
Click to read more »another promotional announcement having little editorial policies to meet WP:NEWSORG. A WP:BEFORE search revealed many routine announcements from this questionable...
Click to read more »per WP:NEXIST and WP:GNG - This appears to be a legit review from a WP:NEWSORG. So does this. FOARP (talk) 08:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Nice find, I knew...
Click to read more »one of the worst and most perfunctory articles I've read in a nominal WP:NEWSORG, written in five minutes from a couple of crypto blogs. Even granting it...
Click to read more »newspaers in Oklahoma (as per List of newspapers in Oklahoma) and meets WP:NEWSORG, the same for Los Angeles Daily News, which also has high circulation and...
Click to read more »Need TeamWork". Forbes (Blog). - op-ed, not reliable for facts, see WP:NEWSORG Worldbruce (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...
Click to read more »school, as it is for 2012 SW. 2013 2nd source is the Daily Telegraph (WP:NEWSORG). 1st sources for 2011 and 2013 are copies of the class lists kept at sites...
Click to read more »WP:NEWSORG does is say that any source that is "subject to peer review and editorial oversight, [is] reliable per WP:NEWSORG"? The version of WP:NEWSORG...
Click to read more »analysis, not mere announcements). Digital-native platforms are valid per WP:NEWSORG when authoritative (e.g., Spotify’s official charts). Addressing Specific...
Click to read more »be reliable sources? They're both well-established news outlets, per WP:NEWSORG. Qwfp (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC) @Qwfp:. Because in both the cases...
Click to read more »search term clickbait and YouTube news reaction videos, with only one other newsorg reporting the story as a morning news time-filler sourced by #2). I have...
Click to read more »regurgitating the press releases and cannot support notability per WP:NEWSORG. Until there is sufficient WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable...
Click to read more »the subject", or close enough, but what I have reviewed is largely the newsorg equivalent of reaction videos, i.e. Alice Expert saying everyone is or...
Click to read more »main point of contention being whether the listicle-style coverage in NEWSORG RS publications is sufficiently significant. signed, Rosguill talk 04:05...
Click to read more »Notable Photographer-"Awarded by Netherland Effie. Information found in WP:NEWSORG website as WP:CREATIVE photographer. ref http://www.ftkindia...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Cited by a dubious WP:NEWSORG i. e. Online Khabar. The other outlet (Nepali Times) is not vetted by any...
Click to read more »guidelines. SL93 (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC) No I'm not. Both WP:NEWSORG and WP:SOURCES explain the reasons of mass media reliability, making it...
Click to read more »everything published in a reliable source automatically lacks bias; WP:NEWSORG states this clearly: "News sources often contain both factual content and...
Click to read more »all come from a single source (Taiwan News, which whilst definitely a WP:NEWSORG is not the best of TW's EN-language newspapers - not to put too fine a...
Click to read more »Website disquesobscurs.fr. Disques Obscurs appears to be a pass for WP:NEWSORG as it has an editorial team and professional reviewers. The Blackpool Gazette...
Click to read more »groups claiming responsibility. Back when they claimed responsilbility, one NEWSORG - said "A previously unknown militant group has claimed responsibility...
Click to read more »appearance in the notes of an academically published book.[2]. There's also a NEWSORG (Arabic) source in List of Ministers of Education of Egypt - but it's a...
Click to read more »self-serving purposes (this includes self-descriptors of music genre). Per WP:NEWSORG, this applies to all press releases, even those re-published in reliable...
Click to read more »affiliates are considered distinct from Fox News, and are covered by WP:NEWSORG. See also these discussions of Fox News (news excluding politics and science):...
Click to read more »sources are in Farsi, but I see a large number from what appear to be WP:NEWSORGs. 1 2 3 4. Using machine translation it is clear that the unit existed,...
Click to read more »September 2018 (UTC) Redditaddict69, umm...... The first source fails WP:NEWSORG, claims to feature sponsored interviews and allows user to submit content...
Click to read more »a story in The Denver Post or Fort Collins Coloradoan not reliable? WP:NEWSORG says news reporting from well-established newspapers such as these is generally...
Click to read more »the references, instead WP:NEWSORG encourage the use of reliable newspaper as reference to sustain facts. As per WP:NEWSORG, News sources often contain...
Click to read more »RSN discussion. Rather, Church Times appears to be a >150-year-old WP:NEWSORG focused on the Anglican Church. The RSN discussion that focuses on America...
Click to read more »free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) So far only cited with WP:NEWSORG. The event does not have enough independent significant coverage to warrant...
Click to read more »Human interest stories may have lower standards of fact-checking per WP:NEWSORG, but I don't see evidence of that for NYTimes obituaries, even in the COVID...
Click to read more »human interest reporting, with reliability issues as described in WP:RS/WP:NEWSORG. I appreciate the resources you linked and your explanations. If the article...
Click to read more »05:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC) @Barkeep49: I think 5 references are not WP:NEWSORG. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC) Keep the party is...
Click to read more »coverage against WP:NOTNEWS (routine coverage) when we are mainly confined to NEWSORG sources. Content is best placed at the town's article and potentially in...
Click to read more »constitute routine coverage that is not sufficient basis for an article. Per WP:NEWSORG, Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers...
Click to read more »(UTC) @Cutest Penguin: I think these are reliable by the criteria of WP:NEWSORG, but I'll withdraw this claim if you can show evidence to the contrary...
Click to read more »Newspaper articles are the next best thing to scholarly sources, see WP:NEWSORG for more information. Avoid passing mentions of the topic. Aim for sources...
Click to read more »school's previous site, and an article in Ghana Web (which appears to be a WP:NEWSORG), as well as an interview with an investigative journalist who appears...
Click to read more »review? Does Mic.gr have an editorial team (and hence, is it likely a WP:NEWSORG)? Same question goes for the Slovenia News/Si21 source. This is why WP:BEFORE...
Click to read more »31 January 2025 (UTC) Keep: No BLP1E criteria applies here. 1: many WP:NEWSORG Vietnamese newspapers with significant coverage come up when composing...
Click to read more »rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 00:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC) What about 1 2 3 ? All are WP:NEWSORG sources, and all are stories focusing entirely on the exam. FOARP (talk)...
Click to read more »Rockway.gr appears to have an editorial team which suggests it would be a WP:NEWSORG pass. Same with MetalFan.nl. Not particularly bothered about this article...
Click to read more »received coverage in multiple reliable sources (which, yes, includes the WP:NEWSORG the Japan Times, the objections to which -speaking as a former regular...
Click to read more »15 August 2019 (UTC) Vicheat the majority of the sources are from WP:NEWSORG including both of the national newspapers the Khmer Times and Phnom Penh...
Click to read more »meets qualifications for WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NCONCERT, WP:COMPOSER, WP:IRS, WP:NEWSORG and WP:N – Artist Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published...
Click to read more »press releases as "significant coverage" as defined at WP:GNG. Per WP:NEWSORG, re-reporting of press releases is "churnalism" and does not count as a...
Click to read more »(UTC) Delete The sources used are mostly press releases, which per WP:NEWSORG are not true RS. Plus looking at the creators contribution history [1]...
Click to read more »HuffPo, but those are commentaries, not RS's, i.e. news coverage. See WP:NEWSORG.The Boston Globe ref seems to just be a passing mention for an event blurb...
Click to read more »Gamblest [2], this article [3] in Isle of Man Today (presumed reliable by WP:NEWSORG), etc. Katzrockso (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2026 (UTC) Something about The...
Click to read more »business, as opposed to the press release rehashes (WP:RUNOFTHEMILL/WP:NEWSORG) that are currently used in the article. Listed status and employee count...
Click to read more »Another gives a lot more coverage and does appear at least to be a WP:NEWSORG based on the information available about their editorial team. I'm inclined...
Click to read more »established WP:NEWSORG. Similarly, The Economic Times covers her with a largely positive feature piece, and that is an established WP:NEWSORG. These two are...
Click to read more »(talk) 10:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC) They're both definitely tabloids and WP:NEWSORG does caution us against reporting rumours/gossip but this would rise above...
Click to read more »notability. Almost all of these are WP:NEWSORG and none are peer reviewed (that I can see). Those I do not class as NEWSORG are think tanks, predominantly ISW...
Click to read more »repeated citations of routine business directories. Note especially WP:NEWSORG which explains how some bona fide publications host non-RS blogs under...
Click to read more »it should exist as a standalone article. So far this only cites some WP:NEWSORG with breaking news, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. In any case this...
Click to read more »unreliable blog btw! Glucken123 (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC) Read WP:NEWSORG, Flash.Gr appears to be a pass as it is not self-published, has an editorial...
Click to read more »their celebrity reporting, but their more serious reporting seems to be WP:NEWSORG quality. signed, Rosguill talk 06:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC) Online portal...
Click to read more »only one staff member with no obvious editing policy is a pass for WP:NEWSORG. Similarly the article about the Ethiopian government also does not describe...
Click to read more »clarification: Source 1 is a local, neighborhood publication. Doesn't pass WP:NEWSORG. Source 2 talks about one of his posts, not him, and only mentions his...
Click to read more »addresses the topic in detail - not just a passing or trivial mention. WP:NEWSORG (Reliability of a News Source): A news source is reliable if there's evidence...
Click to read more »11 November 2022 (UTC) Option 1. This is a standard quality press WP:NEWSORG based in the United Kingdom. It seems to be generally reliable for factual...
Click to read more »paper covering the second-largest town of a province, sources failing NEWSORG and hence RS, coverage over a student-daily blah blah ..... The book is...
Click to read more »with the standard boilerplate "vaccines don't cause autism" message that newsorgs include every time someone does something like this. Nathan2055talk - contribs...
Click to read more »(could be advertorials), 2) possibility that these aren't respected WP:NEWSORGS but are instead just blogs, especially odialive.com, and 3) the WP:NOTGOSSIP...
Click to read more »June 2020 (UTC) Delete:Per consensus: (NB: I'm thick). To a degree per WP:NEWSORG this is possibly Human-interest story/Junk food news. I'm very suspicious...
Click to read more »to the nominator, more than enough in-depth reliable sourcing from WP:NEWSORGS exist: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], etc...
Click to read more »September 7 from MEAWW, another source from September 13 from a local newsorg, a The Root piece from September 14, and a Dutch(?) sports news site from...
Click to read more »are reliable sources. To better understand this, we need to analyse WP:NEWSORG and see whether those are good ones to mention as references. If they are...
Click to read more »Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC) WP:NEWSORG. Unless it explicitly says alternative newspapers are not valid then there...
Click to read more »human-interest stories are irrelevant to notability, I'm basing this off of WP:NEWSORG ("Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting...
Click to read more »coverage in multiple sources including a book, papers and of news outlets (WP:NEWSORG). As for its mentions coming through what is being defined as "generic"...
Click to read more »The Wire in any way. Also The Wire is a reliable source, (WP:RS under WP:NEWSORG) you hating the source does not make it unreliable. Venkat TL (talk) 06:57...
Click to read more »2022 (UTC) Re the web sources - Hot 97 probably just qualifies as a WP:Newsorg but what about the others? FOARP (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC) There's...
Click to read more »Deadline piece is just a press release over a non-significant award. WP:NEWSORG advises that republished press releases are 'churnalism' and should not...
Click to read more »January 2022 (UTC) I don't agree that is a "blog", it appears to be a WP:NEWSORG. Based on this article it does have an editorship structure and does issue...
Click to read more »read what you just linked to, you will see that in some circumstances NEWSORG coverage is primary, and in others secondary. And the documentary movie...
Click to read more »employee of the company. If it's an op-ed, which is my suspicion, then WP:NEWSORG says "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written...
Click to read more »Wilson. No. 3 is a piece by Euromaidan Press, which qualifies as a WP:NEWSORG, 3,730 characters long and primarily about him. Finally no. 4 is a piece...
Click to read more »reliable and SIGCOV, which Transport Times appears to be (i.e., it's a WP:NEWSORG pass) - they just shouldn't be the only coverage ideally. This article...
Click to read more »segments during advertising breaks. Notes for the original rows Local Fox affiliates are considered distinct from Fox News, and are covered by WP:NEWSORG....
Click to read more »nature, however. I'm hesitant to accept these as reliable based on WP:NEWSORG. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)...
Click to read more »bottom of the article and also about pages) thus throughly meeting WP:NEWSORG, With all these sources talking about it extensively with whole, really...
Click to read more »material. ESPN is what I would consider a reliable source as per Wikipedia:NEWSORG. However it needs to be more than a one mention in one article. I am fine...
Click to read more »(UTC) Delete: This is all I find [1], still in the same realm as the other newsorg cited. Oaktree b (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC) Delete: fails NCORP...
Click to read more »com, informationweek.com, asa.net, or finance.yahoo.com. Read through WP:NEWSORG --NqcRz (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC) The reasons to keep this article:...
Click to read more »either of the WP:N or WP:RS policies you mentioned. In particular, WP:NEWSORG doesn't mention geographic extent. Thanks, Mark viking (talk) 16:47, 30...
Click to read more »2, 3 and probably also 4. Sky News (UK) and The Irish Times are normal newsorgs, no reason given why they should be considered unreliable. No prejudice...
Click to read more »wordpress blog). Other than that - there is a smattering of rather minute NEWSORG coverage from July-August 2018. Icewhiz (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)...
Click to read more »referenced notable and reputable news organizations in compliance with the WP:NEWSORG policy such as the guardian, the nation, Independent Newspaper, Forbes...
Click to read more »publishes corrections, one of the tests of reliability suggested at WP:NEWSORG. Straight.com is part of a group of newspapers. That group is self-described...
Click to read more »of the ghits seem more of the same. Two marginal articles from the same newsorg then, does not NCORP make. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)...
Click to read more »essay is fine with me, although I still think we should link to it from WP:NEWSORG so that people can find it. Kaldari (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)...
Click to read more »Comment - There is a Wikipage for the Times of India. It is a standard WP:NEWSORG. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict)Sandstein...
Click to read more »holds awards from the Overseas Press Club of Puerto Rico. Per WP:RS and WP:NEWSORG: "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author...
Click to read more »press releases as "significant coverage" as defined at WP:GNG. Per WP:NEWSORG, re-reporting of press releases is "churnalism" and does not count as a...
Click to read more »Lukeno94 (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC) The Star is a dead link. See WP:NEWSORG. The Star, and many other newspapers are all unreliable. Things like the...
Click to read more »community of readers. And while "independent" is a concern, in reading WP:NEWSORG, it is seen that news aggencies reporting on themselves such should be...
Click to read more »your notes! I've updated the article to use several more scholarly and WP:NEWSORG sources (and fixed the Castro link). I would strongly oppose deletion:...
Click to read more »and Theories of Comedy." Jewish History: 1-14., as well as coverage by NEWSORGs over a fairly long period - e.g. - [2][3][4][5][6]. Icewhiz (talk) 09:05...
Click to read more »expedite this matter. There are references of at least 5 published sources WP:NEWSORG which quashes all the WP:GNG objections as there are multiple reliable...
Click to read more »saying I will try adding [side effects] to the vaccine page citing the NEWSORG and see if anyone tries claiming there are any MEDRS violations there....
Click to read more »major publications, and are generally considered reliable; they meet WP:NEWSORG easily, and aren't connected to r/incels. Some of my arguments against...
Click to read more »Scorpions1325 (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC) Note D references WP:NEWSORG, which gives a more nuanced interpretation of which news sources are considered...
Click to read more »employee, is subject to very little fact-checking or other overview. Per WP:NEWSORG, "News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered...
Click to read more »editorial (rather than an article), this isn't a reliable source, per WP:NEWSORG ("Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed...
Click to read more »WP:NEWSORG: "well-established news outlets", "less-established outlets", "newspapers", "news agencies", "publication", "news organizations" WP:NEWSORG:...
Click to read more »generally better to cite mainstream scholarly sources over mainstream newsorgs, I think there are parts of the cultural history section that newspapers...
Click to read more »Bosworth actually believes/said that. Clear violation of WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:NEWSORG ("Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should include information verified...
Click to read more »school, as it is for 2012 SW. 2013 2nd source is the Daily Telegraph (WP:NEWSORG). 1st sources for 2011 and 2013 are copies of the class lists kept at sites...
Click to read more »fact-checking operation? WP:RS, in its sections WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:NEWSORG, strongly (and sensibly) indicates that these are the only sources that...
Click to read more »written as editorials, analyses and opinions, hence do not abide by WP:NEWSORG for reporting facts. To summarise, only New York Times is listed as a reliable...
Click to read more »me 03:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC) it relates to reliability of sources WP:NEWSORG. "reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less...
Click to read more »not enough in my view I would prefer more sources from international WP:NEWSORG also it doesn't tell anything about the incident but rather gives first...
Click to read more »23:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC) Comment There are no reliable sources (see WP:NEWSORG) of this so-called phenomenon. It is a list of beverages that became popular...
Click to read more »affiliates are considered distinct from Fox News, and are covered by WP:NEWSORG. See also these discussions of Fox News (news excluding politics and science):...
Click to read more »than self-published press release; see discussion of churnalism at WP:NEWSORG. Daask (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC) The VentureBeat article has this...
Click to read more »unreliable - that to me is cultural bias. I think you need to read WP:NEWSORG. These newspapers are considered reliable sources as they have independent...
Click to read more »Chesdovi (talk) 11:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Umm Chesdovi, take a look: WP:NEWSORG = WP:RS, can't believe you don't know that. P.S. Please stop obsessively...
Click to read more »an source for reliability to the article which again questions the WP:NEWSORG and WP:IRS. — CutestPenguinHangout 18:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC) QZ looks...
Click to read more »Nigerian newspapers that analyze the subject in great details, passing WP:NEWSORG and WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Note that these newspapers are seen as “well-established...
Click to read more »local sources on subjects that would not normally meet WP:POLITICIAN. WP:NEWSORG states "News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered...
Click to read more »significant coverage in The Payson Chronicle, an independent reliable WP:NEWSORG. I'm concerned about Springville Herald; the coverage reads like a press...
Click to read more »from well-established news outlets that are considered to be reliable WP:NEWSORG It contains no original research The independent sources excludes works...
Click to read more »(UTC) and the source doesn't look an established news source as per WP:NEWSORG LibStar (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC) Note that he does have an entry...
Click to read more »works, how to !vote, and some key policies like WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:NEWSORG. This will help make AfD a bit less intimidating and encourage new contributors...
Click to read more »WP:RS, which definitely dings points on human interest reporting per WP:NEWSORG. More importantly though, that's still only one source per WP:MULTSOURCES...
Click to read more »WP:INDEPENDENT. It's written by Eli Stokols (a reputable journalist), for a WP:NEWSORG, which clearly satisfies the independence criteria. The third piece is...
Click to read more »company that distributes press releases (i.e. a primary source). Per WP:NEWSORG, "Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers...
Click to read more »Aftonbladet (which a press-release would be unlikely to do), and it is from a WP:NEWSORG. The same goes for all the other articles that they marked "Press Releases"...
Click to read more »opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." (WP:NEWSORG) Ragettho (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC) I also want to point out that...
Click to read more »(WP:SOURCE). Beyond this, the piece is written as political/social op-ed, (WP:NEWSORG) not news. The deep WP:BIASED in the Mint article ("Abandons", "But should...
Click to read more »@KyleJoan: in regard to WP:NEWSORG and WP:PUS. The reverts of both of them showed bias against PR Newswire despite allowed by WP:NEWSORG and WP:PUS, as consistent...
Click to read more »considered a traditional WP:NEWSORG (Financial Express). If the subject were notable, you'd have reporting from newsorgs that are reliable for political...
Click to read more »thinking about with this - the Guardian and rbth.com (which is a pass for WP:NEWSORG - and anyway is just a translation of an article in Rossiyskaya Gazeta...
Click to read more »before, two-minute news update segments (especially for these Filipino newsorgs that portion of the TV project seems to think that every breath from a...
Click to read more »spreading to different topics pedia-wide. WP:BREAKINGNEWS, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEWSORG, WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:NOR, and on and on all come to mind. Just exercising...
Click to read more »Coverage is INDEPTH and CONTINUING. As for the editorial considerations of NEWSORGS - take it up with the editors there - not with Wikipedia's editors. Icewhiz...
Click to read more »[5], [6] fail to become admissible as per WP:RS, more precisely per WP:NEWSORG. Lastly, borderline failure to WP:NACTOR is still a failure and we have...
Click to read more »on the individual, and multiple bylined obituaries from independent WP:NEWSORGs, as well as international(!) coverage of the individual's graduation from...
Click to read more »WP:NEWSORG does is say that any source that is "subject to peer review and editorial oversight, [is] reliable per WP:NEWSORG"? The version of WP:NEWSORG...
Click to read more »article can be described as "churnalism", which is the standard at WP:NEWSORG for "regurgitating announcements" - it's talking about an announcement...
Click to read more »WP:NEWSORG does is say that any source that is "subject to peer review and editorial oversight, [is] reliable per WP:NEWSORG"? The version of WP:NEWSORG...
Click to read more »Network. The 4 books are rather not independent as you define it, however, newsorg sources include USA Today, various metropolitan papers, a college campus...
Click to read more »film's projected release. Text, no. Video, yes. Acceptable under WP:RS WP:NEWSORG. AND under WP:NONENG it is perfectly understood and acceptable that a non-English...
Click to read more »the WPATH RfC here. gnu57 13:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC) Yes, it's a WP:NEWSORG and I see no reason to consider it unreliable. I invite anyone to read...
Click to read more »Deletion is not cleanup. The article contains several INDEPTH reports from NEWSORGs. Continuing coverage in a non-news context - [1][2][3]. Icewhiz (talk)...
Click to read more »be up to the same standards as their news reporting, as described at WP:NEWSORG. Searches found nothing deeper than brief quotes in connections with clients...
Click to read more »It is also an analysis piece by an online newspaper and therefore WP:NEWSORG applies: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written...
Click to read more »op-ed, that source you suggested is not particularly reliable (see WP:NEWSORG) and not sufficient for establishing notability as far as I know, although...
Click to read more »dewiki which is tough notability wise). My BEFORE shows multiple hits by NEWSORGs. Some of the sources above are INDEPTH. Icewhiz (talk) 16:47, 18 December...
Click to read more »the bill as such a source. I agree that DNAInfo is a relatively local WP:NEWSORG. However, it's one that covers the size of New York City, which is comparable...
Click to read more »the only thing we have in our hand is gossip and rumors WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:NEWSORG that generates to often a specific point-of-view and thus createsWP:UNDUE...
Click to read more »no evidence that KLove is operating as a real news organization per WP:NEWSORG. It has no editorial staff listing on its site, and it has no public editorial...
Click to read more »that fits the reliability definition of news organisations listed at WP:NEWSORG and while I did look for it, I couldn't find any minimum number of such...
Click to read more »sources (one a book from a reputable publisher with an ISBN, the other a WP:NEWSORG) and as such easily meet WP:RS. The early age of gaming is, if you'll forgive...
Click to read more »is it an opinion? Grayfell (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC) See WP:NEWSORG, specifically: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether...
Click to read more »reliability of each one and this is what I found, mainly following WP:NEWSORG: Sources that appear to be reliable: BioTherm Energy wins 251MW renewable...
Click to read more »ordinarily fall under the category of opinion content, and thus per WP:NEWSORG can be reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor...
Click to read more »sources which clearly states WP:INDIANEXP is a reliable source under WP:NEWSORG, here is link to an WP:INDIANEXP article- that states claims made by User:Jai...
Click to read more »15:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC) Keep: The page has been updated with additional WP:NEWSORG articles and other significant coverage sources supporting WP:ENT for involvement...
Click to read more »PennLive is a statewide publication in Pennsylvania and appears to be a WP:NEWSORG. Lebanon Daily News is a local paper for Lebanon, Pennsylvania. Philadelphia...
Click to read more »Women's Republic has no editorial policy or mention of who's who, failing WP:NEWSORG. Filmibeat is typical entertainment promo-spam and community does not accept...
Click to read more »newspaper with the largest circulation in downstate Illinois (62,000), and WP:NEWSORG would seem to fit like a glove: [small]"News reporting" from well-established...
Click to read more »20:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC) Option 1. This is a standard liberal WP:NEWSORG based in the United Kingdom. The Economist seems to be generally reliable...
Click to read more »after the incident, and, along with the Stuff article (reliable per WP:NEWSORG) and a blurb in a Mashed article should be more than enough to pass WP:GNG...
Click to read more »for example DRIS92 (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC) DRIS92, see WP:NEWSORG (vide Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written...
Click to read more »sources exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC) Again, as WP:NEWSORG says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written...
Click to read more »view, sources simply citing a self published report in violation of WP:NEWSORG" Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning Despite being a brand new user, they...
Click to read more »alone shouldn't be used to dismiss articles (see FAQ section [1]). WP:NEWSORG also doesn't state that missing bylines disqualify a source, it rather...
Click to read more »to actually read some of these policies, such as WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:NEWSORG, and pay particular attention to the part about churnalism. We're not having...
Click to read more »31 December 2016 (UTC) Thank you, I missed that when I looked through NEWSORG.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:06, 31 December 2016...
Click to read more »think these still qualify as reliable sources pursuant to WP:RS and WP:NEWSORG. I think this article could definitely use some heavy editing to clean...
Click to read more »- though I note you don't have any firm rebuttal to there being two WP:NEWSORG references giving WP:SIGCOV and thus creating a WP:GNG presumption of notability...
Click to read more »above are noteworthy. EdJohnston (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC) FWIW, WP:NEWSORG specifically warns against reporting on rumor, which (until as of this...
Click to read more »WP:RS that mentions anything about "local news". The only mention — at WP:NEWSORG – is that "[n]ews reporting from well-established news outlets is generally...
Click to read more »core content policies. With regards to the quality of sourcing, Wikipedia:NEWSORG suggests that established newspapers are usually considered reliable. Smmurphy(Talk)...
Click to read more »editorial policies or the authors being subject matter experts, thus, WP:NEWSORG is not met, nor is it WP:RS. I find your arguments to be unconvincing....
Click to read more »@Launchballer as I mentioned before, The Straits Times is not churnalist (i.e. WP:NEWSORG). I have in fact listed several articles above, all of which use government...
Click to read more »Daily Mail. Oppose Meet every aspect of WP:NEWSORG--Shrike (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC) Um, WP:NEWSORG is information about how to treat sources...
Click to read more »sees wide usage by academic sources, unlike the ADL or SPLC. It is not a NEWSORG so we cannot assume reliability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2025...
Click to read more »'Gazillions of sources' yet the last two are almost unreliable and first is a WP:NEWSORG tertiary source. Try finding reliable sources. Shakakarta (talk) 17:44...
Click to read more »casual end of their coverage and I would argue not a great source per WP:NEWSORG Human interest reporting. which is way short of that needed for MEDRS,...
Click to read more »those opposed to SB version but never responded to during the RfC. WP:NEWSORG says Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally...
Click to read more »16:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC) Bad RfC. Option 1 is redundant because it's WP:NEWSORG anyway. Option 2 is redundant because it's WP:RSCONTEXT anyway. Option...
Click to read more »Actually, news organizations are generally accepted to be WP:RS. Per WP:NEWSORG,""News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered...
Click to read more »NewsOrg, torontosun. 2: Uses Aljazeera. 3: Uses balochistantimes, a Baloch NewsOrg with C of I. 4: Uses a Blog gmcmissing.wordpress.com and a NewsOrg...
Click to read more »(talk) 20:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC) You are being obtuse, please read WP:NEWSORG for info about press releases and their unsuitability. Theroadislong (talk)...
Click to read more »piece and whether we treat it as WP:RSOPINION or as a regular piece of WP:NEWSORG reporting. I feel like it is a bit of a stretch to say that the 2018 Slate...
Click to read more »and take things out of context) - so it's important to comply with WP:NEWSORG and we should be fine. Atsme Talk 📧 16:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC) Keep per...
Click to read more »see if I had missed anything, and I'm now rather confident that under WP:NEWSORG that most of these very clearly are reliable sources. Economic Times is...
Click to read more »mouthpiece and shouldn't be considered a reliable source. But on the other, WP:NEWSORG dictates that established news organisations are generally considered reliable...
Click to read more »than opinions, and we paid closer attention to RECENTISM, NOTNEWS and NEWSORG, we'd be just fine. All of WP should not be run on the same premise as...
Click to read more »(UTC) The National Interest articles though is an opinion piece, and by WP:NEWSORG, doesn't really fulfill WP:RS. Additionally, Raymond Tanter is a member...
Click to read more »reliability of the source. You may be calling it human interest reporting in WP:NEWSORG. Second, just one bit amongst many other people can still be significant...
Click to read more »cited didn't (to my knowledge anyway) meet the criteria set out in WP:NEWSORG. This is also why I made the second reversion. After my second reversion...
Click to read more »no proof Owen Jones is a reliable source on any Science topic. Per WP:NEWSORG : News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content....
Click to read more »reliable sources contradicts WP:NEWSORG and would render virtually any mention of a medical diagnosis "unreliable." From WP:NEWSORG - ""News reporting" from...
Click to read more »editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." from WP:NEWSORG. I am not suggesting any changes to WP:GNG, and I don't think the antagonistic...
Click to read more »are you arguing that Femmes Gabonaises would pass under anyway? Is it WP:NEWSORG? If it is then where's the evidence of an editorial board and policy? Are...
Click to read more »cited essays with op-eds. They are not acceptable here either. Read up WP:NEWSORG Bacondrum (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC) "At one point Bacondrum apparently...
Click to read more »2021 (UTC) Yeah, that's an unsigned press release, and is cited by WP:NEWSORG as a classic example of what a reliable source is not. Howard the Duck...
Click to read more »sources, and these cases are human interest stories, which to quote WP:NEWSORG, are "generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject...
Click to read more »proposed on talk and maybe editors would have agreed to remove it per WP:NEWSORGS - you did none of things, you chose to edit war and escalate conflict on...
Click to read more »policies like WP:NEWSORG, I like to quote from them to show that I understand them and I'm not using them inappropriately. So, NEWSORG says... "News sources...
Click to read more »Washington Jewish Week a few times and these all meet the requirements of WP:NEWSORG @ WP:IRS, as well as other Jewish news outlets, and the additional links...
Click to read more »September 2012 (UTC) Keep - A reliable source is a reliable source. Per WP:NEWSORG - "One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has...
Click to read more »NewsOrg, torontosun. 2: Uses Aljazeera. 3: Uses balochistantimes, a Baloch NewsOrg with C of I. 4: Uses a Blog gmcmissing.wordpress.com and a NewsOrg...
Click to read more »inconsistent.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC) See Wikipedia:NEWSORG for why these articles, secondary or not, are to be treated as mostly reliable...
Click to read more »and one !vote in the AFD even accuses me of WP:GAMING for BALANCING a WP:NEWSORG source with a WP:MEDRS paper, as if it created WP:FALSEBALANCE between...
Click to read more »cite lay media at all. JoelleJay (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Per WP:NEWSORG: "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author...
Click to read more »source, whereas a news report is probably a secondary source. See also WP:NEWSORG. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC) oppose: can anyone provide...
Click to read more »inclusion" case than an earnest reliability concern. Editors mentioning WP:NEWSORG have omitted a key part, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...
Click to read more »independent, reliable, confirming news article or announcement (see WP:NEWSORG under WP:IRSS). Biographical information is often not cited at all in Wikipedia...
Click to read more »appropriately added to Wikinews, which can be reached here. And finally, WP:NEWSORG which states News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally...
Click to read more »it's just applying regular old WP:RS, particularly WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:NEWSORG, plus regular old WP:NPOV. Levivich harass/hound 23:45, 25 February 2021...
Click to read more »you actually made me go dig up the policy! And even after I cited WP:NEWSORG you still argued that a top news desk shouldn't be used as fact sourcing...
Click to read more »published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.WP:RS WP:NEWSORG With news media, and BLP the references have to be proved reliably. The...
Click to read more »and an article in The Forward. Both seem to meet the requirements at WP:NEWSORG, and a search for both at WP:RSN turns up no concerns (the opposite for...
Click to read more »on hard-hitting topics, the listed mistakes are the same as any other NEWSORG, they correct and acknowledge mistakes, there have been substantial changes...
Click to read more »enforce their own biases. In reading WP's actual policy on RS, especially WP:NEWSORG under: "Biased or opinionated sources", it pretty clearly states that my...
Click to read more »information on an upcoming product is the key part of the dispute. Per WP:NEWSORG, "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in...
Click to read more »creator; and the publisher. Any of the three can affect reliability. From RS#NEWSORG: Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact should be examined...
Click to read more »just not what Wikipedia is for. Also, I would invite you to look at WP:NEWSORG and this discussion. Dumuzid (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC) The french...
Click to read more »existence (as above) and that it hardly even bothers with pretending to be a NEWSORG, instead concerning itself explicitly with culture wars and owning the...
Click to read more »belief is absurd. I pointed out that his recycled Atari press release (WP:NEWSORG) and end note (passing note) were not strong sources; the guideline requires...
Click to read more »media is also being presented in a Wiki voice as fact and contrary to WP:NEWSORG. Wiki articles should be written at arms length from the subject in an...
Click to read more »[356], [357], [358], [359], [360]) which is generally discouraged by WP:NEWSORG and usually treated as a no-no on BLPs. Additionally, multiple of these...
Click to read more »the unsupported claims and unreliable sources per various policies (WP:NEWSORG, WP:NOT#JOURNALISM, WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOCRYSTAL), but I was reverted. I also...
Click to read more »mainstream media source operating since 1941, unreliable. I've pointed out WP:NEWSORG policy to him, but he is not hearing at all. [154] [155] [156]. --lTopGunl...
Click to read more »"analysis", which is also obvious when one reads the article, and per WP:NEWSORG treatement of analysis is similar to opinion pieces. (b) "Both sources...
Click to read more »S. law generally protects the publication of true information that WP:NEWSORGs would find newsworthy. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)...
Click to read more »opinion" which was challenged by several editors, following up with a WP:NEWSORG claim [119] and then claiming Human interest story [120], discounting other...
Click to read more »to not using Ahmed 2014 and stated that your suggestions contradicts WP:NEWSORG. After which you never responded. Quotations from the three citations for...
Click to read more »caution toward ALL news media, and to comply with RECENTISM, NOTNEWS, NEWSORG, etc. Ok, so...let's take a look at things from a little different perspective...
Click to read more »not really all data is from RS. OpIndia, Gulte and Dreshare fails WP:NEWSORG from long mile and its long standing consensus in Indian wiki community...
Click to read more »of England? It is a state church) - you aren't left with a whole lot of NEWSORGs.... Well, you do have Iranian Islamic Republic sources (with censorship...
Click to read more »Mainstream newspaper reports are accepted by Wikipedia as reliable sources WP:NEWSORG.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Local newspapers in Memphis...
Click to read more »Also WP:PRIMARY and especially note d, which itself also refers to WP:NEWSORG. These are reliable but primary sources. Are there any secondary sources...
Click to read more »discussed as a group in what appear to be reliable (at least passes for WP:NEWSORG), independent sources. FOARP (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC) Keep...
Click to read more »"mainstream newspapers" (good sources per WP:V), and even for them WP:NEWSORG should work, which means editorial and op-ed materials are primary sources...
Click to read more »You say one is aggregated from a news organisation, so have a read of WP:NEWSORG which is part of the WP:RS guidelines. And this shouldn't be too surprising...
Click to read more »the source. PBS Newshour PBS is an indepedent WP:NEWSORG PBS Newshour is an established WP:NEWSORG The Milwaukee Independent is not mentioned whatseover...
Click to read more »Searchlight (1) This seems to be an independent WP:NEWSORG that is doing its own reporting This is a WP:NEWSORG – Per WP:ORGDEPTH, of the opening or closing...
Click to read more »Reywas92 (talk · contribs), it's an established news agency that meets WP:NEWSORG ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC) * Ref#18: Washington...
Click to read more »article is based on a corporate press release. Site seems like an online newsorg ~ It covers the fundraising, but the depth is not all that substantial...
Click to read more »February 12, 2018 - WP:RGW, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:NEWSORG February 22, 2018 - WP:NEWSORG, WP:NOTNEWS, SOAPBOX, RIGHTGREATWRONGS April 25, 2018 -...
Click to read more »local papers print with minimal review (see the second bullet under WP:NEWSORG, or churnalism more generally). Also notice how the candidate photos used...
Click to read more »appears to be a WP:NEWSORG. There's also an extensive review of the model-kit for the Cylon Raider here in what appears to be a WP:NEWSORG - the model is...
Click to read more »monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources and WP:NEWSORG notes that [s]cholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are...
Click to read more »is independent, but is a primary source for the author's views (see WP:NEWSORG, part of WP:RS), not secondary. Your reasoning (outlet is generally reliable...
Click to read more »issue with Yahoo News reprints - the original stuff is an ordinary WP:NEWSORG, but the reprints include all manner of rubbish.) nasdaq.com/articles/...
Click to read more »quality publications that fall in NEWSORG. Finally, Editorial commentary, analysis, and opinion pieces in NEWSORG type publications are low tier or even...
Click to read more »Morning Herald This newspaper is independent of One Disease. This is a WP:NEWSORG. ~ The article provides significant coverage of the founder of One Disease...
Click to read more »amplification", together with multiple quotes from interviews. It would rewrite WP:NEWSORG - drastically in fact - to exclude as WP:RS news articles where the writer...
Click to read more »FrontPage Africa meets the standard for reliable sources per WP:RS and WP:NEWSORG, as an established national newspaper with editorial oversight (evidenced...
Click to read more »methods to deal with opinion pieces that appear in RS outlets, notably WP:NEWSORG. Wikipedia has no place in what editors above have portrayed as a battle...
Click to read more »raised that the sources that list such accents are not good enough. WP:NEWSORG states, 'When taking information from opinion content (added bold), the...
Click to read more »can't find much on this publication either way. Is this a reliable WP:NEWSORG or a tabloid? Andre🚐 02:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC) To the extent that any...
Click to read more »saying I will try adding [side effects] to the vaccine page citing the NEWSORG and see if anyone tries claiming there are any MEDRS violations there....
Click to read more »non-RS. It appears to have professional staff and thus qualifies as a WP:NEWSORG in the music field. That and this piece in Revolver means that the album...
Click to read more »year from now. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Per WP:NEWSORG, News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered...
Click to read more »text is rewritten and not a copy of EIN, making it acceptable under WP:NEWSORG. The Atmosphere Press interview is only used for basic biography, not to...
Click to read more »that any WP:NEWSORG would make (and in fact several of the problems identified with it are problems with many other similar WP:NEWSORGs). They do correct...
Click to read more »May 2018 (UTC) I didn't checked others but FOX is reliable as major WP:NEWSORG as we don't do usually inline attribution for BBC the same goes for FOX...
Click to read more »employee of the company. If it's an op-ed, which is my suspicion, then WP:NEWSORG says "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written...
Click to read more »Fuld, there is just no comparison. Most of the sources are from Israeli newsorgs, as I said, no lasting coverage, routine, notnews, memorial, not notable...
Click to read more »human interest reporting, with reliability issues as described in WP:RS/WP:NEWSORG. I appreciate the resources you linked and your explanations. If the article...
Click to read more »following PAGs: WP:INVALIDBIO, WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEWSORG. All mention of Chasten in the newsy articles relies entirely on his being...
Click to read more »fly. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC) When would a WP:NEWSORG be primary or secondary? The policy mentions op-eds as primary. --LaserLegs...
Click to read more »believe we should add some extra guidance in WP:NEWSORG. Specifically, I propose to add this to WP:NEWSORG: After an unexpected and catastrophic event, reports...
Click to read more »a discussion over three articles, of which one is an opinion piece. WP:NEWSORG says "even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains" content we...
Click to read more »secondary sources. Fortune Fortune is an independent WP:NEWSORG. Fortune is a reliable WP:NEWSORG. Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements...
Click to read more »from well-established news outlets that are considered to be reliable WP:NEWSORG It contains no original research The independent sources excludes works...
Click to read more »(3) we would want to rely on more than human interest reporting per WP:NEWSORG, which states that "[h]uman interest reporting is generally not as reliable...
Click to read more »marketing. For these reasons of editorial oversight and author expertise (WP:NEWSORG), I consider the GameTunnel review of Star Sonata to be a reliable source...
Click to read more »re-read WP:RS. However, having re-read WP:RS, and more specifically WP:NEWSORG just now, the only caution I see that would apply to this article is the...
Click to read more »at all except in the headline, then a quick mention in the existing WP:NEWSORG subsection would IMO be more than adequate. Or maybe we should consider...
Click to read more »reliability. --Masem (t) 13:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Yes, it's a normal WP:NEWSORG for its own content. This absolutely does not apply to reprinted material...
Click to read more »US $1.5 million as far back as 1997 for the strengthening of Wafa. This newsorg has been around for a long time and one has to wonder why is this just...
Click to read more »may be reliable in the specific context." I'd also point to guide of WP:NEWSORG may occur often for this kind of thread, and it clarifies Fact checking...
Click to read more »appreciated. Is there an editing guideline regarding (not including WP:NEWSORG but more general to include books and other publication types), or is it...
Click to read more »MrX 🖋 19:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC) Objection to RfC - if we're following WP:NEWSORG and WP:RECENTISM as we should be, we should not be rating any mainstream...
Click to read more »topic and one that needs to be addressed. Issues associated with RECENTISM/NEWSORG are real. How can we encourage WMF to invest more into WikiNews so that...
Click to read more »not? Article is about the NGO ✔ Yes NBC News NBC News is an independent newsorg NBC News is WP:GREL The article includes quotes from a founder of the group...
Click to read more »reliable then, being a WP:NEWSORG, 3) "Contributor", otherwise known as a free-lancer, but is still a pass for WP:NEWSORG. Forbes is unreliable because...
Click to read more »reliable - thank you to Farcaster for bringing my attention back to WP:NEWSORG, having reviewed it and WP:MEDRS again I assess the NYTs is not a reliable...
Click to read more »reporting on what Nowicki posted on Facebook, not independent. 3) Not a WP:NEWSORG pass because no editorial team or policy. 4) Basically an interview with...
Click to read more »indications of "editorial policies" as a reason to disregard sources? When WP:NEWSORG states "News organizations are not required to publish their editorial...
Click to read more »WP:INDEPENDENT. It's written by Eli Stokols (a reputable journalist), for a WP:NEWSORG, which clearly satisfies the independence criteria. The third piece is...
Click to read more »apologies. There is no Yahoo News quoted there. And, as elaborated in the WP:NEWSORG, one had used only the highly reputed sources. Now that the discussion...
Click to read more »ethnology journal. Elinruby (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC) See WP:NEWSORG. See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. A newspaper article claiming certain groups to...
Click to read more »which is not my claim either. Hemant DabralTalk 14:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC) WP:NEWSORGs are only reliable for news, not for historical matters, and it should be...
Click to read more »WP:PUBLISHED, and WP:CONTEXT matters - let WP:BESTSOURCES be your guide. From WP:NEWSORG - "whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should...
Click to read more »newspaper; we shouldn't be creating articles based on unreliable or dubious WP:NEWSORG. – Garuda Talk! 21:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC) * Keep: Topic has received sustained...
Click to read more »WP:NEWSORG. another reference http://www.myfashion19.com/ipsito-das-fashion-photographers-terns-magazine-publisher/ website under category WP:NEWSORG Kindly...
Click to read more »their usage is standard and to be expected in context. Please see WP:NEWSORG, WP:NEWSOPED, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and WP:BIASED. Regarding the call for...
Click to read more »reliability of news organizations. See WP:NEWSORG and WP:RSVETTING.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC) NEWSORG does not mention it at all that I...
Click to read more »and I will happily abide by it. In any case, per the discussion in WP:NEWSORG and WP:BIASED and elsewhere, we've always been able to use editorializing...
Click to read more »source. What do you say? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC) A newsorg, a secondary, quoting a primary, I think that's fine although this does...
Click to read more »the references, instead WP:NEWSORG encourage the use of reliable newspaper as reference to sustain facts. As per WP:NEWSORG, News sources often contain...
Click to read more »per WP:NEXIST and WP:GNG - This appears to be a legit review from a WP:NEWSORG. So does this. FOARP (talk) 08:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Nice find, I knew...
Click to read more »guidelines. SL93 (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC) No I'm not. Both WP:NEWSORG and WP:SOURCES explain the reasons of mass media reliability, making it...
Click to read more »are numerous newspapers that can be used, including Dawn, ie. from WP:NEWSORG - "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered...
Click to read more »constitute routine coverage that is not sufficient basis for an article. Per WP:NEWSORG, Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers...
Click to read more »York Times, but they don't have a poor reputation for fact-checking. WP:NEWSORG and WP:NEWSBLOG apply. The source is only used to cite their comment on...
Click to read more »reviewed in at least three reliable sources (Radio Times, Screen Rant (a WP:NEWSORG as it has an editorial team and professional reviewers), and a book on...
Click to read more »human-interest stories are irrelevant to notability, I'm basing this off of WP:NEWSORG ("Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting...
Click to read more »"Opinion by George F. Will Columnist" It's an opinion piece, as per WP:NEWSORG guidelines "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are rarely...
Click to read more »The second and third sources fails WP:RS by a few miles or so, per WP:NEWSORG. N The fourth source (a Bengali daily) dated 20 May, 2018 mentions that...
Click to read more »(talk) 02:58, 24 February 2026 (UTC) Same story in multiple Godi Media & WP:NEWSORG platforms. All the coverage is wp:CHURNALISM, and not significant. There...
Click to read more »Rockway.gr appears to have an editorial team which suggests it would be a WP:NEWSORG pass. Same with MetalFan.nl. Not particularly bothered about this article...
Click to read more »L'aut'journal all appear to be credible newspapers that appear to meet WP:NEWSORG and demonstrate a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Additionally...
Click to read more »agree that there are less-unreliable newsorgs and more-reliable thinktanks, but all else being equal being a newsorg is a positive and being an advocacy-oriented...
Click to read more »areas, which is basically what the AE Log represents to me. Maybe NPOV, V, NEWSORG and RECENTISM are what need a closer look - remove the ambiguities, tighten...
Click to read more »the Herald here, no reason why help is needed to do this. Just apply WP:NEWSORG. FOARP (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC) The discussion above is closed...
Click to read more »and WP:DUE? (Before you answer, I'd like to draw your attention to WP:NEWSORG which says "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether...
Click to read more »terms of demonstrating notability. The Atlantic piece is an editorial; WP:NEWSORG discourages use of such. An opinion piece about the opinion of another...
Click to read more »article on Isvestia (a Russian WP:NEWSORG, was covered in Taday (another newsorg), and on UGRA-NEWS (another newsorg). Passes WP:BASIC.FOARP (talk) 07:44...
Click to read more »are these not reliable sources? They fulfill the criteria laid out at WP:NEWSORG (though there may be too much reliance on opinion pieces in this article)...
Click to read more »This is the blog of a camera manufacturer, which is certainly not a WP:NEWSORG. GRUNGECAKE is certainly discussed significantly. – The vast majority of...
Click to read more »consider whether or not it is compliant with DUE, RECENTISM, NOTNEWS, NEWSORG and REDFLAG. If it is, follow procedures and avoid saying it in Wikivoice...
Click to read more »2014 (UTC) You have not read NEWSORG I see. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC) Please go read NEWSORG, recognize your wrongness, redact...
Click to read more »written as editorials, analyses and opinions, hence do not abide by WP:NEWSORG for reporting facts. To summarise, only New York Times is listed as a reliable...
Click to read more »on earth recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel except Israel. Newsorg sources which dance around this fact in the face of more authoritative...
Click to read more »February 2017 (UTC) It would be better to post it at WP:NPOVN. Per WP:NEWSORG, this type of source is usually reliable for the opinions expressed but...
Click to read more »2022 (UTC) @Idoonie: Well-respected newspapers should be reliable. WP:NEWSORG says News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered...
Click to read more »specifically the clause WP:NEWSORG. All the sources you've posted are news organizations quoting the DBO statistics. NEWSORG states: For information about...
Click to read more »not really all data is from RS. OpIndia, Gulte and Dreshare fails WP:NEWSORG from long mile and its long standing consensus in Indian wiki community...
Click to read more »ordinarily fall under the category of opinion content, and thus per WP:NEWSORG can be reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor...
Click to read more »standard for WP:NCRIME because it must meet WP:RS requirements including WP:NEWSORGS - since this article has liberally cited multiple sources for a single...
Click to read more »not enough in my view I would prefer more sources from international WP:NEWSORG also it doesn't tell anything about the incident but rather gives first...
Click to read more »mention to conspiracy theories, or fall under the second category in WP:NEWSORG ("Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces"), especially this...
Click to read more »position. I could just as easily say Forbes and Fortune are clearly under WP:NEWSORG and widely accepted as WP:RS. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)...
Click to read more »unreliable blog btw! Glucken123 (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC) Read WP:NEWSORG, Flash.Gr appears to be a pass as it is not self-published, has an editorial...
Click to read more »use in an opinion piece by a sports writer is not a reliable source WP:NEWSORG."Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by...
Click to read more »feature". I disagree over whether this is an appropriate interpretation of WP:NEWSORG in this situation, but I would like to hear other people's opinions. — Richwales...
Click to read more »through machine translation. reproduktor.net appears to be a pass for WP:NEWSORG based on the list of editors here and the "about" section here and did...
Click to read more »brought up for the RfC, (b) it violates WP:NEWSORG since whether one likes them or not they're a newsorg, (c) it leads to violations of WP:RS ("To ensure...
Click to read more »you want to define that) would be a reliable source? How does it pass WP:NEWSORG when there won't be any fact-checking or editorial control? FOARP (talk)...
Click to read more »consensus that CNN and Fox News can be used under the WP:NEWSORG guideline. If you think WP:NEWSORG should be changed, feel free to propose amendments at...
Click to read more »the only thing we have in our hand is gossip and rumors WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:NEWSORG that generates to often a specific point-of-view and thus createsWP:UNDUE...
Click to read more »York Times, but they don't have a poor reputation for fact-checking. WP:NEWSORG and WP:NEWSBLOG apply. The source is only used to cite their comment on...
Click to read more »a consensus at WP:FOX since pundits weren't the subject. That means WP:NEWSORG applies as it always has: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...
Click to read more »a story in The Denver Post or Fort Collins Coloradoan not reliable? WP:NEWSORG says news reporting from well-established newspapers such as these is generally...
Click to read more »their own, based on the reliable sources guideline. Take a look at WP:NEWSORG, which outlines how we determine the reliability of news sources. In short...
Click to read more »facts, it is better to find a less opinionated source for it as per WP:NEWSORG: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by...
Click to read more »2012 (UTC) I don't see anything in WP:NEWSORG that suggests that non-mainstream sources are not reliable. WP:NEWSORG isn't about mainstream vs. non-mainstream...
Click to read more »reliable here? Mhhossein (talk) 07:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC) Ynet meets WP:NEWSORG.Its reliable for reporting what Veto Gate website said.Btw did you checked...
Click to read more »community newspaper that -while it may not be notable itself- still meets WP:NEWSORG standards for simple, non-controversial claims. (Note that I said it appears...
Click to read more »the op-ed page writers are different people from the newsroom in most WP:NEWSORGs. Andre🚐 21:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC) I don't know, but the current system...
Click to read more »things like WP:NEWSORG introduce ridiculously dubious sources - I think everyone agrees that it is dubious, whether it qualifies as WP:NEWSORG or not - and...
Click to read more »publishes corrections, one of the tests of reliability suggested at WP:NEWSORG. Straight.com is part of a group of newspapers. That group is self-described...
Click to read more »(UTC) None of that disqualifies Ryan or the source per WP:BIASED and WP:NEWSORG.--WillC 17:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC) I believe it does, and I've listed...
Click to read more »sources are in Farsi, but I see a large number from what appear to be WP:NEWSORGs. 1 2 3 4. Using machine translation it is clear that the unit existed,...
Click to read more »has editorial board. But indiawest is not. My apologies. You can read WP:NEWSORG. This person still fails GNG. Harshil want to talk? 01:08, 9 January 2020...
Click to read more »Rothes#Titanic disaster. Cherry has some coverage (including in contemporary NEWSORG reporting - e.g. [30][31], as well as several books) - however almost all...
Click to read more »the publication appears to be a century-old newspaper and (hence) passes NEWSORG easily. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC) Any journal out...
Click to read more »opinions are from RS is challenged and the challenge is supported by WP:NEWSORG. WP:BLP is also a consideration as are the associated 3 core content policies...
Click to read more »release, it's not a preferred source and is an unreliable source, per WP:NEWSORG. Thanks. Lourdes 03:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC) Ok. I myself tried it here...
Click to read more »everything published in a reliable source automatically lacks bias; WP:NEWSORG states this clearly: "News sources often contain both factual content and...
Click to read more »thinking based on primary sources" would basically be an editorial, which WP:NEWSORG then declares to be a "reliable primary source for statements attributed...
Click to read more »core content policies. With regards to the quality of sourcing, Wikipedia:NEWSORG suggests that established newspapers are usually considered reliable. Smmurphy(Talk)...
Click to read more »Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC) WP:NEWSORG. Unless it explicitly says alternative newspapers are not valid then there...
Click to read more »an apparent blog with no visible editorial names or policy (so not a WP:NEWSORG) and the bio byline of an article by Archbridge's founder. A WP:BEFORE...
Click to read more »ethnology journal. Elinruby (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC) See WP:NEWSORG. See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. A newspaper article claiming certain groups to...
Click to read more »thinking about with this - the Guardian and rbth.com (which is a pass for WP:NEWSORG - and anyway is just a translation of an article in Rossiyskaya Gazeta...
Click to read more »RSN discussion. Rather, Church Times appears to be a >150-year-old WP:NEWSORG focused on the Anglican Church. The RSN discussion that focuses on America...
Click to read more »June 2020 (UTC) Delete:Per consensus: (NB: I'm thick). To a degree per WP:NEWSORG this is possibly Human-interest story/Junk food news. I'm very suspicious...
Click to read more »Deadline piece is just a press release over a non-significant award. WP:NEWSORG advises that republished press releases are 'churnalism' and should not...
Click to read more »google.com/books?id=XMl6DwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y, pp 253, 460, 478, 489), the newsorgs above, it produces many and frequent reports and analyses in the hr area...
Click to read more »Palestinian POV but If they claims were notable they would be reported by WP:NEWSORG.--Shrike (talk) 10:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC) ARIJ is not a WP:SPS by any...
Click to read more »primary for some purposes, while secondary for others. See for example WP:NEWSORG: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by...
Click to read more »Human interest stories may have lower standards of fact-checking per WP:NEWSORG, but I don't see evidence of that for NYTimes obituaries, even in the COVID...
Click to read more »topic of the source material. Also, not all op-eds are unreliable; WP:NEWSORG provides for rare scenarios for which op-eds are reliable, and the in this...
Click to read more »higher likelihood of this happening will probably be material applicable to NEWSORG and RECENTISM. Atsme✍🏻📧 15:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC) I concur that it's...
Click to read more »- I see two reviews - one in Irish Tech News (which appears to be a WP:NEWSORG) and very brief one in Entrepreneur Europe list. I think the first review...
Click to read more »clarification: Source 1 is a local, neighborhood publication. Doesn't pass WP:NEWSORG. Source 2 talks about one of his posts, not him, and only mentions his...
Click to read more »one of the worst and most perfunctory articles I've read in a nominal WP:NEWSORG, written in five minutes from a couple of crypto blogs. Even granting it...
Click to read more »business, as opposed to the press release rehashes (WP:RUNOFTHEMILL/WP:NEWSORG) that are currently used in the article. Listed status and employee count...
Click to read more »is it an opinion? Grayfell (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC) See WP:NEWSORG, specifically: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether...
Click to read more »editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." from WP:NEWSORG. I am not suggesting any changes to WP:GNG, and I don't think the antagonistic...
Click to read more »argument presented is an argument lost. WP:RS - that's our guideline...WP:NEWSORG, WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS...that is what we follow and use to make our...
Click to read more »WP:PUBLISHED, and WP:CONTEXT matters - let WP:BESTSOURCES be your guide. From WP:NEWSORG - "whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should...
Click to read more »op-ed, that source you suggested is not particularly reliable (see WP:NEWSORG) and not sufficient for establishing notability as far as I know, although...
Click to read more »com, informationweek.com, asa.net, or finance.yahoo.com. Read through WP:NEWSORG --NqcRz (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC) The reasons to keep this article:...
Click to read more »left-wing organizations are doing. TFD (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC) WP:NEWSORG doesn't just baldly say that opinion pieces are unreliable afaics. I guess...
Click to read more »position. I could just as easily say Forbes and Fortune are clearly under WP:NEWSORG and widely accepted as WP:RS. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)...
Click to read more »organizations are generally considered reliable sources. Please see WP:NEWSORG. The rest of your arguments are WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS....
Click to read more »newspaper published in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It clearly satisfies WP:NEWSORG of WP:RS. She does pass notability guidelines, little work is needed on...
Click to read more »2021 (UTC) Yeah, that's an unsigned press release, and is cited by WP:NEWSORG as a classic example of what a reliable source is not. Howard the Duck...
Click to read more »The Wire in any way. Also The Wire is a reliable source, (WP:RS under WP:NEWSORG) you hating the source does not make it unreliable. Venkat TL (talk) 06:57...
Click to read more »September 2018 (UTC) Redditaddict69, umm...... The first source fails WP:NEWSORG, claims to feature sponsored interviews and allows user to submit content...
Click to read more »film's projected release. Text, no. Video, yes. Acceptable under WP:RS WP:NEWSORG. AND under WP:NONENG it is perfectly understood and acceptable that a non-English...
Click to read more »established WP:NEWSORG. Similarly, The Economic Times covers her with a largely positive feature piece, and that is an established WP:NEWSORG. These two are...
Click to read more »the answer is yes, then decide whether content should be attributed per NEWSORG, WP:RSOPINION, NEWSBLOG, and WP:BIASED. Politrukki (talk) 11:02, 12 December...
Click to read more »terms of demonstrating notability. The Atlantic piece is an editorial; WP:NEWSORG discourages use of such. An opinion piece about the opinion of another...
Click to read more »should meet WP:MUSICBIO. As for which news sites are credible, see WP:NEWSORG. Hillelfrei talk 00:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC) Additionally, please see Wikipedia:Reliable...
Click to read more »meets qualifications for WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NCONCERT, WP:COMPOSER, WP:IRS, WP:NEWSORG and WP:N – Artist Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published...
Click to read more »expedite this matter. There are references of at least 5 published sources WP:NEWSORG which quashes all the WP:GNG objections as there are multiple reliable...
Click to read more »[10], [11] fail to become admissible as per WP:RS, more precisely per WP:NEWSORG. Lastly, borderline failure to WP:NACTOR is still a failure and we have...
Click to read more »@Kichupila: Hey there! News is news, an op-ed is an opinion piece. WP:NEWSORG has some information on when the latter may be used. Happy editing! Bsoyka...
Click to read more »September 2020. Retrieved 15 December 2021. online news outlet per WP:NEWSORG although no opinions have been ventured at WP:RSN or WP:RSP ~ short article...
Click to read more »reliability of each one and this is what I found, mainly following WP:NEWSORG: Sources that appear to be reliable: BioTherm Energy wins 251MW renewable...
Click to read more »January 2022 (UTC) I don't agree that is a "blog", it appears to be a WP:NEWSORG. Based on this article it does have an editorship structure and does issue...
Click to read more »05:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC) @Barkeep49: I think 5 references are not WP:NEWSORG. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC) Keep the party is...
Click to read more »(UTC) @MastCell: actually, most sources have a comparable history. Per WP:NEWSORG, One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a...
Click to read more »reliable for every conceivable purpose (see eg,, context matters, and general newsorg) -- and some content on 538 is written fast reaction blog style and so...
Click to read more »that fits the reliability definition of news organisations listed at WP:NEWSORG and while I did look for it, I couldn't find any minimum number of such...
Click to read more »organizations published articles/opinions/analysis about it (noting that WP:NEWSORG is only reliable for statements of fact) is ludicrous at best. WP is not...
Click to read more »(could be advertorials), 2) possibility that these aren't respected WP:NEWSORGS but are instead just blogs, especially odialive.com, and 3) the WP:NOTGOSSIP...
Click to read more »coverage in multiple sources including a book, papers and of news outlets (WP:NEWSORG). As for its mentions coming through what is being defined as "generic"...
Click to read more »all secondary sources. None of them are considered "tabloids". Per WP:NEWSORG "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered...
Click to read more »agree with these guys here, Jesse. Please peruse WP:RS, and especially WP:NEWSORG for guidance on reliable sources. Promotional items, whether in a newspaper...
Click to read more »Morning Herald This newspaper is independent of One Disease. This is a WP:NEWSORG. ~ The article provides significant coverage of the founder of One Disease...
Click to read more »unreliable - that to me is cultural bias. I think you need to read WP:NEWSORG. These newspapers are considered reliable sources as they have independent...
Click to read more »local sources on subjects that would not normally meet WP:POLITICIAN. WP:NEWSORG states "News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered...
Click to read more »thinking based on primary sources" would basically be an editorial, which WP:NEWSORG then declares to be a "reliable primary source for statements attributed...
Click to read more »unknown, self-described webzine/blog and therefore neither falls under WP:NEWSORG nor WP:NEWSBLOG. With regard to the filmography section, the subject only...
Click to read more »article can be described as "churnalism", which is the standard at WP:NEWSORG for "regurgitating announcements" - it's talking about an announcement...
Click to read more »HuffPo, but those are commentaries, not RS's, i.e. news coverage. See WP:NEWSORG.The Boston Globe ref seems to just be a passing mention for an event blurb...
Click to read more »references, in his above post, the policy language found at WP:NEWSORG. I find at WP:NEWSORG the following 2 sentences: "For information about academic topics...
Click to read more »casual end of their coverage and I would argue not a great source per WP:NEWSORG Human interest reporting. which is way short of that needed for MEDRS,...
Click to read more »only one staff member with no obvious editing policy is a pass for WP:NEWSORG. Similarly the article about the Ethiopian government also does not describe...
Click to read more »and controversial statements. This is covered in WP:RSBREAKING and WP:NEWSORG. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 03:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC) Ok, deleted the "angered...
Click to read more »nature, however. I'm hesitant to accept these as reliable based on WP:NEWSORG. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)...
Click to read more »DartsNews gives sigcov but feels like a peripheral source even if it is a WP:NEWSORG. There is no BIO equivalent of WP:AUD and local coverage shouldn't be excluded...
Click to read more »WP:RS that mentions anything about "local news". The only mention — at WP:NEWSORG – is that "[n]ews reporting from well-established news outlets is generally...
Click to read more »page. The first is a 2007 review in Al Riyadh, which appears to be a WP:NEWSORG. Whilst the machine translation is hard to read, it appears to be a laudatory...
Click to read more »that even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors (ref WP:NEWSORG). Based on that can you agree with the statement Ubikwit wrote, that they...
Click to read more »employee, is subject to very little fact-checking or other overview. Per WP:NEWSORG, "News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered...
Click to read more »established reputation for editorial discretion and fact-checking per WP:NEWSORG, and in any case a single source generally isn't sufficient to establish...
Click to read more »sources exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC) Again, as WP:NEWSORG says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written...
Click to read more »WP:NEWSORG which would seem to apply here. Newspapers usually have a political stance. That does not make them unreliable. See also what WP:NEWSORG says...
Click to read more »Washington Jewish Week a few times and these all meet the requirements of WP:NEWSORG @ WP:IRS, as well as other Jewish news outlets, and the additional links...
Click to read more »(UTC) The National Interest articles though is an opinion piece, and by WP:NEWSORG, doesn't really fulfill WP:RS. Additionally, Raymond Tanter is a member...
Click to read more »good thing, and indicates a reputation for accuracy and fact checking (WP:NEWSORG). Note now that the Heat Street article in question largely agrees in content...
Click to read more »press releases as "significant coverage" as defined at WP:GNG. Per WP:NEWSORG, re-reporting of press releases is "churnalism" and does not count as a...
Click to read more »marketing. For these reasons of editorial oversight and author expertise (WP:NEWSORG), I consider the GameTunnel review of Star Sonata to be a reliable source...
Click to read more »propaganda. Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC) It meets WP:NEWSORG so there is no real reason to exclude it and we do use sources by various...
Click to read more »guess it's gonna crash now." So yeah, I'd normally say it's a normal WP:NEWSORG, but on that topic I'd advise caution - David Gerard (talk) 15:39, 2 December...
Click to read more »this citation is insufficient. The anonymous editor also brings up WP:NEWSORG. Source Article To support: "Badawi denied any links to the Muslim Brotherhood...
Click to read more »reliable sources contradicts WP:NEWSORG and would render virtually any mention of a medical diagnosis "unreliable." From WP:NEWSORG - ""News reporting" from...
Click to read more »major publications, and are generally considered reliable; they meet WP:NEWSORG easily, and aren't connected to r/incels. Some of my arguments against...
Click to read more »difference? It's functionally a book review, meaning that I'm hesitant on WP:NEWSORG grounds, because it suggests that we should be wary about analysis/opinion...
Click to read more »company that distributes press releases (i.e. a primary source). Per WP:NEWSORG, "Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers...
Click to read more »the subject", or close enough, but what I have reviewed is largely the newsorg equivalent of reaction videos, i.e. Alice Expert saying everyone is or...
Click to read more »than self-published press release; see discussion of churnalism at WP:NEWSORG. Daask (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC) The VentureBeat article has this...
Click to read more »(UTC) Delete The sources used are mostly press releases, which per WP:NEWSORG are not true RS. Plus looking at the creators contribution history [31]...
Click to read more »and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected " WP:NEWSORG says: "Most newspapers also reprint items from news agencies such as Reuters...
Click to read more »community of readers. And while "independent" is a concern, in reading WP:NEWSORG, it is seen that news aggencies reporting on themselves such should be...
Click to read more »a reason to blacklist or deprecate the source. Additionally, as per WP:NEWSORG, “Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should...
Click to read more »September 7 from MEAWW, another source from September 13 from a local newsorg, a The Root piece from September 14, and a Dutch(?) sports news site from...
Click to read more »magazines to establish notability Does not appear to be an established WP:NEWSORG with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. sure appears that way...
Click to read more »- though I note you don't have any firm rebuttal to there being two WP:NEWSORG references giving WP:SIGCOV and thus creating a WP:GNG presumption of notability...
Click to read more »demonstrating that this is RS or equivalent in reliability with a credible WP:NEWSORG. Ref 3 briefly covers minor production details, ref 4 is a few sentences...
Click to read more »mention to conspiracy theories, or fall under the second category in WP:NEWSORG ("Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces"), especially this...
Click to read more »Fuld, there is just no comparison. Most of the sources are from Israeli newsorgs, as I said, no lasting coverage, routine, notnews, memorial, not notable...
Click to read more »from well-established news outlets that are considered to be reliable WP:NEWSORG It contains no original research The independent sources excludes works...
Click to read more »article doesn't count as a RS. Says who? Surely not Wikipedia policy WP:NEWSORG: "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content....
Click to read more »sources, and these cases are human interest stories, which to quote WP:NEWSORG, are "generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject...
Click to read more »Aftonbladet (which a press-release would be unlikely to do), and it is from a WP:NEWSORG. The same goes for all the other articles that they marked "Press Releases"...
Click to read more »