Redirect to:
This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|
In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means that people can check that facts or claims correspond to reliable sources. Wikipedia's content is determined...
Click to read more »TWL) May not meet WP:Notability, some or all sources may not meet WP:SOURCEACCESS PhantomTech (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Note: This debate has...
Click to read more »summary "not found" means that you could not find the source, but per WP:SOURCEACCESS, " If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so...
Click to read more »how are they verified? LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC) WP:SOURCEACCESS. Are you sure you understand policy well enough to be nominating articles...
Click to read more »that ease of access to references does not affect verifiability (see WP:SOURCEACCESS). However, the extraordinary difficulty in finding these resources suggests...
Click to read more »third-party coverage." This reasoning is in direct contradiction of WP:SOURCEACCESS: "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an...
Click to read more »harder to find, and I am not sure whether that would be successful. WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:NONENG provides solutions to this question. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work...
Click to read more »nomination. Also, sources don't have to be available online, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC) The label is covered...
Click to read more »07:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC) whilst not discounting your sources as per WP:SOURCEACCESS, i can't see most of the sources you've added. could you provide a way...
Click to read more »meant that the sources are offline then the nominator should read WP:SOURCEACCESS which states that such sources are fine. In any case, the information...
Click to read more »working for me. It likely wasn't archived anywhere. I think that per WP:SOURCEACCESS, it still "counts"(?), but that's a weird situation of course. ~Maplestrip/Mable...
Click to read more »(UTC) @Elmidae: Sources you cannot access are still valid sources (WP:SOURCEACCESS), and the current state of the article and the sources aren't relevant...
Click to read more »the number of sources can vary!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCEACCESS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NONENGAnasahmed24 Comment Unfortunately...
Click to read more »required so the fact that most sources are in Dutch is irrelevant. See WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:NONENG. Furthermore, this restaurant was awarded a star by the...
Click to read more »significant sources are the books cited in the article. Please read: WP:SOURCEACCESS "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an...
Click to read more »in the 1789-1793 range. My general rule is to WP:AGF and point to WP:SOURCEACCESS in such cases, though I do agree the author should have supplied at least...
Click to read more »for awards, and two have been named Storylines Notable Books. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly...
Click to read more »have a source which is said to back up the claim, and the policy WP:SOURCEACCESS states that we are not to reject offline sources but rather WP:AGF. That...
Click to read more »David Gerard (talk) 07:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC) I was referring to WP:SOURCEACCESS. You said above the article's sources were "uncheckable", which I took...
Click to read more »personal bias." Unawareness of Wikipedia:Verifiability § Accessibility (WP:SOURCEACCESS) policy: An editor determines content has a citation to a source work...
Click to read more »that could be online or offline, with or without payment. Read WP:V#WP:SOURCEACCESS Cavarrone (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Fair, but how would the average...
Click to read more »sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS. Your inability to access sources is not my problem. You're entirely...
Click to read more »be considered reliable; please read Wikipedia:Offline sources and WP:SOURCEACCESS. LadyofShalott 02:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Comment - interestingly, a number...
Click to read more »have no prejudice to recreation. Sources need not be online (per WP:SOURCEACCESS) but they must be found in order for a BLP to remain on Wikipedia. Cunard...
Click to read more »GNG cannot be not met when we have articles we cannot get at--per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC) You cannot assume that the...
Click to read more »[1] I am leaning towards Keep on the additional basis of WP:NONENG, WP:SOURCEACCESS, WP:WORLDVIEW and WP:AGF for the Kullgren reference and the other references...
Click to read more »article is no hoax and then relying on WP:AGF, WP:NONENGLISH and WP:SOURCEACCESS to keep the article, which is where I am leaning. 24.151.116.12 (talk)...
Click to read more »Books as offline sources are verifiable and don't have to be online (WP:SOURCEACCESS). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 04:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)...
Click to read more »Talk:Ukrainian Artists Society of Australia. (2) Nominator has called WP:SOURCEACCESS policy "unreasonable". (3) Nominator has posted, without notice here...
Click to read more »the discussion was: delete. As for using the image as a source, per WP:SOURCEACCESS a source does not need to be easily accessible (lest of all on Wikipedia...
Click to read more »genuine and cannot be argued down on grounds of inaccessibility, see WP:SOURCEACCESS. So, while the present state is unpublishable I do not think it should...
Click to read more »which cannot now be viewed. A verifiable citation is needed here: see WP:SOURCEACCESS International station opens There are six paragraphs in this section...
Click to read more »rejected merely on that basis or the absence of verification. As per WP:SOURCEACCESS, waybackmachine can be used to view these sources and authors can be...
Click to read more »fact that these sources are offline or paywalled is irrelevant; see WP:SOURCEACCESS.) While I'm not averse to a merge in theory, it probably ought to go...
Click to read more »article stands, it's substantiated by a whole lot of OR. I'm seeing a WP:SOURCEACCESS issue here. X-posting from Aftermath's AfD, wouldn't it make more sense...
Click to read more »Bearian (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2026 (UTC) Keep - Consistent with WP:SOURCEACCESS, additional interviews, profiles, and academic indexing. Tarek Jabr (talk)...
Click to read more »there is no demand that sources are available online, see Wikipedia:Sourceaccess. The worst mistake of all is, that nom in an assumed belief in his own...
Click to read more »the relevant page. Offline and paywalled sources are acceptable per WP:SOURCEACCESS, and these are much more easily accessible than that (they WP:NEXIST)...
Click to read more »sources should not be rejected solely on difficulty or cost of access (WP:SOURCEACCESS). Informing interested readers where to find additional reliable information...
Click to read more »April 2019 (UTC) Osomadre: 1. Sources do not need to be online, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. If you have the title of the article/review, the name of the author...
Click to read more »in-depth coverage behind a paywall (which should not be rejected per WP:SOURCEACCESS). This institution, like most other universities, meets WP:GNG. Modussiccandi...
Click to read more »coverage does not need to be the main topic of the source material), WP:SOURCEACCESS (sources are not required to be online or accessible for free, I myself...
Click to read more »Univers1111 (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC) See WP:SOURCEACCESS -- a source does not have to be available on line. Nomoskedasticity (talk)...
Click to read more »that "404!" is a totally non-valid argument point to bring up, per WP:SOURCEACCESS from WP:V policy. — Cirt (talk) 06:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Maybe that...
Click to read more »who don't live in Greece, it doesn't mean that no one can verify. WP:SOURCEACCESS exists for this reason. The editor who added the magazine citation to...
Click to read more »122.49.102 (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Comment according to WP:SOURCEACCESS there is no requirement that sources be online. Mathewignash (talk) 14:27...
Click to read more »government login page. — MarkH21 (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC) Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly...
Click to read more »December 2014 (UTC) Verifiability is not the same as access, see WP:SOURCEACCESS. Secondly, I am not talking about including every insignificant landmark...
Click to read more »minor British noble. Mztourist (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC) Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, we should not dismiss a source due to not being able to retrieve its...
Click to read more »is real, cited, and gives a lot of context about the subject. See WP:SOURCEACCESS "Аялынские татары, или о чём говорят деревья" Tobol Tatars as ethnic...
Click to read more »exclude sources that he cannot or will not personally verify, see WP:SOURCEACCESS (trust me, I have some bitter experience with this). PBS's two productionsThe...
Click to read more »in that. ⚒️MinecraftPlayer321⚒️ | 💬 01:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC) WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:OFFLINE. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC) Delete...
Click to read more »you can't see these yourself isn't a criterion for deletion, right? WP:SOURCEACCESS applies, as does WP:AGF unless there's some clear reason to disbelieve...
Click to read more »of the sources aren't readily available online, but of course per WP:SOURCEACCESS there's no requirement that they be. Nom should withdraw this ill-considered...
Click to read more »12 February 2012 (UTC) Well then you really really need to read WP:SOURCEACCESS because I've verified this. Complete information about the citation is...
Click to read more »Yet I have found online and offline sources which I'm applying. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, online sources are not required, and offline sources which can be proved...
Click to read more »sources out there are subscription based, e.g. scientific journals. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly...
Click to read more »Wikipedia". I believe this rejection was made in error and contrary to WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:AGF. The subject is a traditional Sundanese narrative poem from...
Click to read more »don't think it would be worthwhile to link them, especially since WP:SOURCEACCESS permits the use of offline sources. SounderBruce 00:23, 20 December 2023...
Click to read more »sources have traditionally not been considered a show-stopper per WP:SOURCEACCESS (WP:V). Also consider Wikipedia:General disclaimer#Jurisdiction and legality...
Click to read more »subject". The sources which we can't access online are allowable per WP:SOURCEACCESS: "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an...
Click to read more »verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC) Agreed that WP:SOURCEACCESS does not affect verifiability. However, the Daughters of the Republic...
Click to read more »revolutions) 21:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Keep per WP:MUSICBIO#5 and WP:SOURCEACCESS. (This assumes the citations are real.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:01, 27...
Click to read more »sources are perfectly acceptable for demonstrating notability, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Sources being offline or behind a paywall would be an illegitimate reason...
Click to read more »of offline references; I default to trusting them for now. See the WP:SOURCEACCESS section of WP:V which is further explained in the Offline sources essay...
Click to read more »reference).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, sources are not required to be online because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia...
Click to read more »points. First, article references do not require to be online, per WP:SOURCEACCESS, and book sources are perfectly suitable for evaluate notability. WP:PAPERONLY...
Click to read more »instance, them being in Finnish does not make them unverifiable (see WP:SOURCEACCESS) or unreliable. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:46, 24 September...
Click to read more »to for the editor to jump through hoops to cite that article, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Joe Roe (talk) 09:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC) Delete (with reluctance)...
Click to read more »do not have to be in the article currently. Also worth noting is WP:SOURCEACCESS, part of WP:V, which says "Do not reject reliable sources just because...
Click to read more »received basically the same amount of coverage. Also, offline sources (WP:SOURCEACCESS) are also acceptable and should not be dismissed because some people...
Click to read more »WP:SOURCEACCESS only applies to text sources? It certainly doesn't state that in the article. TDL (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC) WP:SOURCEACCESS pertains...
Click to read more »Vexations you can at least use a source like WSJ by looking at its title. WP:SOURCEACCESS states Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult...
Click to read more »magazine in the country. (3) Accessibility of a source is not an issue (WP:SOURCEACCESS), nor is whether articles exist on other projects. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk)...
Click to read more »(talk) 03:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Please do not assume like this. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. It doesn't "look" like that when even the page numbers are provided...
Click to read more »it may cause uncertainty in the minds of some reviewers), as per WP:SOURCEACCESS. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Links to other Wikipedia...
Click to read more »quote @192.76.8.85 gets abusive, cites WP:SOURCEACCESS @Sideswipe9th agrees w/ @192.76.8.85 re WP:SOURCEACCESS but demonstrates solution to precluding verification...
Click to read more »working but JCAla removed the ref without respecting WP:DEADLINK and WP:SOURCEACCESS. That is in the vandalism category actually. These are two reverts in...
Click to read more »used as a source because there is no direct online link to it, but WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:OFFLINE state that sources do not need to be available online...
Click to read more »and now accuses me of COI 2010-05-20 21:08 -- Naraht reverts citing WP:SOURCEACCESS 2010-05-20 21:11 -- AEKDB again ignores policy, reverts and claims to...
Click to read more »content that has to be verifiable, not sources). Please have a look at WP:SOURCEACCESS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC) ,...
Click to read more »(edit conflict) Mirela, our verifiability policy contains a section (WP:SOURCEACCESS) stating that sources are not required to be accessible to all users...
Click to read more »there's much to worry about in this report. One thing to consider is WP:SOURCEACCESS -- there's no requirement that a source be easily available (e.g. on-line)...
Click to read more »reliable source; and a stubborn refusal to acknowledge the policy WP:SOURCEACCESS — which leads him to believe that such print sources as the St. Louis...
Click to read more »blacklisted. -- Banjeboi 19:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Also note Per WP:SOURCEACCESS:"The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access...
Click to read more »contribs, and most recent contribs. He seems to be refusing to accept WP:SOURCEACCESS, and claiming that only sources that are fully available online should...
Click to read more »passages of text to you and present them to you as the gatekeeper. Read WP:SOURCEACCESS. Go get the books in question, open them at the indicated page, and read...
Click to read more »google land. Cheers!Meishern (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC) See WP:SOURCEACCESS, "Verifiability in this context means anyone should be able to check...
Click to read more »print sources may be available only in university libraries. (from WP:SOURCEACCESS, emphasis added) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC) If...
Click to read more »When I resist this kangaroo court mentality, based on the policy WP:SOURCEACCESS, which says it's not my job to make it easy for you, I get accused of...
Click to read more »information. Deadlinks do not mean that sources are not cited... see WP:SOURCEACCESS. I've explained this to you on the talk page in much detail. Also please...
Click to read more »articles about itself. Shortcuts WP:PAYWALLWP:PAYWALL WP:SOURCEACCESSWP:SOURCEACCESS Verifiability in this context means anyone should be able to check that...
Click to read more »continue to use a dubious image as reference and tell others to follow WP:SOURCEACCESS, which is certainly impossible for dubious references. OccultZone (Talk...
Click to read more »unsupportably more narrow and expansive than consensus. And again, per WP:SOURCEACCESS, your inability to read what I have found isn't my problem--if you want...
Click to read more »published by reliable, independent publications (See [3], [6], [12]) WP:SOURCEACCESS Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly...
Click to read more »because it cannot be easily accessed online, in contradiction to WP:SOURCEACCESS Did it ever exist? This is verifiable by any decent librarian. Netmouse...
Click to read more »invalid. Fats40boy11 (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Quote from WP:SOURCEACCESS: Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly...
Click to read more »free online all you like but that's not how the policy works. Read WP:SOURCEACCESS, specifically The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease...
Click to read more »else? patsw (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC) With due deference to WP:SOURCEACCESS, it is quite clear that the policy at WP:RSUE has not been observed....
Click to read more »Talk:Ukrainian Artists Society of Australia. (2) Nominator has called WP:SOURCEACCESS policy "unreasonable". (3) Nominator has posted, without notice here...
Click to read more »met if the sources exist, not if you can read them yourself. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, your inability to find what I add simply isn't my problem. Jclemens...
Click to read more »Monopoly board from that vintage if they have the money (which per WP:SOURCEACCESS is okay) and verify that what is on the website (and, one presumes, what...
Click to read more »required for WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly...
Click to read more »be available, I said that some sources will be hard to find. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, it doesn't prevent them from being reliable. —Gazoth (talk) 17:05, 22...
Click to read more »for being unable to access the first two sources, see WP:PAYWALL/WP:SOURCEACCESS. I have access to the book and it contains a full chapter on Exotel,...
Click to read more »sources are not hard to access once clipped, and even if they were, per WP:SOURCEACCESS, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly...
Click to read more »26 December 2016 (UTC) Comment Sources do not have to be online (WP:SOURCEACCESS). We have found sources online that verify his positions as a Justice...
Click to read more »creates an automatic link to a number of book databases. However, WP:SOURCEACCESS (in the verifiability policy) does not guarantee that an arbitrary reader...
Click to read more »addressing new writers is to "be bold." I am going to take that advice. WP:SOURCEACCESS states that "[s]ome reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For...
Click to read more »available to the public in some form". Under that definition and WP:SOURCEACCESS, since it's available in a university library I'd say it qualifies as...
Click to read more »the vast majority of which may not be accessed by most readers. WP:SOURCEACCESS offers a broad policy on this, which is that we accept sources which...
Click to read more »that ease of access to references does not affect verifiability (see WP:SOURCEACCESS). However, the extraordinary difficulty in finding these resources suggests...
Click to read more »summary "not found" means that you could not find the source, but per WP:SOURCEACCESS, " If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so...
Click to read more »— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmetyal (talk • contribs) Comment WP:SOURCEACCESS, which is a shortcut to policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, states "Verifiability...
Click to read more »being in French).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC) N WP:SOURCEACCESS + N WP:NONENG. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC) You appear...
Click to read more »sources must be easily accessible; only that sources must exist. See WP:SOURCEACCESS part of WP:V. As an aside, your example citation is a {{cite web}} without...
Click to read more »quite obscure requests fulfilled there. For our policy on this, see WP:SOURCEACCESS, Wikipedia:Offline sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. Best...
Click to read more »208.172.35 (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC) @Terre Hominum To quote WP:SOURCEACCESS Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly...
Click to read more »minor British noble. Mztourist (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC) Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, we should not dismiss a source due to not being able to retrieve its...
Click to read more »WP:NOTCLEANUP. Whether you can access a source or not is irrelevant. See WP:SOURCEACCESS, WP:PAYWALL, WP:LINKROT. You should trust your fellow editors per WP:AGF...
Click to read more »doesn't matter if the source is rare or not, Rocknrollmancer. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. Motor Cycle Mechanics 1974 is a perfectly acceptable source. In fact...
Click to read more »sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS. Your inability to access sources is not my problem. You're entirely...
Click to read more »Reliable Source. Sources do not need to be easily accessable. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. RudolfRed (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC) @Sparkle666: What is the...
Click to read more »(UTC) @Elmidae: Sources you cannot access are still valid sources (WP:SOURCEACCESS), and the current state of the article and the sources aren't relevant...
Click to read more »Anyone will be able to obtain a copy of the decree absolute". I see WP:sourceaccess says "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult...
Click to read more »the number of sources can vary!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCEACCESS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NONENGAnasahmed24 Comment Unfortunately...
Click to read more »07:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC) whilst not discounting your sources as per WP:SOURCEACCESS, i can't see most of the sources you've added. could you provide a way...
Click to read more »not make it at all un-citeable. For our policy on this, please see WP:SOURCEACCESS, Wikipedia:Offline sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. As to...
Click to read more »clipping left there as a courtesy to you (but not required).. see WP:SOURCEACCESS. It's a news source not an image. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:43, 2 December...
Click to read more »17 February 2011 (UTC) Linking to the rather severe judgement at WP:SOURCEACCESS: "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access...
Click to read more »third-party coverage." This reasoning is in direct contradiction of WP:SOURCEACCESS: "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an...
Click to read more »sources are reliable, and independent of the actor, then yes: see WP:SOURCEACCESS. Sources don't have to be online or easy to obtain, as long as they are...
Click to read more »David Gerard (talk) 07:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC) I was referring to WP:SOURCEACCESS. You said above the article's sources were "uncheckable", which I took...
Click to read more »a document at the State of Florida exists and it meets WP:VERIFY, WP:SOURCEACCESS. Anyone can call or write and get the information. I want to cite a document...
Click to read more »"adverting freesheet". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC) WP:SOURCEACCESS says Other people should in principle be able to check that material...
Click to read more »2024 election. Reliable sources are not disqualified by access cost (WP:SOURCEACCESS, WP:PAYWALL), and the record runs well beyond "one and local"; the Washington...
Click to read more »Univers1111 (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC) See WP:SOURCEACCESS -- a source does not have to be available on line. Nomoskedasticity (talk)...
Click to read more »with your computer? If you are unable to access a source, the policy WP:SOURCEACCESS applies. It says "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are...
Click to read more »how are they verified? LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC) WP:SOURCEACCESS. Are you sure you understand policy well enough to be nominating articles...
Click to read more »available there and at the Cambridge University Library. I understand per WP:SOURCEACCESS that verifiablily need not be free, nor even convenient, and that theoretically...
Click to read more »GNG cannot be not met when we have articles we cannot get at--per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC) You cannot assume that the...
Click to read more »because it cannot be easily accessed online, in contradiction to WP:SOURCEACCESS Did it ever exist? This is verifiable by any decent librarian. Netmouse...
Click to read more »article is no hoax and then relying on WP:AGF, WP:NONENGLISH and WP:SOURCEACCESS to keep the article, which is where I am leaning. 24.151.116.12 (talk)...
Click to read more »instance, them being in Finnish does not make them unverifiable (see WP:SOURCEACCESS) or unreliable. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:46, 24 September...
Click to read more »working for me. It likely wasn't archived anywhere. I think that per WP:SOURCEACCESS, it still "counts"(?), but that's a weird situation of course. ~Maplestrip/Mable...
Click to read more »magazine in the country. (3) Accessibility of a source is not an issue (WP:SOURCEACCESS), nor is whether articles exist on other projects. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk)...
Click to read more »Books as offline sources are verifiable and don't have to be online (WP:SOURCEACCESS). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 04:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)...
Click to read more »December 2014 (UTC) Verifiability is not the same as access, see WP:SOURCEACCESS. Secondly, I am not talking about including every insignificant landmark...
Click to read more »26 December 2016 (UTC) Comment Sources do not have to be online (WP:SOURCEACCESS). We have found sources online that verify his positions as a Justice...
Click to read more »have no prejudice to recreation. Sources need not be online (per WP:SOURCEACCESS) but they must be found in order for a BLP to remain on Wikipedia. Cunard...
Click to read more »sources have traditionally not been considered a show-stopper per WP:SOURCEACCESS (WP:V). Also consider Wikipedia:General disclaimer#Jurisdiction and legality...
Click to read more »required so the fact that most sources are in Dutch is irrelevant. See WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:NONENG. Furthermore, this restaurant was awarded a star by the...
Click to read more »invalid. Fats40boy11 (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Quote from WP:SOURCEACCESS: Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly...
Click to read more »published by reliable, independent publications (See [3], [6], [12]) WP:SOURCEACCESS Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly...
Click to read more »have a source which is said to back up the claim, and the policy WP:SOURCEACCESS states that we are not to reject offline sources but rather WP:AGF. That...
Click to read more »exclude sources that he cannot or will not personally verify, see WP:SOURCEACCESS (trust me, I have some bitter experience with this). PBS's two productionsThe...
Click to read more »you can't see these yourself isn't a criterion for deletion, right? WP:SOURCEACCESS applies, as does WP:AGF unless there's some clear reason to disbelieve...
Click to read more »harder to find, and I am not sure whether that would be successful. WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:NONENG provides solutions to this question. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work...
Click to read more »genuine and cannot be argued down on grounds of inaccessibility, see WP:SOURCEACCESS. So, while the present state is unpublishable I do not think it should...
Click to read more »nomination. Also, sources don't have to be available online, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC) The label is covered...
Click to read more »significant sources are the books cited in the article. Please read: WP:SOURCEACCESS "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an...
Click to read more »in-depth coverage behind a paywall (which should not be rejected per WP:SOURCEACCESS). This institution, like most other universities, meets WP:GNG. Modussiccandi...
Click to read more »April 2019 (UTC) Osomadre: 1. Sources do not need to be online, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. If you have the title of the article/review, the name of the author...
Click to read more »unsupportably more narrow and expansive than consensus. And again, per WP:SOURCEACCESS, your inability to read what I have found isn't my problem--if you want...
Click to read more »do not have to be in the article currently. Also worth noting is WP:SOURCEACCESS, part of WP:V, which says "Do not reject reliable sources just because...
Click to read more »— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmetyal (talk • contribs) Comment WP:SOURCEACCESS, which is a shortcut to policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, states "Verifiability...
Click to read more »else? patsw (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC) With due deference to WP:SOURCEACCESS, it is quite clear that the policy at WP:RSUE has not been observed....
Click to read more »[18] I am leaning towards Keep on the additional basis of WP:NONENG, WP:SOURCEACCESS, WP:WORLDVIEW and WP:AGF for the Kullgren reference and the other references...
Click to read more »met if the sources exist, not if you can read them yourself. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, your inability to find what I add simply isn't my problem. Jclemens...
Click to read more »Page move could be much better option than applying WP:TNT. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, we can not reject reliable sources only because they are inaccessible...
Click to read more »to for the editor to jump through hoops to cite that article, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Joe Roe (talk) 09:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC) Delete (with reluctance)...
Click to read more »12 February 2012 (UTC) Well then you really really need to read WP:SOURCEACCESS because I've verified this. Complete information about the citation is...
Click to read more »addressing new writers is to "be bold." I am going to take that advice. WP:SOURCEACCESS states that "[s]ome reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For...
Click to read more »Yet I have found online and offline sources which I'm applying. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, online sources are not required, and offline sources which can be proved...
Click to read more »subject". The sources which we can't access online are allowable per WP:SOURCEACCESS: "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an...
Click to read more »that "404!" is a totally non-valid argument point to bring up, per WP:SOURCEACCESS from WP:V policy. — Cirt (talk) 06:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Maybe that...
Click to read more »Page move could be much better option than applying WP:TNT. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, we can not reject reliable sources only because they are inaccessible...
Click to read more »free-to-access but lower-quality sources (see WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:SOURCEACCESS), so I wouldn't worry about readers needing to register on an external...
Click to read more »reference).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, sources are not required to be online because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia...
Click to read more »required for WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly...
Click to read more »meant that the sources are offline then the nominator should read WP:SOURCEACCESS which states that such sources are fine. In any case, the information...
Click to read more »in the 1789-1793 range. My general rule is to WP:AGF and point to WP:SOURCEACCESS in such cases, though I do agree the author should have supplied at least...
Click to read more »sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS. Your inability to access sources is not my problem. You're entirely...
Click to read more »sources are not hard to access once clipped, and even if they were, per WP:SOURCEACCESS, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly...
Click to read more »free online all you like but that's not how the policy works. Read WP:SOURCEACCESS, specifically The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease...
Click to read more »there is no demand that sources are available online, see Wikipedia:Sourceaccess. The worst mistake of all is, that nom in an assumed belief in his own...
Click to read more »government login page. — MarkH21 (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC) Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly...
Click to read more »pages that have no way to be verified and some paywall sites. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. If we can't check it, it's not verified, and this, this person fails...
Click to read more »122.49.102 (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Comment according to WP:SOURCEACCESS there is no requirement that sources be online. Mathewignash (talk) 14:27...
Click to read more »online (that I can find), so I can't assess it. I'm well aware per WP:SOURCEACCESS that online availability or the lack thereof does not affect the quality...
Click to read more »the cited source. This despite the fact that he's been pointed to WP:SOURCEACCESS and advised of several methods he can follow for getting the source material...
Click to read more »the vast majority of which may not be accessed by most readers. WP:SOURCEACCESS offers a broad policy on this, which is that we accept sources which...
Click to read more »fact that these sources are offline or paywalled is irrelevant; see WP:SOURCEACCESS.) While I'm not averse to a merge in theory, it probably ought to go...
Click to read more »TWL) May not meet WP:Notability, some or all sources may not meet WP:SOURCEACCESS PhantomTech (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Note: This debate has...
Click to read more »rejected merely on that basis or the absence of verification. As per WP:SOURCEACCESS, waybackmachine can be used to view these sources and authors can be...
Click to read more »2015 (UTC) There is no requirement that sources be on-line (see: WP:SOURCEACCESS). I assume the sources that are cited in the draft are old newspaper...
Click to read more »not published in Internet. Is that right? If so, please refer to WP:SOURCEACCESS in the Verifiability policy, which explicitly says sources do not need...
Click to read more »the relevant page. Offline and paywalled sources are acceptable per WP:SOURCEACCESS, and these are much more easily accessible than that (they WP:NEXIST)...
Click to read more »do not have to have up-to-date links to be usable and valid, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Adding a convenience link to DISQUS could be acceptable, but it looks...
Click to read more »revolutions) 21:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Keep per WP:MUSICBIO#5 and WP:SOURCEACCESS. (This assumes the citations are real.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:01, 27...
Click to read more »that could be online or offline, with or without payment. Read WP:V#WP:SOURCEACCESS Cavarrone (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Fair, but how would the average...
Click to read more »Vexations you can at least use a source like WSJ by looking at its title. WP:SOURCEACCESS states Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult...
Click to read more »functioning. While most of these have been removed, in reality under WP:SOURCEACCESS they do not need to be available online to be included as a source. There...
Click to read more »article stands, it's substantiated by a whole lot of OR. I'm seeing a WP:SOURCEACCESS issue here. X-posting from Aftermath's AfD, wouldn't it make more sense...
Click to read more »different newspapers even better. This would satisfy WP:V as per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Yaris678 (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC) ....Well, I guess the topic...
Click to read more »to use deaddisc.com is it's easier to access; I appreciate we have WP:SOURCEACCESS, but that doesn't help us when we have an article that can't be fact...
Click to read more »on is concerned with the work itself, its creator, and publisher. WP:SOURCEACCESS addresses some of the issue of accessibility but in IMHO that is more...
Click to read more »(talk) 03:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Not published in the sense of WP:SOURCEACCESS or WP:Reliable sources/Cost. Not reliable as not published. Fifelfoo...
Click to read more »functioning. While most of these have been removed, in reality under WP:SOURCEACCESS they do not need to be available online to be included as a source. There...
Click to read more »why the link at ottawacitizen.com no longer works. WP:DEADLINK and WP:SOURCEACCESS say that we don't need to have a working link to reference it, but if...
Click to read more »be considered reliable; please read Wikipedia:Offline sources and WP:SOURCEACCESS. LadyofShalott 02:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Comment - interestingly, a number...
Click to read more »doesn't count"? The only policy that mentions the topic at all is WP:SOURCEACCESS, and it tells us not to favor online sources over other media.--Dennis...
Click to read more »note in the citation.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC) WP:SOURCEACCESS, which is a shortcut to policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, states "Verifiability...
Click to read more »WP:NOTCLEANUP. Whether you can access a source or not is irrelevant. See WP:SOURCEACCESS, WP:PAYWALL, WP:LINKROT. You should trust your fellow editors per WP:AGF...
Click to read more »issue on whether a source is reliable is whether it's verifiable. WP:SOURCEACCESS states that it doesn't have to be easily verifiable, but I'm not sure...
Click to read more »points. First, article references do not require to be online, per WP:SOURCEACCESS, and book sources are perfectly suitable for evaluate notability. WP:PAPERONLY...
Click to read more »page, Wikipedia:Verifiability. Quick access to the excerpt below at WP:SOURCEACCESS, and also a link to Wikipedia:Offline sources, where the template reads...
Click to read more »for awards, and two have been named Storylines Notable Books. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly...
Click to read more »(UTC) A further note about the availability of Doctor Who Magazine. WP:SOURCEACCESS says "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access...
Click to read more »since vast numbers of the best sources are on paper alone. Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS, WP:RSC and WP:OFFLINE. Meanwhile, vandalism only refers to bad faith...
Click to read more »allows you to use the original for verification without any link. See WP:SOURCEACCESS, Wikipedia:Offline sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. If you...
Click to read more »published reliable sources are not (or are behind a paywall). Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS, Wikipedia:Offline sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. So, if...
Click to read more »above have said about the issue that brought you here, please see WP:SOURCEACCESS, Wikipedia:Offline sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost.--Fuhghettaboutit...
Click to read more »of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources" (WP:SOURCEACCESS). If you are going to cite a TV show, you will need to be specific just...
Click to read more »one. — Newslinger talk 09:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC) Relevant link: WP:SOURCEACCESS. Sources don't necessarily have to be online, freely or even publicly...
Click to read more »That an online resource is not needed is clear in WP:V, specifically WP:SOURCEACCESS. The statement about copyright not applying if the clip is short enough...
Click to read more »—TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC) This is covered by WP:SOURCEACCESS, specifically "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult...
Click to read more »sources for verification and in support of claims to notability. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:OFFLINE, there is no requirement that sources be available online...
Click to read more »generally do not buy books that will never do more than gather dust. WP:SOURCEACCESS says that rarity does not eliminate a source. (Answering Tiptoe:) Unsupported...
Click to read more »hands-on inspection only in the UK, at, e.g., the V&A though I suppose WP:SOURCEACCESS covers that. The material I have in mind is, e.g. Michael Kennedy on...
Click to read more »it because you don't have access to the print issue falls afoul of WP:SOURCEACCESS. Like WP:OFFLINE says, it is not good practice to say "Revert - I couldn't...
Click to read more »January 2011 (UTC) I would suggest referring the other editor to WP:SOURCEACCESS. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC) If this question is related...
Click to read more »Google Books to be acceptable as sources, Samuel-chapkovski. See WP:SOURCEACCESS and Wikipedia:Offline sources on this. For instructions on how to cite...
Click to read more »hold of it. I also note that it is NOT a requirement, per Wikipedia:SOURCEACCESS, that this source is available easily, immediately or on-line. As to...
Click to read more »(talk) 03:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Please do not assume like this. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. It doesn't "look" like that when even the page numbers are provided...
Click to read more »to contradict some of what you have said. Note the section about WP:SOURCEACCESS states: ”Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult...
Click to read more »there is a difficulty for ordinary Wikipedians (as acknowledged at WP:SOURCEACCESS) in obtaining the information alluded to. I see no reason to delete such...
Click to read more »summary "Adding archives to assist with Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:SOURCEACCESS". Was it approved for that purpose? Is ghostarchive an approved archive...
Click to read more »The BBC is a reliable source. The aspect of access is covered in WP:SOURCEACCESS and was incorrectly stated above: "If it was only broadcast, and you...
Click to read more »require payment or some shoe-leather with trip to the library. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. If your US government resources are only available to government employees...
Click to read more »How does "published" not necessarily mean wide distribution? Well, WP:SOURCEACCESS meantions "some print sources may only be available in university libraries"...
Click to read more »==Accessibility== ===Access to sources=== {{policy shortcut|WP:PAYWALL|WP:SOURCEACCESS}} {{Seealso|Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange|Wikipedia:Offline...
Click to read more »remote patrons." I'm not sure whether this source is acceptable per wp:SOURCEACCESS. The first sentence of the policy section says that "...'anyone should...
Click to read more »be allowed as that would be a link to a copyright violation). See WP:SOURCEACCESS and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. Just cite them, without using a...
Click to read more »easy to check and/or correct (like an iNat observation)? Yes. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:SOURCETYPES. Wikipedia articles should (in theory) be based on...
Click to read more »not ZjarriRrethues's fault that you don't have access to it (see WP:SOURCEACCESS), and it's not his fault it's not in English (see WP:NONENG).—S Marshall...
Click to read more »time consuming(learning Norwegian so you can read the book). See WP:SOURCEACCESS. 331dot (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC) You may wish to discuss this...
Click to read more »be posted online in order for you to cite it for verification. See WP:SOURCEACCESS / Wikipedia:Offline sources / Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. Furthermore...
Click to read more »notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. WP:SOURCEACCESS Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly...
Click to read more »viewer is necessary to view the content does not detract from that (WP:SOURCEACCESS), although it would be optimal if no special plugin or viewer were required...
Click to read more »The Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland, but WP:SOURCEACCESS means there is some work required to get hold of them. I had a look at...
Click to read more »how fair it is that a source be one that must be bought to view. WP:SOURCEACCESS does address this to a degree where it states "The principle of verifiability...
Click to read more »Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC) The rules in question are WP:SOURCEACCESS for non-online sources and WP:NONENG for non-English sources. Again,...
Click to read more »problematic; but the Resource exchange may still be helpful. See WP:SOURCEACCESS Normally forums are not acceptable as sources, since they are user generated;...
Click to read more »of templates. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC) S_Q, see WP:SOURCEACCESS -- there is no requirement that a source be available on-line. However...
Click to read more »paywalls, so a paywall shouldn't be a reason not to use a source. See WP:SOURCEACCESS on this. Obviously, if there are two equally reliable sources available...
Click to read more »establish notability as much as equivalent online sources. Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS and Wikipedia:Offline sources on this. Of course, it's difficult for...
Click to read more »Sources behind paywalls are perfectly acceptable, CelluloidJam. See WP:SOURCEACCESS on this. Many of the best sources, such as scholarly journal articles...
Click to read more »WP:V make it unverifiable. The relevant sections are WP:NOENG and WP:SOURCEACCESS. If its in another language and/or not easily available, WP:V allows...
Click to read more »(UTC) Hi Majorsongs2. Further on to what 331dot writes, please see WP:SOURCEACCESS and Wikipedia:Offline sources. We require that information in articles...
Click to read more »which can be obtained in a library, on back issue or otherwise. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. When you do cite it with full attribution, e.g., providing the date...
Click to read more »that sources be available online, only that they be verifiable. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. You would of course be citing the source as Channel 4 News, and not...
Click to read more »to do so. NtheP (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Good question. WP:SOURCEACCESS speaks of material in print in libraries for instance. Noticeboards such...
Click to read more »absolutely acceptable to use sources that are not available online. See WP:SOURCEACCESS on this. What you can do to aid verification is to add a quote from the...
Click to read more »verification easier, but they are not required at all. Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS, Wikipedia:Offline sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost.--Fuhghettaboutit...
Click to read more »• contribs) 10:33, June 21, 2021 (UTC) As you will see at Wikipedia:SOURCEACCESS, there is no requirement that a source be viewable online to be considered...
Click to read more »Gab4gab (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC) On that, Gab4gab, see WP:SOURCEACCESS. We do not require sources to be freely accessible. A more suitable template...
Click to read more »user Darkness Shines is removing the content completely disregarding WP:SOURCEACCESS and rather being uncivil in editsummaries to another editor. --lTopGunl...
Click to read more »it doesn't have to be available online for it to be verifiable. WP:SOURCEACCESS is clear about it. There is commonly confusion about this; I recently...
Click to read more »discussion, one of the editors defending the use of the book as RS claims WP:SOURCEACCESS could be used to keep using the book.) The book is only legally accesible...
Click to read more »which are not available online. Please see Wikipedia:Offline sources, WP:SOURCEACCESS and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. You do no necessarily need to cite...
Click to read more »to cite reliable published sources that are not online. Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS, Wikipedia:Offline sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. Best...
Click to read more »content that has to be verifiable, not sources). Please have a look at WP:SOURCEACCESS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Practice in the past...
Click to read more »but I guess better late than never. But back to your request, see WP:SOURCEACCESS, specifically this: Do not reject sources just because they are hard...
Click to read more »that we do not require sources cited in an article to be online (see WP:SOURCEACCESS), and both newspaper articles can be cited just noting information about...
Click to read more »sources are not available online or are behind a paywall. Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS, Wikipedia:Offline sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. So, if...
Click to read more »including it. But the issue can be construed in a different way. WP:SOURCEACCESS makes it clear that sources do not have to be readily available on-line...
Click to read more »effectively pro-Putin?--Brian Dell (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC) WP:SOURCEACCESS is what matters for that particular issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:35...
Click to read more »notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. WP:SOURCEACCESS Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly...
Click to read more »Cordless Larry (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Finally, note that WP:SOURCEACCESS makes clear that just because a source is not open-access, doesn't mean...
Click to read more »any other editors so far have been able to verify this reference. WP:SOURCEACCESS seems to apply, in that being unable to access a source is not a valid...
Click to read more »(UTC) Easy access isn't a necessary condition for use of sources, per WP:SOURCEACCESS, though it's obviously preferable, Stocatta. In this case, it seems that...
Click to read more »should not be removed merely due to linkrot. The relevant policy is WP:SOURCEACCESS. The fact that a link has rotted does not mean the content is unverifiable...
Click to read more »not ZjarriRrethues's fault that you don't have access to it (see WP:SOURCEACCESS), and it's not his fault it's not in English (see WP:NONENG).—S Marshall...
Click to read more »thinks a source must be available for free on-line can be directed to WP:SOURCEACCESS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC) According to WP:BLPPRIMARY...
Click to read more »user who added the source with complete information going against WP:SOURCEACCESS. And I didn't call him a vandal, but his reckless blanking of sourced...
Click to read more »dubious -- not a single one is clickable. This is perhaps taking WP:SOURCEACCESS to an extreme. I'm torn as to what to do here; I'm tempted to stubbify...
Click to read more »Monopoly board from that vintage if they have the money (which per WP:SOURCEACCESS is okay) and verify that what is on the website (and, one presumes, what...
Click to read more »00:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC) Welcome to the Teahouse, TipsyElephant! WP:SOURCEACCESS may be helpful to you. You should probably have access to the source...
Click to read more »my first request, so please bear with me. I was redirected here by WP:SOURCEACCESS. There's an issue on CSI: Cyber (edit | talk | history | links | watch...
Click to read more »how fair it is that a source be one that must be bought to view. WP:SOURCEACCESS does address this to a degree where it states "The principle of verifiability...
Click to read more »explained in the Wikipedia pillar policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:SOURCEACCESS "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access...
Click to read more »image of the newspaper article from the Commons will not matter. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. For purposes of making those citations in any draft you create, I suggest...
Click to read more »3 September 2021 (UTC) @Riverblade: The relevant policy here is WP:Sourceaccess which states "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult...
Click to read more »But it's not a problem if there are sources not available on-line (WP:SOURCEACCESS). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Oh yes I know they...
Click to read more »requirement that books should be available in Google Books; please see the WP:SOURCEACCESS section of WP:V" "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are...
Click to read more »that a source be easily accessible, e.g. clickable/on-line -- see WP:SOURCEACCESS -- but again that's not meant to imply that D&B can be used even if most...
Click to read more »"(online)" above, please note that source do not have to be online. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC) Thank...
Click to read more »believes there may be confusion between WP Guidelines. WP:N, WP:SPS, WP:SOURCEACCESS and finally WP:NPOSSIBLE which appears was never followed by editors...
Click to read more »which cannot now be viewed. A verifiable citation is needed here: see WP:SOURCEACCESS International station opens There are six paragraphs in this section...
Click to read more »(talk) 00:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Offline sources are fine, see WP:SOURCEACCESS for guidance. Using the ProveIt gadget in preferences makes entering...
Click to read more »everyone is not the responsibility of Wikipedia editors. Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS. Just as the user "disagrees with the addition of information citing...
Click to read more »available to the public in some form". Under that definition and WP:SOURCEACCESS, since it's available in a university library I'd say it qualifies as...
Click to read more »is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC) See WP:SOURCEACCESS, how accessible a source is has nothing to do with how reliable it is...
Click to read more »don't think it would be worthwhile to link them, especially since WP:SOURCEACCESS permits the use of offline sources. SounderBruce 00:23, 20 December 2023...
Click to read more »deleting them all leaving content unsourced be inconsistent with WP:SOURCEACCESS? Betty Logan (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC) The proposal is to delete...
Click to read more »for Alanis? ;-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC) And WP:SOURCEACCESS which is part of WP:V says "Do not reject reliable sources just because...
Click to read more »who don't live in Greece, it doesn't mean that no one can verify. WP:SOURCEACCESS exists for this reason. The editor who added the magazine citation to...
Click to read more »is real, cited, and gives a lot of context about the subject. See WP:SOURCEACCESS "Аялынские татары, или о чём говорят деревья" Tobol Tatars as ethnic...
Click to read more »could go and verify the grave itself and that would be inline with WP:SOURCEACCESS, so the image is just a courtesy link. It's really no different than...
Click to read more »any questions. Qcne (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC) Comment Per WP:SOURCEACCESS you should not be rejecting on this basis. Polyamorph (talk) 11:16, 18...
Click to read more »being in French).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC) N WP:SOURCEACCESS + N WP:NONENG. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC) You appear...
Click to read more »You're certainly welcome to use offline sources, as explained at WP:SOURCEACCESS. Sources available via public libraries and online sources that aren't...
Click to read more »repeat advertising. How expensive a source is doesn't matter, see WP:SOURCEACCESS. As per my previous comment the language used and it's time needs to...
Click to read more »2024 election. Reliable sources are not disqualified by access cost (WP:SOURCEACCESS, WP:PAYWALL), and the record runs well beyond "one and local"; the Washington...
Click to read more »allowed to use sources that are more difficult or costly to find, see WP:SOURCEACCESS. In some cases the newspaper in question has a website hosting its own...
Click to read more »received basically the same amount of coverage. Also, offline sources (WP:SOURCEACCESS) are also acceptable and should not be dismissed because some people...
Click to read more »public in some form, and still exists, is considered published. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, that you would have to go to the park to read the plaque doesn't disqualify...
Click to read more »reliability of 24heures.ch is not effected by having a paywall, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. 24 heures is a national Swiss newspaper, it would be generally reliable...
Click to read more »Discord chat room being private and inaccessible doesn't run afoul of WP:SOURCEACCESS? How does one verify the claims made? Secondly, do the chat rooms have...
Click to read more »assessment is probably right. Paywalled content is acceptable, see WP:SOURCEACCESS (and another opportunity to mention WP:WikiProject Resource Exchange...
Click to read more »always an issue, but sources don't have to be easy to access (see WP: SOURCEACCESS). Either way archive.today appears to be able to archive Instagram links...
Click to read more »for being unable to access the first two sources, see WP:PAYWALL/WP:SOURCEACCESS. I have access to the book and it contains a full chapter on Exotel,...
Click to read more »source is easily accessible or not, is not a reliability issue per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Dead links should be marked with {{dead link}} and repaired or replaced...
Click to read more »with your computer? If you are unable to access a source, the policy WP:SOURCEACCESS applies. It says "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are...
Click to read more »Bearian (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2026 (UTC) Keep - Consistent with WP:SOURCEACCESS, additional interviews, profiles, and academic indexing. Tarek Jabr (talk)...
Click to read more »of the sources aren't readily available online, but of course per WP:SOURCEACCESS there's no requirement that they be. Nom should withdraw this ill-considered...
Click to read more »difficult something is to access doesn't effect reliability, see WP:SOURCEACCESS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC) This...
Click to read more »within WP:NEWSORG and WP:RS guidelines when properly attributed. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, many mainstream publications (including Forbes, TechCrunch, and local...
Click to read more »of offline references; I default to trusting them for now. See the WP:SOURCEACCESS section of WP:V which is further explained in the Offline sources essay...
Click to read more »(talk • contribs) 03:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC) Re non-working links see WP:SOURCEACCESS. Also note that you're referring to someone who is no longer pertinent...
Click to read more »anyway to still access the source then this isn't a reliability issue (WP:Sourceaccess). Even if an issue comes up with internet archive another third party...
Click to read more »older and foreign topics"? We aleady have the policies WP:NONENG and WP:SOURCEACCESS. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC) Phil Bridger - I think...
Click to read more »online (that I can find), so I can't assess it. I'm well aware per WP:SOURCEACCESS that online availability or the lack thereof does not affect the quality...
Click to read more »in fact, policy based, even if they didn't reference WP:PAYWALL (aka SOURCEACCESS) or WP:OFFLINE. The consensus at that time was Keep, and the non-admin...
Click to read more »in that. ⚒️MinecraftPlayer321⚒️ | 💬 01:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC) WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:OFFLINE. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC) Delete...
Click to read more »Sources don't need to be available online to be acceptable (see WP:SOURCEACCESS), but they do need to have been published in some form. Could you give...
Click to read more »sources are actually notable (eg, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). Also despite WP:SOURCEACCESS some things like trade publications available only to a limited audience...
Click to read more »IPPON01 (talk) 09:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC) IPPON01 extending the idea of WP:SOURCEACCESS, sources shouldn't necessarily be easy to verify. So probably okay. Are...
Click to read more »As I wrote above, "Sources don't need to be available online". See WP:SOURCEACCESS for more on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2026 (UTC)...
Click to read more »WP:NOENG) and it is OK to use sources that are difficult to access (see WP:SOURCEACCESS). A newspaper of record is almost certainly going to be a reliable source...
Click to read more »are often behind paywalls or not available online, Buryman49. See WP:SOURCEACCESS on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC) If this is...
Click to read more »As they can't be accessed by hundreds of millions of people, or is WP:SOURCEACCESS relevant?. The DDoSing is a relevant issue, that some people can't access...
Click to read more »in fact, policy based, even if they didn't reference WP:PAYWALL (aka SOURCEACCESS) or WP:OFFLINE. The consensus at that time was Keep, and the non-admin...
Click to read more »