Wikipedia:EXPERTSOURCE

Search Results: Wikipedia:EXPERTSOURCE

Redirect to:

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources

This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:

To a project page: This is a redirect from any page inside or outside of project (Wikipedia: or WP:) space to any page within the project namespace (not to a project talk page). The above category link leads to a list of redirects from inside project space. Redirects from outside project space are automatically sorted to Category:Redirects to project namespace.

To a section: This is a redirect from a topic that does not have its own page to a section of a page on the subject. For redirects to embedded anchors on a page, use {{R to anchor}} instead.

From a shortcut: This is a redirect from a shortcut in any namespace to a page in any namespace.
- Shortcuts are wikilinked on community pages, talk pages, and edit summaries, but not in mainspace articles.

When appropriate, protection levels are automatically sensed, described and categorized.

Wikipedia:Verifiability

Kamis, 2026-06-04 01:02:34

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 »

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Raye/archive1

Sabtu, 2025-03-01 07:25:21

12:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC) Seems like Popjustice should okay per WP:EXPERTSOURCE then. I did a brief search and couldn't find a listed winner for the...

Click to read more »

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Magnum P.I. (2018 TV series) episodes/archive1

Selasa, 2025-02-25 07:25:53

executive ([2], [3]), which should meet the requires laid out at WP:EXPERTSOURCE. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC) I've made a quick...

Click to read more »

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 251

Minggu, 2021-10-31 16:23:18

weight. If passes the first because Rummel meets the criterion for WP:EXPERTSOURCE because "the author is an established expert whose work in the relevant...

Click to read more »

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 252

Minggu, 2022-03-27 01:57:08

is supposed to avoid such things. And, by the way, you interpret WP:EXPERTSOURCE incorrectly. Expert's opinion published in questionable sources is acceptable...

Click to read more »

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 250

Senin, 2022-05-16 12:51:37

HLHJ (talk) 04:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC) Hi HLHJ, I've added the WP:EXPERTSOURCE shortcut to the Exceptions subsection of WP:RS, and promoted the subsection...

Click to read more »

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 337

Senin, 2026-02-09 08:33:21

presumably arguing that his opinions on Donovan should be included per WP:EXPERTSOURCE, though they have not provided any sources for this claim, nor could...

Click to read more »

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 346

Kamis, 2023-03-16 21:26:16

article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC) Reliable per WP:EXPERTSOURCE. These guys really are experts, so their views matter. But this is a...

Click to read more »

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/February 2025

Sabtu, 2025-03-01 07:25:39

12:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC) Seems like Popjustice should okay per WP:EXPERTSOURCE then. I did a brief search and couldn't find a listed winner for the...

Click to read more »

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 512

Selasa, 2026-04-14 00:46:50

The New York Times, Billboard, Rolling Stone, Variety. Based on the EXPERTSOURCE: Self-published sources may be considered reliable if published by an...

Click to read more »

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive350

Selasa, 2023-07-18 10:51:44

In both cases it's only usable because the author is an expert. WP:EXPERTSOURCE is a redirect to same part of V as WP:SPS, because there is fundamentally...

Click to read more »