DOKUMEN123.COM

sources should always be ascertained. Shortcuts WP:RSSELFWP:RSSELF WP:RS/SPSWP:RS/SPS Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and...

but the translated paper can be cite alongside, for convenience to non-French speakers. WP:USESPS WP:RS WP:SPS WP:RSE WP:MEDRS WP:SCIRS WP:EXCEPTIONAL...

the subject passes GNG or WP:TVSERIES. The listed citations either fail RS or SPS. This article had already been draftified and subsequently restored, so...

WP:RS/SPS. Khanya seems to be a personal blog, and I couldn't confirm if the blogger is an expert in the field, so I'd say this source fails WP:RS/SPS....

Actually, for a Merge !Vote no such evidence is required, but here is one RS SPS review anyway; I have previously established the credentials of this reviewpublisher...

But this is (I think) a better venue as this is about RS policy and what constitutes an SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC) Yes, it's...

with conflating SPS and RS; a source can be any one of the following: SPS and RS, SPS and not RS, non-SPS and RS, non-SPS and not RS. FactOrOpinion (talk)...

is the skill with which they are verified (WP:V) and reliably sourced (WP:RS); these processes are derived from policy and guideline, respectively. Wikipedia's...

reply here 12:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC) Note the set of RS and the set of SPS overlap, per WP:SPS, in the instance of "an established expert on the subject...

considered WP:SPS. The thing about SPS is that while they might be well written or entertaining or popular, none of that makes the SPS a reliable source...

are unreliable exactly because they are from the person's CV. Fails WP:RS/SPS, w.r.t. "the article is not based primarily on such sources." deadwikipedian...

would be a RS, but not if you or I did so. Newimpartial (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC) Per policy, an RS has to establish the author is a SPS, not individual...

Shortcuts WP:A&M/ORSWP:A&M/ORS WP:A&M/RSWP:A&M/RS WP:A&M/SWP:A&M/S WP:A&M/IWP:A&M/I Articles related to anime and manga need reliable sources like any...

This is an interview. Its an WP:SPS source and is WP:PRIMARY. Ref 2: [2]] Another interview in the same mag. Its an WP:SPS source and is WP:PRIMARY. Ref...

that would make Just Security an SPS (not RS) as per WP:SPS quote in green above. Also, if Just Security is an SPS (not RS) then RSOPINION and RSFACT would...

Experts] 225 views. Non-RS. Women and the Grammy for “Producer of the Year, Non-Classical” A blog, is an WP:SPS source and non-RS. Spotify 127 monthly listeners...

would considered to be an independent, notability giving RS and even the trivial, primary, or SPS are kind of few and far between. It looks like this exists...

Chucks Connection is a SPS, so in order to establish that it's a RS there's a need to show where it's been cited as a RS by other RS. This is usually easiest...

great knowledge of many of these films. In other words, its a fan site or WP:SPS. Akerans (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC) It has a group of writers/contributors...

source is an offline WP:SPS. – Joe (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC) Delete Fails WP:SOLDIER. Only source looks like a WP:SPS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:42...

fascinating how many good-faith editors and deletionists point to SPS as if we had a ban on SPS. I would point such defractors to the fact that they may have...

misrepresentation -- the ones I spotchecked were TV appearances and similarly RS/non-SPS sources. It doesn't at this time look like a separate article is justified...

(generality) understand policy, an SPS is an SPS accuracy is irrelevant. If this was produced by A recognised (BY other RS) it might be usable, no evidence...

WP:CORPDEPTH. Expansion. Ref 10, 11 are patent information, which is NON-RS. They are WP:SPS sources. Ref 12 [8] Funding news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Ref 13 [9] Annoucement...

JSTOR · TWL) Blatant academic spam, mostly sourced to press releases and other SPS, created by aWP:SPA editor who has done nothing but dump garbage like this...

100% on a WP:SPS for all content related to this item and I've been unable to find any other in-depth coverage from anything resembling a WP:RS other than...

self-published (or written) publicity site, not RS. Ref 6. Is the text of a speech he gave to STM. SPS, not RS. Ref 7. Only states that he was "active" in...

free to ping my talk page. Delete Is WP:NN, fails WP:ARTIST, is WP:SPS, and no WP:RS / WP:VS data Ren99 (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC) The above discussion...

well established Wikipedia policy? It covered by WP:SPS. It is self-published source, so its non-RS. Looking at the sources above: Independent News & Media...

Finland 2009 (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Just a couple of RS, the rest SPS or rehashed press realeases and information from outfits selling Nokian...

blogger's views. 1. Fjordman SPS 2. Non-RS blog 3. Non-RS blog 4. Fjordman SPS 5. Non-RS blog 6. Fjordman on blog 7. Non-RS (only indicates that Fjordman...

being nominated for deletion. It's not false. DBrown_SPS 02:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC) @DBrown SPS: One reason to list it for deletion is because it needs...

April 2014 (UTC) Delete Lacks significant coverage in WP:RS, any other instances I found were WP:SPS. Notability not established. --Drm310 (talk) 19:52, 7...

of the subject"). Open wikis are not considered reliable sources per WP:SPS. --McGeddon (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC) Delete. I can't really find...

history. I'll remind the OP he should be aware of the expert provision in WP:SPS as he used the same argument last time. Recommend speedy close of this AFD...

affiliated with reputable universities and scholars (helping to satisfy WP:RS/SPS) and cited in reputable journals and news outlets (WP:UBO). World Press...

journal for social software". --victor falk 07:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC) WP:SPS is quite clear about blogs - we should be careful about using self-published...

(talk) 22:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC) It would still fall under SPS, and per BLPSPS even expert SPS published in conjunction with news orgs cannot be used on...

about the book in RS, at least not enough to where it'd pass NBOOK. It has some coverage in WP:SPS, but none that would be considered a RS on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79...

almost entirely by SPS sources, the majority being Wynnwagner's blog. I traced through a few of the refs that appeared to be non-SPS, but they appear to...

legal recognition. This book looks WP:SPS by the author, so it's not likely WP:RS. Namedrop here, but it's another SPS family history. Just a database entry...

There are plenty of WP:PRIMARY sources and gobs of WP:SPS, but nothing that would be considered a WP:RS per Wikipedia's guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:20...

schism (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Keep I count three RS references among the plethora of SPS, and the Christian Science Monitor appears non-trivial...

October 2024 (UTC) SPS and RS are distinct features. A source can be any of the four: SPS & RS, SPS & non-RS, non-SPS & RS, non-SPS & non-RS. Saying that think-tank's...

Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC) check out the footnote to WP:SPS. Wikipedia:SPS#cite note-5. it states ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal...

Comedy article. The two sources (one of which appears SPS, the other of which isn't clear if RS) mentions Davis only in passing without biographical detail...

WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 02:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC) Delete No WP:RS cited. Getting the award of a day is a WP:SPS until and unless other reliable sources publish statements...

article? It is a self published blog post. SPS blogs can't be used to establish notability. Read WP:RS and WP:SPS....William, is the complaint department...

neta.com/~1stbooks/marin.htm WP:SPS Current ref 4: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/la-mano/message/3099 WP:SPS, WP:RS Current ref 6: http://www.aworldtowin...

see wp:rs. Self published sources are very rarely allowed as sources (thought they would be for some of the information on this article (see wp:sps) but...

SPS and WP:COI. I would however point out that I did also say "personal websites", which these fansites are. Unfortunately these do not satisfy WP:RS...

6 Filibeat Non-RS. Ref 7 [1] Account suspended. Ref 8 Profile site Primary. Signficant:No, Independent:No, In-depth:No Ref 9 About SPS site. Signficant:No...

of those books is not a WP:RS, if it was it would not be published through bubok(an English language page here), see WP:SPS. Heiro 10:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)...

now?) 18:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC) I think the Geocities source may be a WP:SPS that meets reliability (if it's the same one we checked last time through)...

News - no mention of the organization Tides Canada - not independent, WP:SPS as organization is a partner, further, organization is not discussed, just...

owner:Online 16:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Delete. The first two sources are WP:SPS, and all other sources are either music hosting services, mention the artist...

April 2017 (UTC) delete advertising brochure, sourced from SPS; there is a lack of independent RS with substantial discussion. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 16 April...

the founder; it is not self published. Besides, as you'll see from WP:SPS and WP:RS there is actually no rule against using SPSs or blogs as reliable sources...

times and paid notorious vanity press iUniverse to print five "books." As WP:SPS, they cannot be used to establish notability. Qworty (talk) 05:22, 26 January...

not WP:SPS. It is from the publication of a separate institution. I removed the citations from OSSAE website because of WP:ORGIND and WP:SPS. But the...

source, provided they meet WP:RS and the info cited is WP:VER. In some cases, I would agree with the point that a WP:SPS source can be acceptable. But...

other sources, but they'd be considered WP:SPS and/or too WP:FRINGE for Wikipedia to consider them usable as a RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:36, 14 August 2014...

from a borderline notable product. Current refs- ref 1 is a SPS, refs 2 and 6 aren't RS, ref 2 describes itself as a blog with a poor About us, likewise...

needed to pass WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 18:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC) SPS and SPS, don't contribute to notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:29,...

weapons-grade vanispamcruftisement lacking WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG … appears to violate WP:CRYSTAL … nothing but WP:SPS references (links to subject's own website)...

(UTC) Delete. should have been speedied as WP:SPAM. Plenty of WP:SPS, and only one WP:RS, merely reporting on an event – insufficient to demonstrate notability...

staff. Not a blog. Not SPS. Fatally Yours offers an in-depth interview with the director about his film. Not a blog. Not an SPS. Fatally Yours also does...

"NO RAT[ING]"). No wiki article, not in WP:A/S, seems very much like WP:SPS. metal-rules does not exactly come across as a professional review site with...

A Pictorial History seems to be an e-book lacking a publisher - or a WP:SPS - which is not a reliable source. Icewhiz (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)...

notability and sources since then. I have looked for sources and have found only SPS and other unreliable source. Fails, WP:GNG, WP:FILMMAKER, and WP:BIO. The...

for the statements in question? WP:SPS says that self-published sources can be used in some circumstances and WP:RS says that the source only has to be...

meets WP:RS as an independent, reliable sources. THose are press releases, blog posts, and other SPS. I have removed all of them per WP:RS, and thus...

Council, which is standard for breeders, does not denote that it is a WP:RS or SME SPS. The same is of Dashing Hamster- it is a blog with no indication of...

piece was part of their blogs, so it wouldn't be seen as a RS on here because it's a SPS essentially, as the HuffPo doesn't really regulate that section...

Can't find any WP:RS to demonstrate that he satisfies WP:BK or WP:AUTHOR. His one book is out from lulu.com, a vanity press, thus WP:SPS. Qworty (talk) 20:19...

non-RS (Discogs, Musicbrainz, AllMusic) and WP:BEFORE only discloses similarly non-RS (e.g., sale and download sites, fandom.com, YouTube, other WP:SPS etc...

SPS needs time to percolate a bit, but initially I am not at all seeing it the way you are. 4) WP:RS.. you mention one source that seems to fail RS but...

15 October 2023 (UTC) Delete Nothing in News, NYT, and a whole bunch of SPS that don't give information about Raspcontrol. TarantulaTM (speak with me)...

and coming music group, but this is WP:TOOSOON. The sources are either WP:SPS or mere mention's in articles such as "artists to watch for in 2015," nothing...

2010 (UTC) To repeat, the issue is not RS (a guideline), it is SPS (part of a policy). Please review the WP:SPS section for the relevant definition, viz...

published by reliable third-party publications" to be reliable under WP:SPS. I'll comment on verifiability versus notability below. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus...

the search,[1] it would seem current "coverage" is restricted to non-rs blogs and SPS. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Delete. Not notable. Binksternet...

scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Refs are blogs, PR and WP:SPS sources. Not independently notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 15:33...

to "Does it meet WP:N?" There are sources. Some are SPS, some not. Even though some of these SPS author publications are going out through erudite channels...

relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications" (WP:RS/SPS). Also, per WP:CREATIVE, the subject's guest of honor roles demonstrste...

Zimbabwean media. Gwatakwata (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Blogs are WP:SPS. They are not a reliable source. scope_creepTalk 10:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)...

scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) A ton of WP:SPS and what isn't SPS is not mentioning the school directly, but pointing to statistics...

enthusiast. The source in the article does not look like an RS to me (it's got a single editor, so an SPS or blog), and looking for other sources I'm only finding...

considerable amount of the references are to online WP:UGC or WP:SPS, therefore not qualifying as RS. File:15th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)...

show WP:SPS or just articles with comments by subject, not about subject. Triwbe (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Delete. Little or no RS coverage...

admits, and therefore cannot be used to demonstrate notability, per WP:SPS. No WP:RS sources exist to establish WP:N. Everything on Google appears to be...

23:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC) User talk:Roman Spinner that page is WP:SPS and we don't use SPS for extraordinary/promotional content like "one of Macedonia's...

amazon.de is a bookseller site, and Facebook pages are unsuitable per WP:SPS. I couldn't find anything more suitable via a Google search. Richwales (talk...

refs- two YouTube videos considered as SPS and a BGG link with just 30 ratings. On Google, News, Books, and BGG, no RS could be found. GNG is not met at all...

about using self-published sources (like a personal website); see WP:RS/SPS and WP:SPS. If you want to rely on a self-published source, you have to demonstrate...

free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails GNG for lack of RS. Also, WP:SPS as the “BoD” books are Books on Demand, a German self publishing company...

FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Citations are mostly WP:SPS and/or non-independent. Also of note: There are several entities known as...

TWL) Non-notable French not-for-profit. Available sources are either WP:SPS or largely editorial. Nothing found to meet WP:ORGDEPTH Tgeairn (talk) 04:58...

self-published source is generally not held to be a reliable source WP:RS/SPS. The book therefore might not help to establish notability under the WP:GNG...

the article to this, but the sources were not sufficient, being mostly WP:SPS, blogs, myspace etc. Ty 06:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Comment There's probably...

Surely he can be counted as an established expert in the field per WP:RS/SPS. SpinningSpark 23:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC I'm not sure why you are suggesting...

personal blog is SPS and thereby is not acceptable RS? An answer might start off saying "Murphy's personal blog is acceptable as RS in the article because...

of Sultan of Oman, but only has WP:REFBOMBS of fake sources and WP:SPS with no WP:RS. even if not a hoax, Notability is not WP:NOTINHERITED DBigXrayᗙ 01:45...

September 2014 (UTC) WP:SPS??? Wow. IMDB is a for-profit enterprise and now a subsidiary of commercial giant Amazon.com. It is no way WP:SPS. While it is not...

WP:NOTPROMOTION promotional article for a commercial software. All sources are WP:SPS and owned by parent company IPMG, see its AfD/IPMG and AFD/Shamsaldin that...

July 2017 (UTC) Delete: no independent notability is established. Mainly WP:SPS. DrStrauss talk 08:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...

Non-RS. The first ref you put is a blog. It is WP:SPS source and is Non-RS. The second ref you put in an auction site. It is unreliable and Non-RS. The...

Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Delete. 2/3 sources are WP:SPS. WikiScrubber (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC) The above discussion is...

of Sultan of Oman, but only has WP:REFBOMBS of fake sources and WP:SPS with no WP:RS. article was started with edit summary "missing page on the Al Said...

subject upon request from the website hosting them, so I don't think it is RS (SPS). The other sources seem similar, at best what we get as a WP:INTERVIEW...

consists solely of passing mentions, directory entries, blogs, tabloids, WP:SPS, press releases and social media. ——SerialNumber54129 12:24, 23 November...

2016 (UTC) Comment: That book is published by lulu.com, a known WP:SPS and non-WP:RS. See admin Utcursch note here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:44, 21 April...

source and not really a notability giving WP:RS right now. Medium.com would also be considered a non-RS SPS in this situation. They do have a staff that...

Than means it is now a WP:NOR/WP:PRIMARY violation rather than a WP:SPS/WP:RS/WP:COI violation. Agricolae (talk) 03:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC) Delete...

be less of a RS than a 538 article, depending on the content of course, and a self-published podcast would surely be covered by WP:SPS the same as any...

improved. --Onetimememorial (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC) Please read WP:RS and WP:SPS, those first two links are far from reliable. The two remaining links...

I brought it up at WP:RS/N and they pointed out a few things that would make it potentially a WP:SPS, including the fact it's hosted via...

rundown of the sourcing: Tilting at Pixels. This is an interview with a WP:SPS. Interviews tend to be greatly depreciated on Wikipedia since some editors...

Phil Bridger (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Most fringe books aren't! WP:SPS suggests that books should be treated with scepticism. Although I admit it...

11:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC) Delete Fails WP:RS and has no results on scholar, WPRef, etc. Most sources are WP:SPS and this is a WP:MILL Drum Corp. AmericanAir88(talk)...

Week is the most obvious RS, but the reporting came from the two blogs. It seems to me that Mr. Hartley should satisfy WP:SPS, as "an established expert...

and was already A7 speedy deleted once before. External links are to WP:SPS. Drm310 (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included...

requirements of WP:RS, but does it count as self-published under the stricter requirements of WP:BLPSPS, which prohibits ALL use of SPS, even expert SPS, as sources...

WP:NBOOK, relying upon a bundle of SPS, including YouTube, Reddit, threads, and other forums. Given the lack of any RS, there's nothing worth preserving...

  // Timothy :: talk  07:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC) Delete. Sourced solely to a deprecated SPS. Note these princely state succession articles (or most of the people listed...

WP:SPS. GiantSnowman 08:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC) I don't think you can eliminate the entire content of http://espn.go.com/espn/blogs as a source per WP:SPS....

images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Refs are either primary, SPS, shops or non-RS. Fails WP:BIO, WP:ANYBIO. scope_creepTalk 15:03, 21 January 2022...

classify the sources you mentioned predominantly non-RS, but rather a mix of WP:RSSELF, WP:RS/SPS, WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:SELFSOURCE. Even though WP:SECONDARY...

professional reviewers like Ken Hite; it is not a "Fan site" in the sense of WP:SPS. Newimpartial (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC) According to the site itself...

primary source. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC) WP:SPS by a non-expert. Fails WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC) Can I please get...

remotely enough to pass NBOOK. The only other things were a handful of WP:SPS like blogs and e-commerce sites selling the book. This is actually mildly...

blog who seems to have an interest in promoting their book. Medium is an WP:SPS. No solid secondary sources in any reliable media. --Lemongirl942 (talk)...

ascertain if the author, J. Varsoke was an "established expert in his field" (WP:SPS) but could not find any evidence of this. Marasmusine (talk) 10:21, 24 March...

procedure seems to be more a matter of whether they're an RS rather than whether they're an SPS. Are non-SPS generally reviewed by more than two editors? It seems...

15:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Comment - The author(s) removed most of the WP:SPS links, but a long list of trivial references is not the same as "substantial...

author who has not been vetted as a "expert" via WP:SPS and is therefore not a reliable source. (WP:ANIME/RS#Unreliable). The AnimeNation blog entry is merely...

and WP:MUSICBIO. This piece in North Wales Live is the only piece of non-SPS coverage I can find and does not demonstrate notability. An AfD in 2004 demonstrated...

were SPS. There's some that is a bit questionable, but offhand the rest seem to be OK enough. 411MANIA is probably OK - they do seem to be a RS on wrestling...

images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Violates WP:ADVERT, WP:SOAP, WP:SPS. Lacks notability. Primary website link not working. Veryhuman (talk) 23:21...

"Kashmir Watch" sources cover the topic in detail, the source is WP:SPS and thus not a WP:RS. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Note: This...

Pure weapons-grade vanispamcruftisement unsupported by any WP:RS coverage, just WP:SPS from YouTube and the subject's own personal website. Happy Editing...

not a WP:RS. Offliner (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC) The quote LokiiT cites is actually from the paragraph below the one tagged WP:SPS. And it's...

understanding of the industry and a lack of interest in finding out. Per WP:SPS, Tweets from the creators can be used to fill in information if it's not...

(UTC) Not true. It meets all the WP:RS guidelines. Also, rename de Bivort 20:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC) Please read WP:SPS. Teamliquid is a fansite and a wiki...

for AfD - as it sits, the article cites no independent RS, and is heavily dependent on its own SPS which is a no-no. I found this NYTimes article which...

Yes it's reliable, No it's not a SPS. Blogs /= SPS. Black Kite (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC) RS? Affirmative. SPS? Negative. -- This would seem to...

links as RS but the Softpedia one looks good. I believe the Softpedia review could be considered "published" so there won't be a need to invoke SPS and check...

Non-RS Ref 2 [2] "She spoke to The Arab Weekly via WhatsApp." That is a WP:SPS source. Ref 3 [3] This is a Forbes profile on a X of Y list. It is non-rs....

SPS" - I'm still waiting for you to provide a link to such a consensus. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Review the archives at WP:RS/N...

published sources such as blogs are not generally considered reliable. See WP:SPS. The only exception to this is self published material from a recognized...

perfectly consistent with WP:BLP WP:RS and WP:SPS to source a statement as to what religion a person practices to a SPS by the subject about him or herself...

whilst a WP:SPS, has a reputation for accuracy, fact checking and editorial oversight, and is also independent of any airline. It is a very WP:RS. Mjroots...

(talk) 10:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Comment – I wasn't absolutely knocking SPS, but we can't base a BLP on it. His self-publications were most of what was...

interview, which does nothing for notability and is a zine, which is WP:SPS albumoftheyear must admit that I am not sure of this website, but note that...

Comment: All sources provided in the talk page are wikis (WP:UGC) and blogs (WP:SPS). MarioGom (talk) 05:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC) I disagree, yes the article in...

mention of the publisher was to make clear that at least one book was not SPS. WP does not require multiple reviews of books to establish notability for...

WP:CREATIVE, WP:BIO, WP:BK, WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:SPAM, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:SPS, WP:SPA, etc. Qworty (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Delete- I...

not twist WP:SPS into WP:RS. Jim101 (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC) For the record here, no wiki style sources has ever passed the RS check here. The...

existing source. Ref 3 is probably an SPS, and ref 4 might not be an RS. Still, there's probably enough (trivial) RS for it to be merged to Lovecraftian...

December 2021 (UTC) Delete - Lacks SIGCOV in RS, fails WP:GNG. WP:Before only turns up user-submitted/SPS fan websites. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:36, 17 December...

the prior afds, and it is obvious they fail WP:RS, another policy that governs these sources is WP:SPS which states, "Anyone can create a website or pay...

only RS availale is the Detrot Metro Times, and that's little more than a plug for the new weed laws, everything else is as the OP notes, WP:SPS and YouTube...

Shortcuts WP:VG/SWP:VG/S WP:VG/RSWP:VG/RS WP:GAMESOURCESWP:GAMESOURCES Articles related to video games need reliable sources like any other Wikipedia article—content...

several of the sources here can probably be considered reliable under WP:SPS. This game might not be as notable as some of the blockbuster titles coming...

descriptions (like that on CNET) don't count. Facebook and Tweeter are WP:SPS. TopTen (the only source not generated by author directly) doesn't seem reliable...

have some coverage although one of them is a colonial era book. I found one SPS here, though it also uses a 1911 census data. Nothing much in contemporary...

reliable source per WP:SPS. If you don't think Jason Sanford is a valid source for writing and short fiction, then please read WP:RS. HeartSWild (talk) 11:49...

criticisms from blogs are included in body. No neutral coverage could be found in RS. petrarchan47คุก 06:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC) The article has 7 references...

enthusiasts/fans, so the site does not appear to be a subject-matter-expert WP:SPS. VickKiang (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC) DVD Talk is pretty selective...

• Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC) The ref you provided is an SPS. The Best Picture award is actually presented to producers, not directors...

primary (WP:PRIMARY) or self-published (WP:SPS)[1][2] and lack substantial independent, reliable coverage as per WP:RS . But, the article's tone is promotional...

releases are considered SPS, and should be collected directly from the source, or an RS site, we have not concluded that IPR is an RS site here, we've concluded...

self-published but still reliable by virtue of the "recognized expert" clause of WP:SPS (blog posts from famous mathematicians). I just added two more peer-reviewed...

As to how an SPS is used? The policy allows specific exceptions. If those specific exceptions, namely SPS by established expert or SPS is the topic itself...

JBsupreme (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC) For all practical purpose is a WP:SPS. The article is authored by Stefano Tognon, the same guy that edits the magazine...

from the underlying highways. As it is, this article relies solely on a WP:SPS to establish the existence of the concept. This is a contested PROD that...

dubiously titles itself "Chhattisgarh News" aka chhattisgarh.news, is probably SPS. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been...

Eaton" source. Is this RS? Is Solie's Vintage Wrestling RS? Kayfabe Memories does not look like RS, and is listed as unreliable at PW/RS. There is a self-published...

recognized expert in the field of email and email formats, as such, as per WP:SPS, his mailing lists posts can qualify as reliable sources. (I certainly count...

publications. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Delete. A stack of SPS. Delete it. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Weak...

The other "source" is from a forum or blog (not generally reliable per WP:SPS). I couldn't find any other usable source in a Google search. Richwales (talk...

sources.AM (talk) 10:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Nope, reviews on Amazon are SPS and not reliable here in WP. I will talk you through all this. Wikipedia...

WP:5P, also I think you need to have a very solid grasp of WP:RS in its entirety, WP:BLP, WP:SPS, WP:OR, WP:NOTABLE, WP:SYNTH, WP:CS and occasionally WP:UCS...

(UTC) To clarify, RS Reuters calls his piece a "blog post." [3] Hersh posted his blog post in a social media blog named Substack. WP:SPS says "social media...

views) (delete) – (View log) This article has no WP:RS and won't have any, most of the sources are WP:SPS by Google which violates WP Policy. Remember WP:NOT#JOURNALISM...

sources added, and arguably only one qualifies as a third-party RS. (about.com is considered SPS). And that's only to meet WP:V. WP:N still fails as there is...

Their co-ordinated editing pattern, is the reason I'm suspecting those as SPs. When one user gets notified about their peacockery, another user steps in...

blatantly fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:GNG, WP:ADVERTISEMENT, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NEVENT, WP:SPS and WP:PROMO Wikipedian Forevermore (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC) —...

Sources which nearly invariably fail WP:SPS. Forgive me, but I'm going to go on a tangent: Policies such as WP:RS have always seemed extremely defensive...

vetting), including subject's website. The book involved appears to be WP:SPS. Nat Gertler (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC) This book is being published...

(WP:SPS, WP:RS, WP:PAYWALL, etc.) so can you please identify specifically which sources "pass" the WP:GNG? Specifically: Authors blog — fails WP:RS Author's...

January 2018 (UTC) I wouldn't bet on it, to be honest. It looks very WP:SPS-y. I've only seen one author ("cinderboy"/Robert Chen) and I can't see any...

that the author is a subject-matter-expert is undiscussed, it should be a SPS and generally unreliable, similar to a WordPress blog per WP:RSP, unless...

blogs and the postings are attributed, not posted by readers; Not clearly WP:SPS in my book. Sources like these is how information now spreads on fast-moving...

an WP:RS A collection of youtube excerpts is not an RS Iron chariots is a wiki and therefore not RS Austin American Statesman is actually an RS but a...

Fails WP:PEOPLE per WP:TOOSOON (if ever at all). No WP:RS coverage. Singular career. Found only in SPS, forums, and blogs. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:18, 4 December...

WP:BEFORE only discloses similarly non-RS (e.g., sale and download sites, fandom.com, lyrics sites, YouTube, other WP:SPS etc.). No evidence passes WP:GNG or...

sources which are cited do not feature this person as their subject or are WP:SPS. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC) The above discussion is...

dissertation - and is not an SPS by Wikipedia definition. [4] lists the paper as a PhD dissertation -- guess that is SPS? American Buddhism: Methods and...

2022 (UTC) Delete. I cannot find coverage of this individual outside of WP:SPS. There is no indication that he passes WP:NBASIC or WP:NARTIST. This might...

websites, and forum posts. None of these are reliable sources. See WP:RS and WP:SPS for reasons why. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)...

Insurmountable problems with WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:V, WP:BK, WP:RS, WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:SPAM, WP:SPS, etc., etc., etc. Qworty (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)...

Endofskull (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Delete - A WP:SPS (the subject's own website) is not a WP:RS … the other "reference" is dubious as well. Happy Editing...

fails to find any other sources. Current refs fail WP:GNG and WP:RS, very minor/SPS, there's even a Google Drive link there. All books published by "Fratire...

issue seems to be with WP:SPS (no one has yet managed to produce on piece of evidence that the site fails WP:RS or WP:V Huh? WP:SPS is part of WP:V! WP:V...

JSTOR · TWL) Non-notable person. All of the sources are non-neutral WP:SPS and fail WP:RS. This is most likely a misinformation spread by Islamic missionaries...

Delete, SALT, and block the author Every source cited fails WP:SPS or at least isn't WP:RS. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC) Speedy Delete...

field is tied to someone's Steam account gives great pause and indicates WP:SPS territory, thus disqualifying it as a source for Wikipedia purposes. metalstorm...

discuss it 04:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC) delete TNT. all sourced from poor SPS sources, and has unsourced content. Clearly PROMO and would need to be written...

Carolina (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC) Delete. Other than YouTube and SPS reviews like Saberspark's (which while funny, can't establish notability)...

in a permanent collection, so he fails WP:NARTIST. Some citations fail WP:SPS and using VFMA's Instagram is questionable although maybe allowable. I don't...

that would be considered notability giving. It's mostly sale listings and SPS type of posts. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:40, 24 July...

something anybody can do, and that's why it doesn't mean anything. Please see WP:SPS. Qworty (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC) Delete: Per the reason provided by...

sources are the personal websites of people trying to sell pups and unreliable SPS/SEO sites. In this particular case, there are presently two breeder sites...

source. Especially not the musician's own channel (again see WP:SPS) are there any WP:RS discussing this artist? I was unable to find any in my WP:BEFORE...

related to the encyclopedia or the user proper. User account is a SPA with 4 SPS-created articles, centering on Planet Poker. A review of the page history...

28 November 2019 (UTC) Delete - fails GNG & V. The few sources cited are SPS, non-independent or unreliable sources. None of the long established, reputable...

(bearing in mind that the reference is a conference proceedings) for WP:SPS or even WP:OR. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 06:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Delete...

picked it up, doesn't mean its a respectable source. As to who made, pr WP:SPS clearly states "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable...

corroborative evidence that this is what it says it is is their own website; per WP:SPS, this is not a source for the topics existence or verification. Combined...

references to SPS above are misplaced. I don't know why there is a bias against certain types of publishing models, but sites like Gawker are more RS than most...

Serbian newspapers or other authoritative places? The gallery listing and SPS blog aren't very reliable sources alone. czar · · 01:14, 3 November 2012...

quite debatable. Jclemens says some refs give acceptable SPS coverage of the topic. But WP:SPS sources do not contribute to the notability of the topic...

that meets the guidelines explained below. The relevant passage from WP:SPS is as follows: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when...

of WP:SPS. I'd even be cautious about using it as an external link. TimidGuy (talk) 12:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC) Obviously fails WP:RS/WP:SPS. Jayjg...

all references to it are WP:SPS. menaechmi (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Delete: simply fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:RS. DrStrauss talk 10:38, 1 August...

his (supposedly seminal) book Guerrilla PR 2.0 I've found nothing but WP:SPS and vapor. The fact that he's a publicist who's also written some 'light'...

All up, three RS attesting to the reliability of this website is OK, and I think gets it across the line as being a RS itself per WP:SPS, though with the...

(UTC) Sorry I have a hard time believing you have actually read WP:RS/SPS or WP:SPS. The exceptions are either that 1) the site creator is an established...

applicability of WP:SPS, the argument is that self-published sources are considered experts about their own opinions per WP:RSOPINION; not that WP:SPS "does not...

based on one single website; which seems of dubious reliability (it's WP:SPS by somebody who does not appear to be any form of authority in art history)...

either to disputed areas of IMDb sourcing (WP:RS, WP:CIMDb), or to self-published promotional websites (WP:SPS). While I have no doubt that the credits listed...

promotion for a non registered right group and is completely based on WP:SPS. There is nothing salvageable here. Kudos to the nom for digging this out...

source not only fails WP:SPS but also fails every aspect of WP:RS. This is just an attempt to redefine the meaning of a SPS in order to ignore the consensus...

substantial coverage in reliable sources. What's there now is entirely WP:SPS. Unable to find needed coverage. Simply not notable. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:42...

(this is obviously still a blog, but I think it's more compliant with WP:SPS): [1]. And here's a post on MetaFilter (which is a high-profile community...

Henderson (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Regardless, that website fails WP:RS, WP:SPS. Graywalls (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC) You have replaced the website...

verify if it'd be usable, since it's published through Lulu- making it a SPS of sorts. If you can find enough sourcing I'm willing to change my vote....

WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) No RS's to pass GNG or PROF. Long tagged with multiple issues. Searches reveal only SPS's and brief mentions. Barcaboy2 (talk)...

cannot be considered significant coverage. laststandonzombieisland.com is SPS, and esssentially everything else is brief mentions of the sinking as a small...

article has been heavily edited from its former version to eliminate all WP:SPS for neutrality's sake (much to my chagrin, as I considered them contextually...

there's only one that meets RS (Die Welt). The Dresdner FC one is SPS and maybe not independent, and Blogspot is certainly not RS. I'm especially concerned...

Under WP:SPS this is WP:RS, although those who don't get WP:SPS often don't see that. And sometimes editors try to blur the distinction between WP:RS and WP:SPS...

PlusPlusDave (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Keep Refs 4, 6, 8, 10 are all WP:SPS by Raph Koster, who is a legitimate expert in the field of game design. In...

but what makes him reliable as a WP:SPS? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC) It appears to me that WP:SPS supports his reliability as an exception...

published source Site is owned and edited by a single person making it a WP:SPS, non-RS. Looking at the sources, this is a clear delete at this time. This is...

October 2019 (UTC) Yes As per SPS his blog is an RS for his view, as long as they are attributed. But only his posts are RS, not anything else anyone posts...

no WP:RS sources exist, both in English and in Russian. Most of garbage articles regarding it (especially in Russian) are WP:UGC and WP:SPS.108.30.101...

word without backing evidence. De-PRODing an endorsed PROD because of an SPS claim with zero other sourcing is incredibly shoddy work and forcing an AfD...

reading of the RS policy or guidelines on that. Let's assume it's authentic, but it is unquestionably a SPS and a primary source. A SPS cannot be used...

article ought be deleted specifically pursuant to WP:V (subsection WP:RS, WP:SPS) policy. In lay terms I believe that the subject of this article i.e....

doesn't look like it meets guidelines of WP:RS. What is their publish process? Are they peer-reviewed? WP:SPS contains a specific exemption for acknowledged...

discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC) Delete lots of trivial or SPS sources.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC) Delete - WP:GNG is not...

Rathfelder (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC) Delete: relies totally on WP:SPS to establish notability. SITH (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC) Note:...

usually are given a bit more slack under WP:RS. In the second Krugman entry he links to the whole DeLong-Murphy SPS blog debate and people who -want to get...

meet criteria that the author is a subject matter expert as given by WP:SPS (though the author's publication are probably not acceptable for WP:N purposes...

appear to be listed as an authority elsewhere. It's incredibly hard for SPS to be counted as reliable sources, but it's still a requirement. It's really...

understanding of what constitutes significant coverage. Doesn't meet WP:SPS. scope_creepTalk 12:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC) Not a blog. Oklahoma magazine...

scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Does not pass WP:N or WP:RS, the sources are not notable or independent of the subject, and there is no...

name one mainstream WP:RS which disagrees with Vojtisek. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC) Westarp Science is a WP:SPS publishing house. tgeorgescu...

kinds of SPS. Guy (help!) 15:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC) True, but the issue is not "is it an SPS" but "can we uses this SPS". So either the tag "SPS" must mean...

WP:ATD. IMHO the Forge review is RS since it is written by Ron Edwards (game designer), and such an author makes it pass WP:SPS ("s. Self-published sources...

self-published teaching guide, without editorial oversight, that violates WP:SPS. Footnotes 2 and 3 merely mention the subject in passing, as part of a long...

article, which is just a reprint of a blog review, which is considered a WP:SPS. He landed on the Amazon bestseller list, however that's a list that's specifically...

collaboration with Miller This is not independent, nor is it reliable. It is WP:SPS and fails WP:SIRS. It is junk. * Larry H. Miller buying Arizona dealerships...

are 3 external refs on there, all of which meet WP:RS, although one of them would be regarded as WP:SPS in this context (which is no reason to remove it...

2017 (UTC) The Ottawa Citizen is a RS, and the waset-watch blog cited in the article is not a RS, but links to three RS discussing the article. —Kusma (t·c)...

self-published, his reviews are generally considered reliable under the part of WP:SPS that says self-published content from experts can be considered reliable...

JSTOR · TWL) non-notable tag since 2012, most references are WP:PSTS or WP:SPS. May be in the news recently due to stepping down as CEO, but otherwise not...

like a SPS, not RS interview with the artist may be significant coverage, but is a dead link brief mention, not SIGCOV one-man website/blog, not RS Before...

other hand, is a notorious unreliable source. Speedupcomputers.org is WP:SPS. Softpedia review is the only valid one here but one coverage is not "significant...

especially concerned about their reliability. They do truly come across as WP:SPS. Overall, this album appears to run into problems with WP:NOTINHERETED, WP:NRV...

are small-run, self-published works that span genres". So, this fails WP:SPS, and the "reliably published" requirements for sourcing. while I was quite...

money to pose as a published author. Obviously, per WP:SPS, those titles cannot be used as WP:RS to support WP:N or WP:CREATIVE. Qworty (talk) 23:31, 25...

an an editor's personal involvement smacks loudly of WP:COI and thus WP:SPS. It passes WP:Crystal and WP:V in that it exists, but fails WP:N big time...

to a different standard. See WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:48, 24 May 2026 (UTC) WP:SPS says Self-published sources may...

Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC) Delete Sources are WP:SPS websites and the historical disputes that caste articles attract means that...

section, but I couldn't find anything in a RS about the Sony website rumors. They're on various blogs and other SPS, but not in anything Wikipedia would consider...

source for the circuit is clearly a WP:SPS, author unknown, so does not meet the requirements for being a WP:RS. Reliable sources for these "seasons" do...

I say they are SPS because of lot of it seems to be generated by the PR team, its their own work, so by a loose definition is a SPS. The rest of the...

Thompson is an expert on manga, so the review can be considered reliable per WP:SPS, even though it was posted to a livejournal page). In total, the reviews...

references in article qualifies as a WP:RS and talks about the subject (the Inc. blog entry). (The Franchise King is a WP:SPS, the BlogWorld site is one for an...

page.‎ The result was keep. There are many refs here to sources on WP:VG/RS, and I looked at all of them. But there are a few that point to reliable,...

was solicited on the basis that I regularly participate at RS/N. DeCamp is not a RS: SPS. Bryant is published by a poison press. The reason for unreliability...

(talk) 09:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC) The first is unreliable (iUniverse = WP:SPS). The second appears to be just an amalgamation of Listverse.com "Top 10...

only two sentences. The Gamer Report - I can't tell if this is a WP:SPS or a WP:RS. If I give the benefit of the doubt, that's one item of significant...

there is to the subject. Part of the reason is that they're published by WP:SPS and other encyclopedically unreliable sources. The other part is that they...

falls below the RS threshold (though I concede that my other link included a press release verbatim). The relevant passage from WP:SPS reads, "Self-published...

dictionary are not reliable sources (WP:RS is not a policy). The closest you can get as far as I can see is WP:SPS: For that reason, self-published books...

spirit of WP:GNG / WP:RS . Churnalism should be avoided or excluded. If publishers being deemed RS is at odds with individual RS used in the article being...

as evidenced by the lack of WP:RS. In searching on this all I could find on topic were blogs, forums and other WP:SPS sources. It does seem to be a plane-spotting...

Dish, which is an RS. It is not established by the SPS LewRockwell blog. The Fred Reed stuff (which does appear to violate WP:SPS) was added by Carolmooredc...

this particular article under WP:USERG and WP:SPS even if other articles at Globalresearch.org are RS. The author of this specific article, Stephen Lendman...

blog sources are the ones that came up first. (Blogs are usually seen as WP:SPS that cannot be used to source notability on Wikipedia because they're self-published...

Oaktree b (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC) the one cited in the article is a SPS, but yes, all I found is a few other sources simply mentioning it. Avilich...

Facebook comments, and various posts from astrology forums (all are either WP:SPS or WP:USERG). Absolutely no coverage in popular Indian media. Vote for speedy...

basically a paraphrase of the source it's taken from, and the RS of it is questionable as WP:SPS, and even that source says information is sparse, and it's...

entirely from sources that would not meet WP:RS (eg. Local history blogs, discussion forums and WP:SPS). Perhaps an archive like Trove might be useful...

which is a blog but may qualify as reliable expert-written material under WP:SPS.) I don't think we need two articles, so we should merge them together under...

according to WP:BK, having received zero media attention. Also have a look at WP:SPS to learn more about self-published sources. These are just a few of the WP...

webforum posts and other WP:SPS, it's a fan-invented name for List of Tekken characters#Legendary Capoeira Master, but without WP:RS, there's no way to add...

amazingly unhelpful. Like you, I found repeated references to them in SPS, but nothing in RS. And even though numerous reliable sources DO call the film award-winning...

Rosguilltalk 07:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC) The Kyle Orton blog [1] does meet RS under WP:SPS. Orton's work has been published in the International Business Times...

Ref 4 is a blog is WP:SPS and non-rs. Ref 14 has been watched by 217 people. Ref 15 by 73 people. Ref 23 is facebook. It is non-RS. I don't know who got...

don't see a way to keep most of the text in the article as it's either WP:SPS or unsourced in a way that violates WP:BLP (WP:SELFPUB, WP:BLPSPS). If this...

sources), and with the two other reviews being inacceptable (blog/forum=WP:SPS) this fails at NBOOK/GNG requirement or 'in-depth coverage in multiple, independent...

info. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC) @Leitmotiv Please see WP:SPS. Unless the fan page is maintained by an estabilished expert who has published...

these being acceptable.. not without either ignoring or rewriting WP:RS and WP:SPS. Sarvagnya 05:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC) I'll say what Relata said above...

in detail (Gamespot). Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC) See WP:SPS per gamespot-Cs california (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC) The above discussion...

WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. Per WP:SPS social media and Youtube aren't RS. I haven't been able to find more RS about the subject, only blogs and music...

by Canuck Hockey, a single purpose account. Short on WP:RS and relies too heavily on WP:SPS Ohconfucius ¡digame! 20:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Delete...

article used to have more sources but they were invariably blogs and other SPS material. Here is a link to the prior revision before they were removed....

differentiating a SPS and an established ref. IMHO, a RS needs to at least have its editor-in-chief or editors to appear in a couple of other RS, I just did...

Quackwatch under BLPSPS, it's best if that's undone as a violation of WP:SPS. SPS explicitly has the language that we can't use self-published sources as...

search are immediately identifiable as good RS, since places like Flickering Myth can be easily seen as a SPS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:24, 8 December 2015...

The one that might be independent (not sure) is Michael West Media (a WP:SPS?) which does not cover the subject in-depth. A search I conducted only found...

opposition to another RS/N question regarding the Dreger article itself. "Independently established as experts" refers to the criteria in WP:SPS. That has been...

Ramos1990 (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC) No its not RS, it would fall foul of both wp:primary and/or wp:sps.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC) No...

source fails WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC) A government highway planner writing about a highway certainly meets SPS. Squidfryerchef...

the case, the SPS criteria seem to say that if you publish your own material that is an SPS, but this is not as RS issue so much as an SPS issue and thus...

has been tagged for notability, sources, reading like an ad and use of wp:sps for nearly a year. Vague wording of the name makes it difficult to narrow...

accuracy. How are these personal and hobby sites acceptable per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:SPS? Seventeen fair use images. WP:NFCC#3A requires minimal usage. Why is...

(UTC) "In general, SPS should be considered unreliable": That makes "SPS" a technical criterion in the context of applying WP:RS. No problem with that...

(UTC) I agree Khaleej times is RS but the article here seems from a contributor and not from a staff, so the it must follow SPS and seems not independent....

this is a useful utility. --Kvng (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC) WP:SPS says "self-published media ... are largely not acceptable" and offers only...

July 2022 (UTC) No. It's WP:SPS and anything to do with job searching websites is going to go over poorly in terms of RS. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:33, 24...

would point to the guidelines. To me, Superdownloads appears to be an WP:SPS: "This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including...

as WP:SPS. However, I certainly wouldn't cite it for any controversial material and you definitely need to use in-text attribution. OTOH, WP:SPS does have...

notable ensembles." I agree that the current sourcing is sub-par. The only non-SPS is this City of Joliet and it's quite weak. I feel like the individual meets...

images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Page itself fails WP:OR, WP:GNG, WP:SPS (most of their sources especially the website, like the blogs), and WP:NCORP...

is non-trivial in coverage but it is a self-described zine, which are WP:SPS Overall, this album appears to run into problems with WP:NOTINHERETED, WP:NRV...

found no RS reviews, only passing mentions in the context of the band. Regarding the existing source, obscuresound.com is a blog, so WP:SPS applies. Jfire...

to another wiki (ubuntu wiki and [1]) won't help (wikis are unreliable WP:SPS). I have trouble opening the last ref but the url clearly calls that a blog...

is less of an RS then an Undue question. So the question is is this a history or a memoir, the other question is is it SPS? It is an SPS, which must raise...

so I'm not going to argue with you. As for self published sources see WP:SPS. Metal lunchbox (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Assuming that by "user"...

organisation. Fails WP:NCORP. First main block of references is WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS sources. scope_creepTalk 07:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC) FYI, we just closed...

are nor RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Thanks for your input, Slatersteven. I don't know that Parkz meets the criteria for SPS; I have...

Keep - Per the existence of sources uncovered by JohnnyMrNinja. Additional SPS sourcing can be found on the internet archive here (Useful information can...

deletion discussions, right? And you're aware that WP:SPS by a recognized expert, which Koster is, is an RS for all uses? Jclemens (talk) 04:17, 24 December...

article. Here's a blog entry from this month from the Edmonton Journal (per WP:SPS: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these...

Connected to an article previously marked for deletion by nomination. DBrown SPS (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included...

fails WP:MUSICBIO. Of the sources I could find that did not fail WP:SPS, many failed WP:RS and were not independent of the subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:12...

fails WP:SPS but by all means open the links and translate for yourselves. The two bashinforum cites might be ok but I have doubts championat is RS based...

This is a SPS, so the issue here is twofold: is this person someone who would be considered a RS enough to overturn the general consensus that SPS are unusable...

sanitised vanity bio where most of the details are sourced only from WP:SPS. His one claim to fame seems to be having discovered and signed Madonna to...

unfortunately IMDB and Facebook are not considered Reliable Sources, see WP:RS (and WP:SPS). The reason is these sources can be edited by anyone, just like Wikipedia...

(talk) 18:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC) Delete Led to a WP:RSN discussion concerning SPS sources, and apparent beliefs that corporate press releases regarding the...

source used for the overview section in the jawp article ([7]) is an WP:SPS. I don't think there's enough information in reliable sources to meet WP:GEONATURAL...

state published in an WP:SPS, (3) a prayer in the same SPS, and (4) to a guru at the same temple in (2) again published in that SPS. None of this even approaches...

Chessman site might be independent and reliable though it seems to be a SPS. I cant' find anything else that even might be. No boardgamegeek page either...

Delete - would change my mind if article was based on WP:RS and the first reference wasn't a WP:SPS. - Scarpy (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC) Delete -...

This source is from Ancestry.com and may be a WP:SPS, but even if it is not then it only meets WP:RS by WP:ASF. Therefore meeting of WP:V is questionable...

Delete: No evidence of notability, all sources are self published -- see WP:SPS. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Note: The following editors...

non-primary reliable sources. If these sources are not reliable, and fall under WP:SPS, then regardless of the length of the review, those sources could not be...

WP:CREATIVE, WP:BIO, WP:BK, WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:SPAM, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:SPS, WP:SPA, and no doubt several more policies and guidelines we could...

evidence of WP:PROF level recognition or general notability, sources are all WP:SPS. Wunderkidding (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Wunderkidding (talk) 23:07...

presented in RS's. Of course, Ross's SPS site should not be used for statements about something other than Rick Ross, but neither should RS's be used to...

Independent, Reliable Sources; 2) written by LLM see WP:NEWLLM 3) Self-sourced WP:SPS and WP:PROMOTIONAL sourced almost entirely to Anthropic itsself. ---Avatar317(talk)...

going for it. Books-reviews.co.uk looks like it'd be considered a blog-type SPS, so I wouldn't really count that towards notability. Porphyra Books doesn't...

July 2014 (UTC) I agree with you in that message boards are covered by WP:SPS; however, they can be used as "reliable" sources about themselves (per WP:SELFSOURCE)...

would be a WP:SPS. There are plenty of notifications about him teaching classes and whatnot, but not really anything that would count as a RS. If someone...

April 2017 (UTC) delete fails GNG and this is promotional and full of WP:SPS. Jytdog (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Speedy Delete - per A7. Jdcomix...

am alwys willing to change my mind. But just to let you know, per WP:RS and WP:SPS, official or not, user edited networking sites such as Facebook are...

"new words and slang" section is not a reliable source, it falls under WP:SPS) - SudoGhost™ 04:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Keep this is an emerging technology...

14:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC) It looks like a RS to me. Certainly massive detail. It may also be a SPS, I can't tell. The 3 or 4 reviews I read were by...

transliterations of public domain texts. Clear fringe non-expert WP:SPS with almost no uses as a WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC) Framing...

people; no nontrivial GBooks hits. No reliable sources in article, refs are SPS and retail sites. Survived AFD in 2007 on grounds that an (unsourced) claim...

reliable sources that are independent of the subject – only reference is a WP:SPS written by the subject. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)...

shouldn't be accessed. This is why we should only use SPS if they've been thoroughly vetted in RS. Granted it's unlikely for the entire Wikipedia to topple...

1960s UFO encounter (which was initially speedied as a hoax), just a WP:SPS monster blog from a couple of years ago and a brief entry in a paranormal...

Magazine [1] & [2], Bandcamp, CNBC, and Outburn. Comment Bandcamp = WP:SPS and fails WP:RS. CNBC and Outburn sources for this particular matter is Churnalism...

references in the article. 1st is WP:SPS, clearly doesn't count for WP:N purposes. Second is PCMag, recognized WP:RS. The rest (software.informer, registercleanerstested...

would need to see their editorial policy before I come down on it being an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC) There is one result when I Google...

observations of SPS, or inappropriate archives of media content). I don't know where the mentors hang out. Normally by the time something hits RS/N it is a...

new "sources" appear to be translations of the book itself published by an SPS service, and come nowhere close to contributing to WP:GNG. M Imtiaz (talk...

blogs are not appropriate sources; we need third-party coverage (see WP:SPS). If you find sources that could be appropriate, typically articles published...

accept the value of the WP:SPS guideline. So it's best just to follow the guideline, recognizing that personal websites are not RS. As for withdrawing the...

reasons for nominating. My reasons are the strict policy of WP:N, WP:RS and WP:SPS. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Weak delete, I can't see...

Vasquez Jr. of Cinema Crazed - he's seen as one of the exceptions to the SPS/blog rule. He's been used as a source (or his reviews mentioned) in academic/scholarly...

WP:ANI, "Just because it is a blog does not mean it isn't reliable - WP:SPS says that "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable...

RS for the article being merged is irrelevant to the decision to Merge, per policy. Even if the only sourced content on Phage Press consisted of SPS,...

is not a directory or a consumer guide, and most of this page is just OR/ SPS spam. Even the main source here, cryptocompare.com, is an advertising business...

(UTC) Delete or Redirect Of the 13 references, 6 are non-rs, 2 are the band site so are WP:SPS sources, 1 is an apple listing, ref 12 doesn't mention it...

version with rules change, but with a single ref that's probably the worst SPS I ever saw (can't believe a website made in 2022 would be so bad) with no...

blog, and and tuxmachines.org entry is user-submitted, which falls under WP:SPS. Neither of which can establish notability. The linux.com review is the only...

directories "workflowy.com Site Infosite". Alexa Internet. Retrieved 7 June 2018. SPS one at that "Crunchbase Profile". Retrieved April 25, 2016. mundane review...

(UTC) It's the personal website of Henrik Franzon; i.e. a WP:SPS. It does not qualify as a WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 05:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks, look...

clean page that does need more improvement. There is nothing wrong. DBrown SPS (talk) 04:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC) Keep – Agreeing with above. Xboxmanwar...

(UTC) Comment. I've heard of this, but sources are pretty thin. In a WP:VG/RS custom Google search, I found this Polish review, but that's about it. NinjaRobotPirate...

Wikipedia does forbid refer [sic] to self-published work, please read WP:SPS. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 17:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Please see WP:NOTABILITY...

are RS; blog postings by contributors must be treated as WP:SPS. Dead on. Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Forbes/sites is patent WP:SPS stuff...

they seem about equally WP:SPS, with the possible subject-matter expert exception. See also WP:RSPYT. CNN on YT is as WP:RS as CNN elsewhere. Gråbergs...

sources", all 3 being BLP-violating SPS (with one fully deprecated). I'm guessing any of the info showing up in actual RS news is either already on Lima's...

managed to pass notability (as you have demonstrated) it is acceptable to use SPS (such as his own website) for non-controversial information such as routine...

published sources. Regarding typewritermuseum.org and geocities sites: WP:SPS sets forth that such sources “may … be acceptable when produced by an established...

11 December 2021 (UTC) Springee - You say that Greenwald is not RS because he is SPS. I agree with that. Valjean says about Greenwald: he has no credibility...

its that clear cut). So is it an RS? Is it an SPS? Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC) I don’t think SPS applies. However, as it is less...

Blockchain for Islamic Finance. Hussein Elasrag. This book appears to be WP:SPS Amazon kindle spam. Not usable at all. Grayfell (talk) 19:22, 11 October...

20:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC) Not RS, at least not for this stuff. Recently got to the article via the drama on ANI, SPS is quite clear on this, Callahan...

Keep covered in multiple, independent RS. The Bruce Sterling piece is a usable self-published source per WP:SPS, since he's an expert in the field. Lack...

All the referenced pages in Bacon's own blog are, well, right out per WP:SPS. Same with the page from Mark Shuttleworth's blog. If there is any other...

limited info from the band's website and blabbermouth (which seems to be a WP:SPS) a dead link to the band's label (the label's current version doesn't seem...

template, and no indications that the website meets the requirements of WP:SPS. What I wonder is how did someone find that link because I cannot find it...

it's still used. Also unreliable is the 4th ref. Ref 15 is also another SPS talking about itself, which per the guideline, is all right when The material...

are no third-party reliable sources to define notability. Please see WP:SPS. Also that other articles have problems does not mean that the policies should...

about WP:SPS? That page says it takes precedence over WP:RS because it is a policy. Even though Stallman is an expert in his field, WP:SPS says "Self-published...

CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Delete, Several WP:SPS and lack of WP:SIGCOV.--Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 20:04, 18 February 2021...

so many WP:SPS that the remaining ones are probably so also (CNET, SFSU). And there goes your article. If someone cared to stub it to WP:RS only and continue...

from other sources that puts them into the RS category. And to add, I also don't believe they are an SPS, as I do reasonably believe they have an internal...

hallmarks of WP:TENDENTIOUS. Sources are poor - passing mentions and WP:SPS. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...

public, whch are WP:SPS sources. Others are proclamations. You can see his signature at the bottom of the documents. These are non-rs. None of them are...

WP:SPS non-rs source. Ref 2 [2] This is a single word mention. It is not significant source. Ref 3 [3] This a 4-line profile. Its another WP:SPS source...

gaming that may not pass WP:GNG. A search for "kiting mmo" finds tons of WP:SPS, but one book mention: a footnote that incidentally gives an etymology that...

This book confirms the existence of the Whispering Sands bar. Although an SPS, it is good enough (IMO) for the purpose of verifying this fact as it is...

consider reliable and would help the work pass NBOOK. While we can't use WP:SPS like blogs, I have to mention that I'm not even seeing any blog coverage...

the need for individual elements to be RS'ed as long as the whole is. WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB cover the use of such sources quite thoroughly. Jclemens (talk)...

this point in time. The coverage is predominantly through blogs and similar SPS. The AZ Central hosted their ballots, but a look at the article shows that...

fact-checking. Therefore, the site is no more than a self-published source, and an SPS should never be used to determine notability, especially for a BLP. ♠PMC♠...

(read: anyone can put in the magazine anything they want, making it a WP:SPS), I'll let you have the second DeveloperIQ citation. I do like that your...

that the second author is a subject-matter expert to consider it under WP:SPS -- Ab207 (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough...

doesn't even appear in this article. As far as self published blogs, WP:SPS also applies but no, we do not accept contributor pieces unless they are...

primary purpose of a religious website? Color me unconvinced that this WP:SPS is a WP:RS. See also sister site catholiconline.shopping[41]. From the Justice...

TWL) Not enough to meet notability guidelines. (E.G. Guardian article is WP:SPS, election results are trivial, some other articles aren't more than a mere...

"About us" of this website mentions that it is a blog which constitutes WP:SPS. This source is a retailer, hence definitely not reliable. This just verifies...

taking place over a single source – [4] – that User:Epeefleche claims is RS, and sufficient to include the statement that Patrese is Jewish. User:Spatres...

nothing on weebly is likely to carry much weight; academia.edu is obviously SPS and we do not use sources affiliated with the caste. FWIW, the weebly thing...

Keep and tag for cleanup to address pov and expansion to make encyclopddic. SPS is misquoted here, as they are NOT published by Shannon Lark, and are pubications...

book is out from Trafford, a vanity press. Fails WP:BK, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:SPS. Qworty (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Delete - No significant coverage...

I don't see a WP:GNG pass either. The sources in the article are all WP:SPS; searching online, I find basically no news sources (although he's published...

have an apparent conflict of interest: After the Crown (afterthecrown.com): SPS Wordpress blog/promo by a former Miss Georgia. See "What is After the Crown"...

are limited the WP:USERGENERATED Flight Safety Foundation wiki and a WP:SPS site based on the wiki, plus a couple WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. I also see no evidence...

books are never allowed per wp:rs it`s pretty straightforward about that mark nutley (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC) WP:SPS pretty clearly defines the very...

start mentioning Youtubers. If you want to improve it, please see WP:RS and WP:SPS for starters. But as I said, this seems like a minor event, not even...

the Subsim site is probably the strongest of your links. It is still an WP:SPS so a little further investigation is needed to see if Neal Stevens can be...

JSTOR · TWL) Not notable. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Only one WP:RS, the rest are user edited, WP:SPS, or blogs. Group is currently at AfD for lack of notability...

certainly qualifies as criticism, but the source may not reach the standard of WP:RS. I'd welcome the help from more experienced editors than I on this matter...

above. There is a brief 2020–21 season preview in what appears to be a WP:SPS, which wouldn't count towards notability. Her former club, Thy-Thisted Q...

permitting SPS from 'experts' with this explicit top-level requirement for independence, I have to conclude this leeway given an expert for SPS is not intended...

16:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Read WP:V for a definition of WP:RS, WP:SPSSELF for when WP:SPS are acceptable.— Racconish Tk 17:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)...

WP:RS, like Fox News, and then under the requirements for other broadcast media. It's never acceptable if it's a self-published source (see WP:SPS) unless...

XOR'easter.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC) Generally No Like any WP:SPS they can be used for (some) information about themselves but definitely not...

Pharmboy (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Netadmintools is a blog, and per WP:SPS isn't a source that verifies notability. Candidly, I missed the Linux.com...

reliable sources? I'd say they're more WP:SPS. AdventurousMe (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC) Gadling is not RS. "Gadling is the world’s top travel blog...

report says X,Y,Z"(cite RS and maybe SPS), or "RS reported that watchdog report claims X,Y,Z",(if very contentious and if the first RS to bring up the issue...

local coverage, but not much beyond that. There are some SPS reviews, but none that look to be a RS on Wikipedia. As the nominator said, Film Threat would...

provided, and there is no staff page whatsoever, so this Wordpress blog still a SPS. The MUBI entry is just a database entry and not a full SIGCOV-meeting article...

GoodReads fall along the same lines, as it'd also be considered to be a SPS. As far as pages created by other people, the existence of other pages doesn't...

Delete Not a single WP:SECONDARY source in what is WP:BLP. Refs are mix of sps sources, other sundry sources, all unrelated to proving the individual is...

astrobiology and bioastronomy became part of our lexicon. According to WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced...

WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. The only source listed is a post on a bulletin board forum, which does not meet the requirements of WP:SPS. The discussion...

published anything that would establish him as an expert in the field per WP:SPS (assuming this individual is the same Klaus Intemann appearing in Worldcat)...

per SPS, both part of V. Amateur sites do not ordinarily satisfy the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" part and are then damned by SPS. They...

lightly repackaging press releases and republishing them. These sources are WP:SPS and not independent: Phys.org Eurekalert ScienceDaily These are blogs that...

grahamstevenson.me.uk source is reliable despite being an WP:SPS since it was written by Graham Stevenson; SPS makes the distinction that self-published sources...

the SPS "expert" exclusion as RS, since we accept "expert in the field" fairly broadly. But the issue may boil down to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, not RS. If...

Bangeroftheday does not necessarily meet WP:BLOGS. However, according to this the SPS blogger was a professional at "national Radio Disney and Radio Disney Country...

part of the story by Robert Sheaffer) is not enough. The rest is all WP:SPS blogs and WP:PRIMARY docs from fringe players like MUFON, or WP:SENSATIONAL...

appears this would very much be considered an SPS as the sponsors paid for the book to be printed. Although an SPS, the author is a history graduate and was...

like a SPS to me https://www.history.co.uk/ is not an RS Sourcing style is inconsistent 11 and 17 go to the same place Is the Morning Star an RS? The Frosty's...

purchase or examine. The part about living people is simply not true; see WP:SPS, part of the verifiability policy. Stop comparing it to other articles. We...

describes deprecation and all that it entails. There is: a section within WP:RS (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Deprecated sources), the information page WP:DEPS:...

I noted above I can see the argument that a SPS, published by a RS would become reliable assuming the RS applied their own editing to the article. My...

perhaps the late Psychotronic Video, although that had problems as an WP:SPS.) I don't have time at the moment to dig through those and figure out if...

first edition was published by Penguin books) The second source, how is it a SPS? Can you please explain, because I don't see it as one. --SMS Talk 19:59...

of sensory processing sensitivity (SPS); it is not "all premised on a wp:neologism for 'highly sensitive.'" And SPS is, as I just demonstrated, used in...

RS (one in fact was from the BBC, very non RS that). As to the SPS, which was was an SPS? Nor am I lawyering. Lay of the assumptions of bad faith.Slatersteven...

sources you listed, but spontaneously, the only one that sounds WP:RS with WP:SPS caveats is the site that claims to have veterinary specialists reviewing...

whether is reliable and meets WP:RS or not, thats why we here for. Jrod2 (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC) According to WP:SPS personal website are not considered...

listings, or anything that resembles reliable sources. Moria is another SPS, whereas the 2nd source is a trivial mention and the 3rd source is from its...

are anything other than fans with an opinion), this really falls under WP:SPS. With respect, I feel that if anyone considers the site to be a reliable...

very nice one, but a SPS nonetheless. So, I was inclined to dismiss it out of hand, but we have to ask the second question per WP:SPS: Is the author is a...

they an SPS, not if it is allowed as an SPS. You have failed to answer that with the above. SPS does not mean "does not cite experts", an SPS has no editorial...

article, is not really a RS, even if it is a moderated list. A moderator is not the same as an editor. It's more of a WP:SPS see also the essay point...

really covered the film. There are a few SPS, but I'm not certain if any of those would be considered a RS. The film itself could redirect to either...

Chats in a broader context; and finally all other sources are either WP:SPS or make trivial mention of Ralph. The content dispute which led to this realization...

issues applying that same level of SPS/PARITY across to all of his other sites by default. The site in question for this RS/N is mlmwatch.org. I would also...

some of the reliable sources making him notable? I assure you facebook, WP:SPS and commercial sites selling records do not actually qualify for the purpose...

themselves as anti-RS. NPOV means RS mainstream views and RS significant minority views, not RS and anti-RS. Sources that are explicitly anti-RS are generally...

properly use WP:GUIDELINE... specifically the guideline you shared at WP:SPS from which I may now quote "Self-published material may, in some circumstances...

Deprecate per Sturm and Nigel; it's a SPS, plain and simple. Parsecboy (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC) Not an RS - Not seeing anything that would support...

(UTC) What SPS are you referring to? (FAS?) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Presicely the point. We do not have a SPS. WikiCopter...

---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC) SPS, not a RS. Fladrif (talk) 03:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Just Some Website. Dlabtot...

18:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Citing press releases is discouraged under WP:SPS (which is sensible, given their lack of peer review and promotional purpose);...

pageantopolis.com (cite #5 and #6) as having no evidence that it is a RS – in fact it is WP:SPS. Of course the pageant site itself (cite #8) doesn't work either...

The JHR site also contains this posting which may count as RS under WP:NEWSBLOG or under WP:SPS (because the poster was the senior writer for the Encyclopedia...

GNG in a revived AfD. As I understand it, the basic concepts behind RS, and even SPS, is based on whether the author is writing about their topic of expertise...

they are compliant with Wikipedia policies & guidelines including WP:RS, WP:SPS, and in this case WP:PAYWALL. Also bear in mind that WP:COI calls on you...

Subject fails WP:GNG. A BEFORE search revealed no SIGCOV in RS. The cited sources fail WP:SPS so there's no claim of notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:03...

Delete/merge The sources used by the article indeed appear to be hobbyist WP:SPS. The Kleuser page even states "Information from Wikipedia is not always listed...

have in common? They attack Collins's WP:RS/AC claim, and the sources they use are often WP:FRINGE or WP:SPS (if any source gets mentioned at all). None...

software. No GNews hits. GHits consists of blogs and forum hits. All refs are SPS or download sites. GregJackP Boomer! 14:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Keep I assume...

For Novella’s work they’re a SPS, but that is in general OK because Novella’s view is notable and often covered in WP:RS. Also just a sidebar but being...

that are possibly unreliable underlined: 4 citations to Heraldica.org, an SPS (by a non-expert) that doesn't seem to have been updated since the early...

final source is simply a list of the Apache BoD's. Also, please read WP:SPS, which is directly on point: "Self-published sources should never be used...

See, I follow the policy chain like... WP:WIAFL references WP:RS which references WP:SPS, which is followed by WP:SELFPUB (both being paragraphs within...

disclosed financial interest in the article, and the sources are both WP:SPS and advertisements. I don't want to chase anybody away from en.wiki, but...

and I am not sure on, but does not have an article and my concern is WP:SPS. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC) We have AllMusic, Blabbermouth...

itself. 3rd one [3] seems to be created by Phrearch, that's SPS. Ignoring that, it's not RS. 4th one [4] does not mention HWIOS Since, apparantly, Phrearch...

should not be used as a SPS unless A) when the subject at hand is the TA, as AQFK proposes and B) attributed opinion, but only when a RS makes note of this...

rescue. Extensive use of WP:SPS Poray. Radom Ghetto - Edit series. 452/856 words (52.8%) to Polish rescue. Extensive use of WP:SPS Poray. Piotrus restored...