MyWiki:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/2/sandbox

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary <section begin="deprecated"/>
Baidu Baike (Baidu Wiki) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2020 1 2 3 4 5	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Baidu Baike was deprecated in the 2020 RfC as it is similar to an open wiki, which is a type of self-published source. Although edits are reviewed by Baidu administrators before they are published, most editors believe the editorial standards of Baidu Baike to be very low, and do not see any evidence of fact-checking. The Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures kuso originated from Baidu Baike. The Baidu Baike domain also includes a website archiving service (baike.baidu.com/reference), which unlike the encyclopedia articles (which are hosted under baike.baidu.com/item/), are acceptable to use as accessible links for reliable sources.	Template:WP:RSPUSES <section end="deprecated"/>
Ballotpedia Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is no consensus on the reliability of Ballotpedia. The site has an editorial team and accepts error corrections, but some editors do not express strong confidence in the site's editorial process. Discussions indicate that Ballotpedia used to be an open wiki, but stopped accepting user-generated content at some point. Currently, the site claims: "Ballotpedia's articles are 100 percent written by our professional staff of more than 50 writers and researchers."	Template:WP:RSPUSES
BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	22	Template:WP:RSPLAST	BBC is a British publicly funded broadcaster. It is considered generally reliable. This includes BBC News, BBC documentaries, and the BBC History site (on BBC Online). However, this excludes BBC projects that incorporate user-generated content (such as h2g2 and the BBC Domesday Project) and BBC publications with reduced editorial oversight (such as Collective). Statements of opinion should conform to the corresponding guideline.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Behind the Voice Actors (BTVA) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2022 +10	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is consensus that Behind the Voice Actors is generally reliable for roles credits. Editors agree that its coverage is routine and does not contribute to notability.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Bellingcat Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2019 1 2 3 4 5 6	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is consensus that Bellingcat is generally reliable for news and should preferably be used with attribution. Some editors consider Bellingcat a biased source.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Benzinga Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2025 1 2	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is consensus that Benzinga does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and often does not disclose sponsored content, and so is generally unreliable.	Template:WP:RSPUSES <section begin="deprecated"/>
Best Gore	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2021 Spam blacklist request 2021	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is consensus that Best Gore is a shock site with no credibility. It is deprecated and has been added to the spam blacklist. Best Gore shut down in 2020; website content is no longer accessible unless archived.	Template:WP:RSPUSES <section end="deprecated"/>
Bild Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2025 1 2 3	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Bild is a German tabloid that has been unfavourably compared to The Sun, and is considered generally unreliable. Some editors suggest that it should not be used for contentious and/or personal information about living people. Some editors suggest however that its interviews with public figures as well as its sports coverage may be usable depending on context.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Blaze Media (BlazeTV, Conservative Review, CRTV, TheBlaze)	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Blaze Media (including TheBlaze) is considered generally unreliable for facts. In some cases, it may be usable for attributed opinions. In 2018, TheBlaze merged with Conservative Review (CRTV) to form Blaze Media.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Blogger (blogspot.com) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	21	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Blogger is a blog hosting service that owns the blogspot.com domain. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Blogger blogs published by a media organization should be evaluated by the reliability of the organization. Newspaper blogs hosted using Blogger should be handled with WP:NEWSBLOG. Blogger should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons; this includes interviews, as even those cannot be authenticated.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Bloomberg (Bloomberg News, Bloomberg Businessweek) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 4	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Bloomberg publications, including Bloomberg News and Bloomberg Businessweek, are considered generally reliable for news and business topics. See also: Bloomberg profiles.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Bloomberg profiles Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Bloomberg company and executive profiles are generally considered to be based on company press releases and should only be used as a source for uncontroversial information. There is consensus that these profiles should not be used to establish notability. Some editors consider these profiles to be akin to self-published sources. See also: Bloomberg.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Boing Boing	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 A	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is no consensus on the reliability of Boing Boing. Although Boing Boing is a group blog, some of its articles are written by subject-matter experts such as Cory Doctorow, who is considered generally reliable for copyright law.	Template:WP:RSPUSES <section begin="deprecated"/>
Breitbart News Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2018 Spam blacklist request 2018 +16	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Due to persistent abuse, Breitbart News is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. The site has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories as fact. The 2018 RfC showed a very clear consensus that Breitbart News should be deprecated in the same way as the Daily Mail. This does not mean Breitbart News can no longer be used, but it should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability. It can still be used as a primary source when attributing opinions, viewpoints, and commentary. Breitbart News has directly attacked and doxed Wikipedia editors. Posting or linking to another editor's personal information is prohibited under the outing policy, unless the editor is voluntarily disclosing the information on Wikipedia.	Template:WP:RSPUSES <section end="deprecated"/>
BroadwayWorld Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 4	Template:WP:RSPLAST	BroadwayWorld is considered generally unreliable, as it contains many articles that reproduce press releases, disguising this as authentic journalism. As the site has limited editorial oversight, and the true author of the content of press releases is obscured, this website should generally not be used for facts about living persons.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Burke's Peerage	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2020 1	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Burke's Peerage is considered generally reliable for genealogy.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Bustle	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2019	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is consensus that the reliability of Bustle is unclear and that its reliability should be decided on an instance-by-instance basis. Editors noted that it has an editorial policy and that it will issue retractions. Editors also noted previous issues it had around reliability and that its content is written by freelance writers – though there is no consensus on whether this model affects their reliability.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
BuzzFeed Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Editors find the quality of BuzzFeed articles to be highly inconsistent. Respondents to a 2014 survey from the Pew Research Center on news sources in America ranked BuzzFeed at the bottom of the list. BuzzFeed may use A/B testing for new articles, which may cause article content to change. BuzzFeed operated a separate news division, BuzzFeed News, which had higher editorial standards and was hosted on a different website. See also: BuzzFeed News.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
BuzzFeed News Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	12	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is consensus that BuzzFeed News is generally reliable. BuzzFeed News operated separately from BuzzFeed, and most news content originally hosted on BuzzFeed was moved to the BuzzFeed News website in 2018. In light of the staff layoffs at BuzzFeed in January 2019, some editors recommend exercising more caution for BuzzFeed News articles published after this date. The site's opinion pieces should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. BuzzFeed News shut down in May 2023, and its archives remain accessible. See also: BuzzFeed.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
California Globe	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2021	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is consensus that The California Globe is generally unreliable. Editors note the lack of substantial editorial process, the lack of evidence for fact-checking, and the bias present in the site's material. Editors also note the highly opinionated nature of the site as evidence against its reliability.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
The Canary	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2021 1 2 3 4	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is consensus that The Canary is generally unreliable. Its reporting is sensationalist at times; selective reporting, a left-wing bias, and a poor distinction between editorial and news content were also noted.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Catholic-Hierarchy.org	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is consensus that Catholic-Hierarchy.org is generally unreliable. While there is some limited USEBYOTHERS, the author is not a subject-matter expert in the field of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Catholic-Hierarchy.org is also a self-published source and should never be used for third-party claims about living persons.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Cato Institute	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2	Template:WP:RSPLAST	The Cato Institute is considered generally reliable for its opinion. Some editors consider the Cato Institute an authoritative source on libertarianism in the United States. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable on other topics. Most editors consider the Cato Institute biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
CBS News (CBS) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 4 5 6 7	Template:WP:RSPLAST	CBS News is the news division of CBS. It is considered generally reliable. Some editors note, however, that its television content may include superficial coverage, which might not qualify under WP:MEDRS.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
CelebrityNetWorth (CNW) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is consensus that CelebrityNetWorth is generally unreliable. CelebrityNetWorth does not disclose its methodology, and its accuracy has been criticized by The New York Times.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR)	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2020	Template:WP:RSPLAST	The Center for Economic and Policy Research is an economic policy think tank. Though its articles are regularly written by subject-matter experts in economics and are frequently cited by reliable sources, most editors consider the CEPR biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG, Global Research, globalresearch.ca)	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	Spam blacklist request 2019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Due to persistent abuse, Global Research is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. The Centre for Research on Globalisation is the organization that operates the Global Research website (globalresearch.ca, not to be confused with GlobalSecurity.org). The CRG is considered generally unreliable due to its propagation of conspiracy theories and lack of editorial oversight. It is biased or opinionated, and its content is likely to constitute undue weight. As it often covers fringe material, parity of sources should be considered.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
CESNUR (Centro Studi sulle Nuove Religioni, Center for Studies on New Religions, Bitter Winter) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2022 1 2 3 4	Template:WP:RSPLAST	CESNUR is an apologia site for new religious movements, and thus is inherently unreliable in its core area due to conflicts of interest. There is also consensus that its content is unreliable on its own merits. CESNUR has an online magazine, Bitter Winter, that is also considered generally unreliable.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Change.org Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Change.org is a website specializing in the creation of online petitions. As a primary source, it is advised that editors avoid Change.org as a source for certain online petitions, especially if more reliable secondary sources are available. Due to concerns over petition canvassing, Change.org is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Check Your Fact	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2024 1 2	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Check Your Fact is certified by the International Fact-Checking Network and considered generally reliable; despite its ownership under the deprecated Daily Caller, it has an independent newsroom with some use by others. Editors prefer reliable secondary sources over Check Your Fact when available.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
China Daily Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2021 1	Template:WP:RSPLAST	China Daily is a publication owned by the Chinese Communist Party. The 2021 RfC found narrow consensus against deprecating China Daily, owing to the lack of available usable sources for Chinese topics. There is consensus that China Daily may be used, cautiously and with good editorial judgment, as a source for the position of the Chinese authorities and the Chinese Communist Party; as a source for the position of China Daily itself; as a source for facts about non-political events in mainland China, while noting that (a) China Daily's interpretation of those facts is likely to contain political spin, and (b) China Daily's omission of details from a story should not be used to determine that such details are untruthful; and, with great caution, as a supplementary (but not sole) source for facts about political events of mainland China. Editors agree that when using this source, context matters a great deal and the facts should be separated from China Daily's view about those facts. It is best practice to use in-text attribution and inline citations when sourcing content to China Daily.	Template:WP:RSPUSES <section begin="deprecated"/>
China Global Television Network (CGTN, CCTV International) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	Template:WP:RSPLAST	China Global Television Network was deprecated in the 2020 RfC for publishing false or fabricated information. Many editors consider CGTN a propaganda outlet, and some editors express concern over CGTN's airing of forced confessions. CGTN was formerly known as CCTV International prior to 2017, and China Central Television (CCTV) channels that are not under CGTN are not deprecated. See List of China Media Group channels for a list of CCTV and CGTN channels.	Template:WP:RSPUSES <section end="deprecated"/>
Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN)	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 4 5	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is no consensus on the reliability of The Christian Broadcasting Network. It is a partisan source, and caution is particularly advised with any contentious topics. It may be more reliable on the subject of Christian music and films.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
The Christian Science Monitor (CSM, CS Monitor) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	20	Template:WP:RSPLAST	The Christian Science Monitor is considered generally reliable for news.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Climate Feedback Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 4	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Climate Feedback is a fact-checking website that is considered generally reliable for topics related to climate change. It discloses its methodologies, is certified by the International Fact-Checking Network, and has been endorsed by other reliable sources. Most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source due to its high reviewer requirements.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
CNA (Channel NewsAsia)	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2025	Template:WP:RSPLAST	The 2025 RfC established a consensus that CNA is a generally reliable source.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
CNET (pre-October 2020)	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	17	Template:WP:RSPLAST	CNET is considered generally reliable for its technology-related articles prior to its acquisition by Red Ventures in October 2020. In 2023, Red Ventures began deleting thousands of old CNET articles; website content may no longer be available unless archived.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
CNET (October 2020–October 2022)	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 4	Template:WP:RSPLAST	CNET was acquired by digital marketing company Red Ventures in October 2020, leading to a deterioration in editorial standards. Staff writers were pressured by company executives to publish content more favorably to advertisers in order to benefit Red Ventures' business dealings; this included both news stories and reviews.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
CNET (November 2022–present) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2024  2025 1 2 3	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Concerns over CNET's advertiser-driven editorial content remain unresolved. Separately, in November 2022, it began deploying an experimental AI tool to rapidly generate articles riddled with factual inaccuracies and affiliate links, with the purpose of increasing SEO rankings. CNET never formally disclosed its use of AI until Futurism and The Verge published reports exposing its actions. An AI tool now announced to be paused wrote more than 70 finance-related articles and published them under the byline "CNET Money Staff", over half of which received corrections after mounting pressure. In August 2024 CNET was purchased by Ziff Davis, which may mean that the reasons for considering it unreliable may no longer apply.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
CNN (Cable News Network) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2019  2020 +20	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is consensus that news broadcast or published by CNN is generally reliable. However, iReport consists solely of user-generated content, and talk show content should be treated as opinion pieces. Some editors consider CNN biased, though not to the extent that it affects reliability.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Coda Media (Coda Story) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2021	Template:WP:RSPLAST	A 2021 RfC found consensus that Coda Media is generally reliable for factual reporting. A few editors consider Coda Media a biased source for international politics related to the U.S., as it has received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, though not to the extent that it affects reliability.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
CoinDesk Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2018  2019 1 2 3 4	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is consensus that CoinDesk should not be used to establish notability for article topics, and that it should be avoided in favor of more mainstream sources. Check CoinDesk articles for conflict of interest disclosures, and verify whether their parent company at the time (previously Digital Currency Group, now Bullion) has an ownership stake in a company covered by CoinDesk.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Common Sense Media (CSM) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is consensus that Common Sense Media is generally reliable for entertainment reviews. As an advocacy organization, Common Sense Media is biased or opinionated, and its statements should generally be attributed.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Consortium News Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 4 5	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is consensus that Consortium News is generally unreliable. Certain articles (particularly those by Robert Parry) may be considered self-published, as it is unclear if any independent editorial review occurred. The outlet is known to lean towards uncritically repeating claims that are fringe, demonstrably false, or have been described by mainstream outlets as "conspiracy theories."	Template:WP:RSPUSES
The Conversation Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3	Template:WP:RSPLAST	The Conversation publishes articles from academics who are subject-matter experts. It is generally reliable for subjects in the authors' areas of expertise. Opinions published in The Conversation should be handled with WP:RSOPINION.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Correo del Orinoco	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2023	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is consensus that Correo del Orinoco is generally unreliable because it is used to amplify misleading and/or false information. Many editors consider Correo del Orinoco to be used by the Venezuelan government to promulgate propaganda due to its connection to the Bolivarian Communication and Information System.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Cosmopolitan Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 4 5	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is no consensus on the reliability of Cosmopolitan. It is generally regarded as a situational source, which means context is important. The treatment of Cosmopolitan as a source should be decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on the article and the information to be verified.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
CounterPunch Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2021  2022 +12	Template:WP:RSPLAST	CounterPunch is a left-wing political opinion magazine. Despite the fact that the publication has an editorial board, there is no effective editorial control over the content of the publication, so articles should be treated as self-published sources. As a consequence, the articles should generally be avoided and should not be used to establish notability unless published by subject-matter experts writing about subjects within their domain of expertise, in which case they may be considered reliable for facts. Citing CounterPunch for third-party claims about living persons is not allowed. All articles on CounterPunch must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, in particular for due weight, and opinions must be attributed. Some articles in the publication promote conspiracy theories and historical denialism, but there was no consensus to deprecate the outlet based on the most recent RfC.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Cracked.com Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 4 5	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Cracked.com is a humor website. There is consensus that Cracked.com is generally unreliable. When Cracked.com cites another source for an article, it is preferable for editors to read and cite that source instead.	Template:WP:RSPUSES <section begin="deprecated"/>
The Cradle Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2024 1	Template:WP:RSPLAST	The Cradle is an online magazine focusing on West Asia/Middle East-related topics. It was deprecated in the 2024 RfC due to a history of publishing conspiracy theories and wide referencing of other deprecated sources while doing so. Editors consider The Cradle to have a poor reputation for fact-checking.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Crunchbase Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2019 1 2	Template:WP:RSPLAST	In the 2019 RfC, there was consensus to deprecate Crunchbase, but also to continue allowing external links to the website. A significant proportion of Crunchbase's data is user-generated content. The technical details are that it is only listed on User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, so citations to Crunchbase are only automatically reverted if they are in ref tags in addition to meeting the standard criteria.	Template:WP:RSPUSES <section end="deprecated"/>
The Daily Beast Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 4 5 6	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons.	Template:WP:RSPUSES <section begin="deprecated"/>
The Daily Caller Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	Template:WP:RSPLAST	The Daily Caller was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information.	Template:WP:RSPUSES <section end="deprecated"/>
The Daily Dot Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2022 +13	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is no consensus regarding the general reliability of The Daily Dot, though it is considered fine for citing non-contentious claims of fact. Some editors have objected to its tone or consider it to be biased or opinionated; there is community consensus that attribution should be used in topics where the source is known to be biased or when the source is used to support contentious claims of fact. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Daily Express Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 4 5 6	Template:WP:RSPLAST	The Daily Express is a tabloid with a number of similarities to the Daily Mail. It is considered generally unreliable.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Daily Kos Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is consensus that Daily Kos should generally be avoided as a source, especially for controversial political topics where better sources are available. As an activism blog that publishes user-generated content with a progressive point of view, many editors consider Daily Kos to inappropriately blur news reporting and opinion.	Template:WP:RSPUSES <section begin="deprecated"/>
Daily Mail (MailOnline) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2017  2019  2020 54	Template:WP:RSPLAST	In the 2017 RfC, the Daily Mail was the first source to be deprecated on Wikipedia, and the decision was challenged and reaffirmed in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are more reliable. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. The Daily Mail has a "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication". The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion. Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context. (Note that dailymail.co.uk is not trustworthy as a source of past content that was printed in the Daily Mail.) The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail. The deprecation includes other editions of the UK Daily Mail, such as the Irish and Scottish editions. The UK Daily Mail is not to be confused with other publications named Daily Mail that are unaffiliated with the UK paper. The dailymail.com domain was previously used by the unaffiliated Charleston Daily Mail, and reference links to that publication are still present.	Template:WP:RSPUSES <section end="deprecated"/>
Daily Mirror (Mirror) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 4 5	Template:WP:RSPLAST	The Daily Mirror, also known just as the Mirror, is a tabloid newspaper that publishes tabloid journalism. There is no consensus on whether its reliability is comparable to that of British tabloids such as the Daily Mail and The Sun.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Daily NK Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2022	Template:WP:RSPLAST	The Daily NK is an online newspaper based in South Korea that reports on stories based inside of North Korea. There is no consensus as to if it should be deprecated or used with attribution. There is a consensus that this source, as well as all other sources reporting on North Korea, is generally unreliable. However, due to a paucity of readily accessible information on North Korea, as well as a perception that Daily NK is not more unreliable than other sources on the topic, it can be used as a source, albeit with great caution.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Daily Sabah Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2020	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Daily Sabah is considered to be a propaganda outlet that publishes pro-Turkish government news which aims to strengthen Erdoğan's rule, spread Westernophobia, and promote Turkish government policies. Editors also pointed out that Daily Sabah publishes unfactual information such as Armenian genocide denial, and mispresenting statements. Some editors consider it to be reliable enough to cite POV of the Turkish government with in-text attribution, and uncontroversial Turkey-related events.	Template:WP:RSPUSES <section begin="deprecated"/>
Daily Star (UK) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2020 1 2 3 4	Template:WP:RSPLAST	The Daily Star was deprecated in the 2020 RfC due to its reputation for publishing false or fabricated information.	Template:WP:RSPUSES <section end="deprecated"/>
The Daily Telegraph (UK) (excluding transgender topics) (The Telegraph, The Sunday Telegraph) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2022 +22	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is consensus that The Daily Telegraph (also known as The Telegraph) is generally reliable. Some editors believe that The Daily Telegraph is biased or opinionated for politics. Unrelated to The Daily Telegraph (Sydney).	Template:WP:RSPUSES
The Daily Telegraph (UK) (transgender topics) (The Telegraph, The Sunday Telegraph)	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2024 1	Template:WP:RSPLAST	In regards to transgender issues, there is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Telegraph. Editors consider The Telegraph biased or opinionated on the topic, and its statements should be attributed.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
The Daily Wire Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2021 1 2 3 4	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is a strong consensus that The Daily Wire is generally unreliable for factual reporting. Detractors note the site's tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or are improperly verified.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Deadline Hollywood Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 4 5 6	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Deadline Hollywood is considered generally reliable for entertainment-related articles.	Template:WP:RSPUSES <section begin="deprecated"/>
The Debrief Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2025 1	Template:WP:RSPLAST	In the 2025 RfC, there was clear and overwhelming consensus that The Debrief and its author Micah Hanks are generally unreliable and deprecated as a fringe source that lacks fact-checking or editorial oversight.	Template:WP:RSPUSES <section end="deprecated"/>
Debrett's Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2020 1	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is consensus that Debrett's is reliable for genealogical information. However, their defunct "People of Today" section is considered to be not adequately independent as the details were solicited from the subjects. Editors have also raised concerns that this section included paid coverage.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Democracy Now! Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 4 5	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is no consensus on the reliability of Democracy Now!. Most editors consider Democracy Now! a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. Syndicated content published by Democracy Now! should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Den of Geek Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 A B C	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is a rough consensus that Den of Geek is generally reliable for entertainment-related topics.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Deseret News Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 4	Template:WP:RSPLAST	The Deseret News is considered generally reliable for local news. It is owned by a subsidiary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and there is no consensus on whether the Deseret News is independent of the LDS Church. The publication's statements on topics regarding the LDS Church should be attributed. The Deseret News includes a supplement, the Church News, which is considered a primary source as an official publication of the LDS Church.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Destructoid Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	A B C D E	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is a consensus that Destructoid is marginally reliable for topics on video games. As a site featuring articles written mainly by freelance journalists, consider whether the author is trusted before using Destructoid as a source in articles. Destructoid may still be used for video game reviews given that attribution is provided.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Deutsche Welle (DW, DW-TV) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Deutsche Welle is a German state-owned international broadcaster. It is considered generally reliable. Some editors consider that the quality of DW depends on the language edition.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
DeviantArt Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 A B	Template:WP:RSPLAST	DeviantArt is considered a self-published source, where registered users can upload content such as art, videos and text. It is generally agreed that DeviantArt should not be used for factual claims and should only be used as a source if already cited by a reliable source. DeviantArt may also be cited in specific cases where the content is from an individual relevant to the article, subject to consensus.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Dexerto Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2019  2023 1 2	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Dexerto is a website covering gaming news, internet personalities, and entertainment. Editors agree that it is a tabloid publication that rarely engages in serious journalism; while it may be used as a source on a case-by-case basis (with some editors arguing for the reliability of its esports coverage), it is usually better to find an alternative source, and it is rarely suitable for use on BLPs or to establish notability.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Digital Spy Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 4 5 A	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is consensus that Digital Spy is generally reliable for entertainment and popular culture. Consider whether the information from this source constitutes due or undue weight.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Digital Trends Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 A	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is consensus that Digital Trends is generally reliable due to its editorial standards and reputation. This does not apply to sponsored content, which is marked with fine print below the headline image's caption. Some editors expressed concern over the site's connection to Valnet, which runs several content farms.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
The Diplomat Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is consensus that The Diplomat is generally reliable. Opinion pieces should be evaluated by WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG. Some editors have expressed concern on their reliability for North Korea-related topics.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Discogs Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2019  2024 1 2 3 4 5 6 7	Template:WP:RSPLAST	The content on Discogs is user-generated, and is therefore generally unreliable. There was consensus against deprecating Discogs in a 2019 RfC, as editors noted that, although it should not be cited, external links to the site may be appropriate.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Distractify Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is consensus that Distractify is generally unreliable. Editors believe Distractify runs run-of-the-mill gossip that is unclearly either user-generated or written by staff members. Editors should especially refrain from using it in BLPs.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
The Dorchester Review	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2024	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is consensus The Dorchester Review is generally unreliable, as it is not peer reviewed by the wider academic community. It has a poor reputation for fact-checking and lacks an editorial team. The source may still be used in some circumstances e.g. for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and content authored by established subject-matter experts.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Dotdash Meredith (About.com, The Balance, Lifewire, The Spruce, ThoughtCo, TripSavvy, Verywell) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	Spam blacklist request 2018 +17	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Dotdash Meredith (formerly known as About.com) operates a network of websites. Editors find the quality of articles published by About.com to be inconsistent. Some editors recommend treating About.com articles as self-published sources, and only using articles published by established experts. About.com also previously served as a Wikipedia mirror; using republished Wikipedia content is considered circular sourcing. In 2017, the About.com website became defunct and some of its content was moved to Dotdash Meredith's current website brands. Due to persistent abuse, verywellfamily.com, verywellhealth.com, and verywellmind.com are on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. See also: Investopedia.	Template:WP:RSPUSES