Tilcayo Cats:Unreliable sources
(Redirected from The Political Graveyard)
This is a Tilcayo Cats information page. It supports TC:RS and does not add new rules. Shortcut: TC:UNRELIABLE
| This page in a nutshell: Some outlets and websites are widely judged to be unreliable. This page lists the ones English Wikipedia editors have formally rated as deprecated or generally unreliable, so that you can choose a better source. |
This page lists sources that English Wikipedia editors have rated as deprecated or generally unreliable on their list of perennial sources (WP:RSP). Tilcayo Cats uses their reasoning as a guide, because many of our pages began as imports from English Wikipedia. Each reason below summarises their discussion in one line and links to the full entry. The reasons are theirs, not ours, and consensus can change.
How to use this page
- Before you cite a source, check whether it is listed here. If it is, look for a better source that says the same thing. Most claims worth making have been reported by a reliable outlet too.
- If you find one of these sources in an article, don't just delete the citation. Look for a reliable replacement first. If you can't find one, tag the claim with
{{Better source needed}}or raise it on the talk page. - Some entries are limited. A source can be unreliable for one topic or period and fine for others (for example, only "for politics" or only after a change of owner). Read the linked entry before you act.
- A listed source can still describe itself. An article about a publication may cite the publication for plain facts about itself, such as its own launch date (see TC:N, Publishers). Listed sources only ever get a title-only redirect here, not an article.
- Being listed is about reliability as a source, not about the people involved. Don't use this page to make claims about any person, and be kind in talk-page discussions.
- Statuses. Deprecated: English Wikipedia editors agreed in a formal request for comment (RfC) that the source should almost never be cited. Generally unreliable: editors agree it is questionable in most cases. Blacklisted: links to it are blocked on English Wikipedia, usually because of spam.
Sources
| Source | Reason (English Wikipedia's consensus) | Status |
|---|---|---|
| 112 Ukraine | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2020), citing publishing false or fabricated information. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Acclaimed Music | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2022), citing republishing other material (press releases, copied or aggregated content) without independent reporting and being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Ad Fontes Media | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2021), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight and a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Advameg (City-Data) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2019), citing republishing other material (press releases, copied or aggregated content) without independent reporting. Links to it are also blocked by Wikipedia's spam blacklist. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable; blacklisted |
| Al Mayadeen | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2023, citing concerns that it carries state-directed propaganda. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| Al-Manar (controversial topics) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable for controversial topics, especially the Arab–Israeli conflict (2024 RfC). English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| AllMovie (2024–present) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable for 2024–present (last discussed 2025), citing undisclosed or unchecked AI-generated content and republishing other material (press releases, copied or aggregated content) without independent reporting. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| AlterNet | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2019), citing being strongly opinionated or partisan, so its claims need independent confirmation. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Amazon | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2021), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Anadolu Agency (controversial topics, international politics) (AA) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable for controversial topics and international politics (2019 RfC). English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Ancestry.com | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2021), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight and being a database or host of primary records rather than a secondary source. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| ANNA News (Abkhazian Network News Agency, Analytical Network News Agency) | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2022, citing publishing false or fabricated information and concerns that it carries state-directed propaganda. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| Answers.com (WikiAnswers) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2010), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Anti-Defamation League (ADL) (Israeli–Palestinian conflict, including related antisemitism) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable for Israeli–Palestinian conflict, including related antisemitism (last discussed 2024), citing being strongly opinionated or partisan, so its claims need independent confirmation. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Antiwar.com | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2011), citing being strongly opinionated or partisan, so its claims need independent confirmation. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Army Recognition | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2025), citing republishing other material (press releases, copied or aggregated content) without independent reporting and undisclosed sponsored or affiliate content. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| ARY News | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2026), citing undisclosed or unchecked AI-generated content and publishing false or fabricated information. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Atlas Obscura ("places" articles) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable for "places" articles (last discussed 2023), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Baidu Baike (Baidu Wiki) | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2020, citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight and a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| Behindthename.com | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2026), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Benzinga | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2025), citing undisclosed sponsored or affiliate content and a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Bild | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2025), citing a reputation for sensationalism. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Blaze Media (BlazeTV, Conservative Review, CRTV, TheBlaze) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable for facts; it may be usable for attributed opinions. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Blogger (blogspot.com) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2020), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Breitbart News | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2018, citing publishing false or fabricated information and promoting conspiracy theories or fringe claims. Links to it are also blocked by Wikipedia's spam blacklist. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated; blacklisted |
| BroadwayWorld | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2023), citing republishing other material (press releases, copied or aggregated content) without independent reporting and a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Business Insider (AI content) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable for AI content (last discussed 2024), citing undisclosed or unchecked AI-generated content. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| California Globe | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2021), citing being strongly opinionated or partisan, so its claims need independent confirmation and a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| The Canary | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2021), citing a reputation for sensationalism. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Catholic-Hierarchy.org | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2025), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| CelebrityNetWorth (CNW) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2018), citing a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG, Global Research, globalresearch.ca) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2019), citing promoting conspiracy theories or fringe claims. Links to it are also blocked by Wikipedia's spam blacklist. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable; blacklisted |
| CESNUR (Centro Studi sulle Nuove Religioni, Center for Studies on New Religions, Bitter Winter) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2026), citing being strongly opinionated or partisan, so its claims need independent confirmation. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Change.org | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2021), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight and being a database or host of primary records rather than a secondary source. Links to it are also blocked by Wikipedia's spam blacklist. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable; blacklisted |
| China Global Television Network (CGTN, CCTV International) | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2020, citing publishing false or fabricated information and concerns that it carries state-directed propaganda. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| CityPopulation.de | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2021), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight and a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| CNET (November 2022–present) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable for November 2022–present (last discussed 2025), citing undisclosed or unchecked AI-generated content and undisclosed sponsored or affiliate content. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| CoinDesk | English Wikipedia editors advise avoiding this source in favour of mainstream outlets, and checking it for conflict-of-interest disclosures (last discussed 2023). English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Consortium News | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2019), citing promoting conspiracy theories or fringe claims and being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Correo del Orinoco | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2023), citing publishing false or fabricated information and concerns that it carries state-directed propaganda. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| CounterPunch | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2022), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight and being strongly opinionated or partisan, so its claims need independent confirmation. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Cracked.com | English Wikipedia editors consider this humour website generally unreliable; cite the sources it relies on instead. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| The Cradle | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2024, citing promoting conspiracy theories or fringe claims and a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| Crunchbase | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2019, citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| The Daily Caller | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2019, citing publishing false or fabricated information. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| Daily Express | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2020), citing a reputation for sensationalism. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Daily Kos | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2017), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight and being strongly opinionated or partisan, so its claims need independent confirmation. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Daily Mail (MailOnline) | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2017, citing a reputation for poor fact-checking, sensationalism and fabrication; later discussions in 2019 and 2020 confirmed this. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| Daily Sabah | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2020), citing concerns that it carries state-directed propaganda. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Daily Star (UK) | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2020, citing publishing false or fabricated information. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| The Daily Wire | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable for factual reporting (last discussed 2021), citing stories taken out of context or not properly verified. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| The Debrief | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2025, citing promoting conspiracy theories or fringe claims and a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| DeviantArt | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2025), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Dexerto | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2023), citing a reputation for sensationalism. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Discogs | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2024), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Distractify | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2023), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight and a reputation for sensationalism. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| The Dorchester Review | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2024), citing a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| The Electronic Intifada (EI) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2024), citing being strongly opinionated or partisan, so its claims need independent confirmation and a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Encyclopaedia Metallum (Metal Archives, MA) | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2025, citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| The Epoch Times (New Tang Dynasty Television, Vision Times, Vision China Times) | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2019, citing promoting conspiracy theories or fringe claims and being strongly opinionated or partisan, so its claims need independent confirmation. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| Ethnicity of Celebs | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2024), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight and a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| EurAsia Daily (EADaily) | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2023, citing false claims. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| The EurAsian Times | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2024), citing republishing other material (press releases, copied or aggregated content) without independent reporting and a reputation for sensationalism. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Examiner.com | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2014), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight and a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Links to it are also blocked by Wikipedia's spam blacklist. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable; blacklisted |
| Facebook (Meta) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2026), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight and a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| FamilySearch | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2018), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight and being a database or host of primary records rather than a secondary source. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Famous Birthdays | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2019), citing a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Links to it are also blocked by Wikipedia's spam blacklist. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable; blacklisted |
| Fandom wikis (Wikia, Wikicities) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2019), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Far Out | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2025), citing republishing other material (press releases, copied or aggregated content) without independent reporting. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Fars News Agency | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2026, citing fabrications, conspiracy theories and AI-generated material presented as genuine. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| The Federalist | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2021), citing promoting conspiracy theories or fringe claims and being strongly opinionated or partisan, so its claims need independent confirmation. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| FilmAffinity | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2018), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Find a Grave | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2021), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Findmypast | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2019), citing being a database or host of primary records rather than a secondary source. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Flags of the World (FOTW) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2013), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight and a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Flickr | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2020), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Forbes.com non-staff authored articles | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2026), citing a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Fox News (politics and science) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable for politics, especially from November 2020, with additional considerations for science (last discussed 2024); other coverage is rated separately. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Fox News (talk shows) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable for talk shows (last discussed 2024), citing being strongly opinionated or partisan, so its claims need independent confirmation. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| FrontPage Magazine (FPM, FrontPageMag.com) | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2020 by unanimous consensus, considering it generally unreliable and strongly opinionated. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| The Gateway Pundit (TGP) | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2019, citing publishing false or fabricated information and promoting conspiracy theories or fringe claims. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| Gawker | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2019), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight and a reputation for sensationalism. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| GB News | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2025); see the linked entry for the discussion. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Genealogy.eu | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2025, citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight and being a database or host of primary records rather than a secondary source. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| Geni.com | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2025, citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight and being a database or host of primary records rather than a secondary source. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) (feature classes) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable for feature classes (last discussed 2021), citing being a database or host of primary records rather than a secondary source. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| GEOnet Names Server (GNS) (feature classes) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable for feature classes (last discussed 2021), citing being a database or host of primary records rather than a secondary source. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Global Times (Huanqiu Shibao) | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2020, citing publishing false or fabricated information and concerns that it carries state-directed propaganda. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| GlobalSecurity.org | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2022), citing republishing other material (press releases, copied or aggregated content) without independent reporting and being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| GoFundMe (YouCaring) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2020), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight and being a database or host of primary records rather than a secondary source. Links to it are also blocked by Wikipedia's spam blacklist. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable; blacklisted |
| Goodreads | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2018), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| The Grayzone | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2020, citing publishing false or fabricated information and being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| Greek City Times | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2025), noting a strong nationalist bias. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Guido Fawkes | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2020), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Healthline | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2023, citing inaccurate health information written and reviewed by non-experts; links to it are also blacklisted. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated; blacklisted |
| Heat Street | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2017), citing being strongly opinionated or partisan, so its claims need independent confirmation. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| The Heritage Foundation (The Daily Signal) | English Wikipedia editors placed this source on its spam blacklist for editor-safety reasons, and links to it are not accepted. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated; blacklisted |
| HispanTV | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2019, citing publishing false or fabricated information and concerns that it carries state-directed propaganda. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| History (History Channel, History.com) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2021), citing promoting conspiracy theories or fringe claims and a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| HuffPost contributors (The Huffington Post) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2020), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight and a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| IMDb (Internet Movie Database) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable, because most of its content is user-generated and its fact-checking is criticised. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| iNaturalist | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2025), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Indiegogo | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2020), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight and being a database or host of primary records rather than a secondary source. Links to it are also blocked by Wikipedia's spam blacklist. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable; blacklisted |
| Indymedia (Independent Media Center, IMC) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2020), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight and a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Infowars (NewsWars, Banned.video, National File) | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2018, citing publishing false or fabricated information and promoting conspiracy theories or fringe claims. Links to it are also blocked by Wikipedia's spam blacklist. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated; blacklisted |
| Inquisitr | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2021), citing republishing other material (press releases, copied or aggregated content) without independent reporting. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Instagram (IG, Insta, The Gram) | English Wikipedia editors treat this social-media platform as self-published and generally unreliable. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| International Business Times (IBT, IBTimes) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2019), citing criticised editorial practices and inconsistent article quality. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Investopedia | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2023), citing a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Jewish Virtual Library (JVL) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2021), citing being strongly opinionated or partisan, so its claims need independent confirmation. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Jihad Watch | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2021, citing promoting conspiracy theories or fringe claims and being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| Joshua Project (Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background: A Global Census, WEC International) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2022), citing being a database or host of primary records rather than a secondary source and a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Journal of Scientific Exploration | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2025, citing promoting conspiracy theories or fringe claims. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| JRank | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2022), citing republishing other material (press releases, copied or aggregated content) without independent reporting. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Kickstarter | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2020), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight and being a database or host of primary records rather than a secondary source. Links to it are also blocked by Wikipedia's spam blacklist. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable; blacklisted |
| Know Your Meme (KYM) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2022), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| LADbible | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2025), citing a reputation for sensationalism and a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Land Transport Guru | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2024), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Last.fm | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2019, citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| Lenta.ru (March 2014–present) | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2019, citing concerns that it carries state-directed propaganda and promoting conspiracy theories or fringe claims. Links to it are also blocked by Wikipedia's spam blacklist. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated; blacklisted |
| LifeSiteNews (Campaign Life Coalition) | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2019, citing publishing false or fabricated information. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| LinkedIn (LinkedIn Pulse) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2023), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| LionhearTV | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2025), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| LiveJournal | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2020), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Lulu.com (Lulu Press) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2019), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. Links to it are also blocked by Wikipedia's spam blacklist. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable; blacklisted |
| The Mail on Sunday | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2020, citing factual errors and fabricated content, in line with the Daily Mail. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| Marquis Who's Who (Who's Who in America) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2022), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Mashable (sponsored content) | English Wikipedia editors agreed that its sponsored content needs particular care, because it may not be written by Mashable staff. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| MEAWW (Media Entertainment Arts WorldWide) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2021), citing a reputation for sensationalism. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2025), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight and a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Media Research Center (MRC, CNSNews.com, Cybercast News Service, MRCTV, NewsBusters) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2020), citing publishing false or fabricated information and being strongly opinionated or partisan, so its claims need independent confirmation. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Medium | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2022), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Metal-experience.com | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable for factual reporting (last discussed 2021). English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Metro (UK) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2025), citing a reputation for sensationalism. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| MintPress News | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2019, citing publishing false or fabricated information. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| MyLife (Reunion.com) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2019), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. Links to it are also blocked by Wikipedia's spam blacklist. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable; blacklisted |
| National Enquirer | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this supermarket tabloid in 2019 (a weak consensus), considering it generally unreliable. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| Natural News (NewsTarget) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2019), citing publishing false or fabricated information and promoting conspiracy theories or fringe claims. Links to it are also blocked by Wikipedia's spam blacklist. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable; blacklisted |
| The New American | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2016), citing being strongly opinionated or partisan, so its claims need independent confirmation. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| New Eastern Outlook | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2022, citing publishing false or fabricated information and concerns that it carries state-directed propaganda. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| New York Post (NY Post, New York Evening Post, Page Six) (excluding entertainment) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2025), citing publishing false or fabricated information and a reputation for sensationalism. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| News of the World | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2019 (as with The Sun), citing concerns about its accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| NewsBlaze | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2021, citing publishing false or fabricated information and promoting conspiracy theories or fringe claims. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| NewsBreak (News Break) | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2020, citing republishing other material (press releases, copied or aggregated content) without independent reporting. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| NewsFront | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2019, citing publishing false or fabricated information and concerns that it carries state-directed propaganda. Links to it are also blocked by Wikipedia's spam blacklist. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated; blacklisted |
| Newsmax | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2020, citing publishing false or fabricated information and concerns that it carries state-directed propaganda. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| NewsNation (UFOs, UAPs) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable for UFOs, UAPs (last discussed 2025), citing promoting conspiracy theories or fringe claims. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| NGO Monitor (Non-governmental Organization Monitor) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2024), citing being strongly opinionated or partisan, so its claims need independent confirmation. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| NNDB (Notable Names Database) | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2019, citing being a database or host of primary records rather than a secondary source and a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| Occupy Democrats (Washington Press) | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2018 on the same basis as the Daily Mail: it should not be cited for facts. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| Office of Cuba Broadcasting (Radio y Televisión Martí, RyTM, martinoticias.com) | English Wikipedia editors deprecated these broadcasters (including Radio y Televisión Martí) in 2024, citing editorial controls below professional standards and opinion presented as fact. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| Omniglot | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2026), citing republishing other material (press releases, copied or aggregated content) without independent reporting and being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| One America News Network (OANN) | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2019, citing publishing false or fabricated information and promoting conspiracy theories or fringe claims. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| The Onion | English Wikipedia editors note that it is satire, so it should not be used as a source of facts. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| OpIndia | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2020), citing a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Links to it are also blocked by Wikipedia's spam blacklist. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable; blacklisted |
| Our Campaigns | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2021), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| PanAm Post | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2023), citing being strongly opinionated or partisan, so its claims need independent confirmation. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Patheos | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2022), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight and a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Peerage websites (self-published) | English Wikipedia editors deprecated certain self-published peerage websites for genealogical information (see the entry for the list). English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| An Phoblacht | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable for news reporting, because it is a political party publication (Sinn Féin); it can be cited for attributed party statements. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Pinkvilla | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (2025 RfC), citing concerns about the reliability of its box-office figures. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Pirate Wires (PW, PirateWires) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2025), citing promoting conspiracy theories or fringe claims and being strongly opinionated or partisan, so its claims need independent confirmation. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Planespotters.net | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2023), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight and a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| The Points Guy (TPG) | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2026, citing its native-marketing and affiliate-revenue model. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| The Political Graveyard | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2021), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight and being a database or host of primary records rather than a secondary source. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| The Post Millennial | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2020), citing being strongly opinionated or partisan, so its claims need independent confirmation and a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| PR Newswire | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2019), citing republishing other material (press releases, copied or aggregated content) without independent reporting and a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Preprints | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2015), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Press TV | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2020, citing publishing false or fabricated information and concerns that it carries state-directed propaganda. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| Project Veritas (O'Keefe Media Group) | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2023, citing publishing false or fabricated information. Links to it are also blocked by Wikipedia's spam blacklist. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated; blacklisted |
| Quadrant | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2019), citing being strongly opinionated or partisan, so its claims need independent confirmation. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Quillette | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2021), citing being strongly opinionated or partisan, so its claims need independent confirmation. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Quora | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable, because it is a self-published question-and-answer forum. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Rate Your Music (RYM, Cinemos, Glitchwave, Sonemic) | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2019, citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| Raw Story | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2021), citing a reputation for sensationalism and being strongly opinionated or partisan, so its claims need independent confirmation. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Red Ventures | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2024), citing undisclosed or unchecked AI-generated content. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable, because it is a discussion site made up mostly of user-generated content. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable | |
| RedState | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2020), citing being strongly opinionated or partisan, so its claims need independent confirmation. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Republic TV (Republic World, Republic Bharat) | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2021, citing publishing false or fabricated information and promoting conspiracy theories or fringe claims. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| Rolling Stone (Culture Council) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable for Culture Council (last discussed 2021), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Rolling Stone (politics and society, 2011–present) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable for politically and socially sensitive topics reported since about 2011 (2021 RfC); it remains usable for other subjects. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Royal Central | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2022, citing republishing other material (press releases, copied or aggregated content) without independent reporting and a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| RT (Russia Today, ANO TV-Novosti, Ruptly, Redfish, Maffick) | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2020, citing publishing false or fabricated information and concerns that it carries state-directed propaganda. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| ScienceDirect topic page | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2023), citing undisclosed or unchecked AI-generated content and being a database or host of primary records rather than a secondary source. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Scribd | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable, because anyone can upload any document and there is no assurance it has not been altered. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Simple Flying | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2025, citing churnalism and frequent inaccuracies. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| Sixth Tone (politics) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable for politics (last discussed 2020), citing concerns that it carries state-directed propaganda. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| The Skwawkbox | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2024), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight and being strongly opinionated or partisan, so its claims need independent confirmation. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| SourceWatch | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2016), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| SouthFront (South Front) | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2019, citing publishing false or fabricated information and concerns that it carries state-directed propaganda. Links to it are also blocked by Wikipedia's spam blacklist. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated; blacklisted |
| Spirit of Metal | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2010), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Sportskeeda | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2023), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight and a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Sputnik | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2020, citing publishing false or fabricated information and concerns that it carries state-directed propaganda. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| Stack Exchange (Stack Overflow, MathOverflow, Ask Ubuntu) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2023), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| StarsUnfolded | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2020), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Statista | English Wikipedia editors advise against citing this source directly, because it republishes statistics from other sources; cite the original source instead. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| The Sun (UK) (The Sun on Sunday, The Irish Sun, The Scottish Sun, The U.S. Sun) | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2019, citing concerns about its accuracy; they also agreed it should not be used to show that a subject is notable. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| Swarajya | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2021), citing being strongly opinionated or partisan, so its claims need independent confirmation and a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Links to it are also blocked by Wikipedia's spam blacklist. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable; blacklisted |
| Taki's Magazine (Takimag, Taki's Top Drawer) | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2019 as an unreliable opinion magazine. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| Tasnim News Agency | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2024, citing concerns that it carries state-directed propaganda and promoting conspiracy theories or fringe claims. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| TASS (ITAR-TASS, Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union, Information Telegraph Agency of Russia) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable for contentious facts where the Russian government may have an interest, and more broadly (2022 RfC); it was not deprecated. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Telesur | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2019, citing publishing false or fabricated information and concerns that it carries state-directed propaganda. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| Tghat | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2021), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight and being strongly opinionated or partisan, so its claims need independent confirmation. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| TikTok (Douyin) | English Wikipedia editors treat this social-media platform as self-published and generally unreliable. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| The Truth About Guns (TTAG) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2019), citing promoting conspiracy theories or fringe claims and undisclosed sponsored or affiliate content. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| TV Tropes | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2023), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| TV.com | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2020), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| universeguide.com | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| The Unz Review | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2021, citing promoting conspiracy theories or fringe claims. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| Urban Dictionary | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2020), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| VDARE | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2018, agreeing that it is generally unusable as a source. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| Venezuelanalysis | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2023), citing concerns that it carries state-directed propaganda and being strongly opinionated or partisan, so its claims need independent confirmation. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Veterans Today | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2019, citing publishing false or fabricated information and promoting conspiracy theories or fringe claims. Links to it are also blocked by Wikipedia's spam blacklist. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated; blacklisted |
| VGChartz | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2019), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight and a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (VOC) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2021), citing publishing false or fabricated information and being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Voltaire Network | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2020, citing promoting conspiracy theories or fringe claims. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| The Washington Free Beacon (2012–2018) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable for 2012–2018, particularly for political topics (confirmed in 2025). English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| WatchMojo | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2020), citing a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| We Got This Covered | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2022), citing a reputation for sensationalism and a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Weather2Travel.com | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable, because the site itself says its content is indicative only and not to be relied on. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Wen Wei Po | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2020, citing publishing false or fabricated information and concerns that it carries state-directed propaganda. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| The Western Journal (Western Journalism) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (2019 RfC), and note that its syndicated content should be judged by the original publisher. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| WhatCulture | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2023), citing a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Who's Who (UK) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2022), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight and a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| WhoSampled | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2016), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Wikidata | English Wikipedia editors do not accept Wikidata as a source, because it is largely user-generated. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| WikiLeaks | English Wikipedia editors consider this source unsuitable to cite directly, because it hosts leaked primary documents whose authenticity editors usually cannot check. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Wikinews | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2024), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Wikipedia (including The Signpost) | English Wikipedia editors do not accept Wikipedia itself as a source, because open wikis are self-published (this avoids circular sourcing). English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| WordPress.com | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2023), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| WorldNetDaily (WND) | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2018, citing publishing false or fabricated information and promoting conspiracy theories or fringe claims. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| Worldometer (Worldometers) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2020), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight and a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| X (Twitter) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2025), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| YouTube | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable (last discussed 2026), citing being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| ZDNET (October 2020–present) | English Wikipedia editors consider this source generally unreliable for October 2020–present (last discussed 2024), citing undisclosed or unchecked AI-generated content. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable |
| Zee News | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2026, citing publishing false or fabricated information and promoting conspiracy theories or fringe claims. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| Zero Hedge (ZeroHedge, ZH) | English Wikipedia editors deprecated this source in 2020, citing promoting conspiracy theories or fringe claims and being self-published or user-generated, without editorial oversight. English Wikipedia entry | Deprecated |
| ZoomInfo | English Wikipedia editors placed this source on its spam blacklist because of persistent spamming. English Wikipedia entry | Generally unreliable; blacklisted |
See also
- Tilcayo Cats:Reliable sources (TC:RS)
- Tilcayo Cats:Verifiability (TC:V)
- Tilcayo Cats:Notability (TC:N)