Search results

discussion may be linked to, and itself summarized here. Shortcut WP:RSPCRITERIA For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or...

(UTC) Inclusion on the RSP is a matter for it's inclusion criteria (WP:RSPCRITERIA) and it's talk page (WT:RSP). As to SI's reliability It does seem to...

clearly not enough to say there is some dispute needing resolution. WP:RSPCRITERIA says that two discussions or an RfC are generally enough, but given that...

features those which are repeatedly brought to this noticeboard. WP:RSPCRITERIA states that for a source to be included, it must either have an request...

one query and a single line reply to it so I don't think it meets WP:RSPCRITERIA. It can probably be included back after this discussion is archived,...

require either a RfC or at least two significant discussions (see WP:RSPCRITERIA). There is at present one significant discussion, RSP shouldn't be used...

discussion on this noticeboard (or any of the archives) that meets WP:RSPCRITERIA, please feel free to add it into the perennial sources list. The instructions...

clarifying the language in the header. We might also tweak the language at WP:RSPCRITERIA to "two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability...

of "Perennial". --Jayron32 18:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC) It meets WP:RSPCRITERIA.  —Michael Z. 18:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC) Yeah, I guess. I'll grant...

policy (though consensus still binds us). As for Blueboar's concern: WP:RSPCRITERIA says "editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about...

I doubt, however, that it will be included in WP:RSP, because per WP:RSPCRITERIA, a discussion should normally have 3+ editors who weigh in their opinions...

welcome at WT:RSP § It's RFC time, an WP:RFCBEFORE about revising WP:RSPCRITERIA. Thanks, Levivich (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC) Jo Boaler (edit |...

discussion for its talk page (WT:RSP). It has an inclusion criteria (WP:RSPCRITERIA), so as long as a source meats those criteria it can probably be added...

list if that's what you were implying/expecting, due to failure of WP:RSPCRITERIA. I don't see any evidence that this source has been perennially challenged...

(talk) 15:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC) The issue is still unsettled under WP:RSPCRITERIA. The first discussion had three participants and two agreed that it was...

about them a few times. NadVolum (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC) See WP:RSPCRITERIA and WP:RSPMISSING. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)...

useful for indexing source discussions for sources that do not meet WP:RSPCRITERIA and source discussions that take place outside of this noticeboard. — Newslinger talk...

will. FOARP (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC) Adding a sentence to WP:RSPCRITERIA that more or less says "if you try to start RSP discussions when there's...

reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard." (WP:RSPCRITERIA) I think it is significantly more efficient to establish a source's status...

without discussion. Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC) WP:RSPCRITERIA has nothing to do with whether a source is GREL of GUNREL, not sure where...