Policy

Code

What It Governs

Core Requirement

Key Rule

Verifiability

WP:V

Whether a claim can be checked by any reader against the cited source

Every significant factual claim must have a citation placed inline at the point the claim is made

Threshold is verifiability, not truth — a fact can be accurate and still fail if the source cannot be verified

Reliable Sources

WP:RS

Whether a source has the editorial standards to be cited on Wikipedia

Sources must have editorial oversight, fact-checking processes, and accountability for what they publish

Reliability is about the source's publication standards, not whether the information itself is correct

WP:V Requirement

What It Means

Passes

Fails

Source must be verifiable by any reader

Any reader can check the source independently and confirm it contains the information cited

Publicly accessible article with a live or archived URL

A paywalled article cited without noting the access restriction

The claim must actually appear in the source

The citation supports the specific sentence it is placed after, not just the general topic

Cited article contains the exact fact being verified in the Wikipedia sentence

Source mentions the subject but does not contain the specific information being cited

Verifiability is the threshold, not truth

A fact can be accurate and still not belong in Wikipedia if it cannot be verified through a reliable published source

A company's founding year verified in an independent newspaper article

Company's founding year from its own website — accurate but self-published

Citations must be placed inline

Each significant factual claim carries its own citation directly after the sentence or paragraph it supports

Ref tag placed immediately after the claim it verifies

A reference list at the bottom of the page with no inline citations — does not satisfy WP:V

Source must be stable and permanently published

The source is a fixed published record that cannot be edited or deleted by the subject after citation

Published news article, book, or journal paper with a permanent record

Company website page — the subject can edit or delete it at any time after it is cited

Source Type

Qualifies Under WP:RS?

Reason

National mainstream newspapers (print and digital)

✓  Yes — Full weight

Full editorial oversight, independent journalism, public accountability for published content

Established business and news magazines

✓  Yes — Full weight

Editorial standards, fact-checking processes, journalistic accountability

Peer-reviewed academic journals

✓  Yes — Full weight

Scholarly peer review before publication; institutional academic accountability

Government and official institutional publications

✓  Yes — Full weight

Official public record with institutional authority and accountability

Books by credible mainstream publishers

✓  Yes — Full weight

Publisher editorial review and fact-checking before publication

Credible regional newspapers in India and globally

✓  Yes — where editorial oversight exists

Accepted provided the publication has genuine editorial standards and accountability

Forbes staff-written journalism

✓  Yes — Full weight

Full Forbes editorial oversight applies to staff journalists and their published work

Digital news outlets with documented editorial standards

✓  Yes — where standards are clear

Accepted where clear editorial process, bylines, and accountability exist

Industry and trade publications

~  Partial — limited use

Acceptable for industry-specific factual claims; cannot establish notability on their own

Forbes contributor network articles

~  Weak — lower weight

Lighter editorial oversight than Forbes staff journalism; treated differently by reviewers

Company press releases

✗  No

Self-published by the subject; not independently produced; fails both WP:V independence and WP:RS reliability

Company website, blog, or official accounts

✗  No

Self-published; subject can alter or delete at any time; fails WP:V stability requirement

Press release aggregator sites

✗  No

No original editorial contribution; reprints subject-controlled content without independent review

Paid content, sponsored articles, or advertorials

✗  No

Subject paid for or directed the content; not independent journalism; fails WP:RS independence

Wikipedia articles cited within Wikipedia

✗  No — never

Circular reference; information must trace to an original published source outside Wikipedia

Self-published books (vanity press)

✗  No

No independent editorial review prior to publication; author controls all content

AI-generated or LLM-drafted content

✗  No — banned March 2026

No editorial oversight; AI tools frequently generate fabricated citations that do not exist

Social media (Reddit, Quora, LinkedIn, X, Instagram)

✗  No

User-generated content with no editorial oversight, fact-checking, or accountability

Type of Coverage

Independent?

Reason

Journalist finds story independently without any company contact

✓  Fully independent

No subject involvement in initiating, shaping, or reviewing the coverage

Reporter covers a funding round after public announcement

✓  Substantially independent

Journalist chose to cover it; initiated independently even if triggered by a public event

Interview arranged by the company's PR team

~  Weaker

Subject controlled access; narrative was shaped by the company before the journalist arrived

Profile where the subject reviewed or approved the article

~  Weaker

Subject involvement in the editorial process reduces independence

Guest column or bylined article written by the subject

✗  Not independent

The subject is the author; this is coverage by the subject, not coverage of the subject

Company-commissioned research covered by press

✗  Not independent

Coverage traces to content the subject funded; the press story exists because of subject-controlled material

Award profile where subject applied or paid entry fees

✗  Not independent

Coverage exists because the subject self-nominated; not the result of editorial selection

Forbes contributor article written by or about the subject

✗  Not independent

If the subject wrote it: authored content, not coverage. If arranged: weaker than staff journalism

Template

Used For

Required Fields

Recommended Fields

Most Common Mistake

{{cite news}}

Newspapers and news websites

title | work | date | url

author | access-date | archive-url | pages | language

Not separating the publication name (work) from the URL; missing the publication date

{{cite web}}

Websites, government pages, NGOs, institutional reports

title | website | date | url | access-date

author | publisher | archive-url | language

Using for news articles — use {{cite news}} instead; missing access-date

{{cite book}}

Books and published volumes

title | author | publisher | year

ISBN | pages | edition | location | chapter | url

Missing page numbers; making the specific claim unverifiable within a long text

{{cite journal}}

Academic and peer-reviewed papers

title | journal | author | year | volume

DOI | pages | issue | PMID | url | access-date

Citing journal without DOI or page range; makes the specific article hard to locate

{{cite press release}}

Press releases — extremely limited use only

title | publisher | date | url

archive-url

Using to establish any factual claim beyond basic administrative facts; never valid for establishing significance

Citation Mistake

Policy Violated

Why It Causes Rejection

Frequency

Correct Approach

Company website cited as primary source for factual claims

WP:V, WP:RS

Self-published; subject can alter content after citation; fails stability and independence

Most common error in business submissions

Replace entirely with independent third-party journalism that contains the same information

Press release pickups counted as multiple independent sources

WP:RS

40 sites reprinting one release equals one source; each must be independently written

Extremely common; primary driver of business submission failures

Trace every source back to its original independently written article; discard reprints

Source cited does not contain the specific information

WP:V

Reviewers read every source; a mismatch between the claim and the source content fails WP:V immediately

Common

Check that the exact fact being verified appears in the specific part of the article being cited

Wikipedia cited within a Wikipedia article

WP:V

Circular reference; creates a loop with no original published source behind the claim

Beginner error

Find the original published source that the Wikipedia article itself cites; cite that instead

Forbes contributor article used as independent coverage

WP:RS

Forbes contributor network has lighter editorial oversight than Forbes staff journalism; treated differently

Common in executive and founder bios

Use Forbes staff-written articles or other publications with full editorial oversight

AI-generated citations included in draft

WP:RS, March 2026 ban

LLMs generate plausible-looking but non-existent citations; reviewers check sources; fabricated refs are instant rejection

Growing significantly post-2024

Verify every cited source exists and is accessible before including it

Bare URLs with no citation template fields

WP:V

Cannot assess reliability, identify publication, or locate source if URL changes

Very common among first-time Wikipedia editors

Use full citation template with all required fields including author, title, publication name, and date

Reference list only, no inline citations

WP:V

WP:V requires inline placement at each claim; a reference list at the foot alone is structurally insufficient

Common structural error in first submissions

Place citation in ref tags immediately after every specific factual claim throughout the article

Outdated sources cited for current factual claims

WP:V

May no longer accurately describe the subject's current status, name, or activities

Occasional

Verify current facts with current sources; note historical context as historical rather than current

No archive URL for web sources at risk of going offline

WP:V

Source becomes permanently unverifiable if the page is removed or edited after being cited

Common oversight

Add archive-url field for all web citations using Wayback Machine or equivalent archive service

Deletion Route

Code

Citation Failure That Triggers This Route

Timeline

Recovery

AfC Decline — pre-publication

AfC review

Citations fail WP:RS (press releases, company sites) or WP:V (source does not contain the claimed information); reviewer declines the draft before it goes live

During review; up to 3 months wait

Improve citation set and resubmit; reviewer comment identifies the specific failure

Speedy Deletion — No importance claim

CSD A7

Article is published but all citations are to self-published or unreliable sources; no reliable source establishes why the subject is notable

Within hours of publication

Add citations from reliable independent sources; appeal via WP:REFUND

Speedy Deletion — Promotional content

CSD G11

Article relies entirely on subject-controlled sources (website, press releases) making it read as advertising rather than encyclopaedia

Within hours

Full rewrite in neutral tone using only independent third-party sources

Speedy Deletion — Copyright infringement

CSD G12

Content has been copied verbatim from a cited source rather than properly paraphrased and cited

Within hours

Full original rewrite with proper attribution; WP:REFUND for restoration

Speedy Deletion — AI-generated content

CSD (August 2025 update)

Citations include fabricated or AI-generated references that do not exist; content produced by LLM tools

Near-immediate post August 2025

Human-written rewrite from independently verified real sources required

Proposed Deletion

PROD

Page has weak citations that do not support the content; no editor contests the deletion within 7 days

7-day window

Any editor can remove the PROD tag; improving citation quality strengthens the defence

Articles for Deletion

AfD

Citations disputed by community; discussion over whether sources meet WP:RS and WP:V; 7-day community vote

7-day community discussion

Deletion Review (DRV) available but rarely overturns strong community consensus

BLPPROD — Living person bio without sources

BLPPROD

Biography of a living person with no citations at all; any unsourced negative claim also triggers this route

7-day window

Adding even one reliable inline citation halts the BLPPROD deletion