Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups/Reasons

This page is a list of reasons explaining why sources have been accepted or rejected from articles. It was created to work with RS/N's Large scale clean-ups project.


 * Please feel free to add additional reasons, using the numbering sequence/formatting already in place. If the explanation doesn't seem crystal clear to you, please provide an IE-style example at the end.

A1
A1 - Biographical article about subject, cite only expresses subject's own thoughts.

A2
A2 - Article is about a particular field, cited source is from an expert in that field.

A3
A3 - Article subject is the cited source.

A4
A4 - Source is relevant, and source meets general RS requirements on this topic.

R1
R1 - Cite used to backup claim without necessary expertise in the required field. IE, article says "No men eat quiche", and source says "we studied men, and none of them eat quiche", in the magazine, "Gardening Today".

R2
R2 - Cite does not support article text, article says "Greenhouse gasses are harmful", and source says nothing about greenhouse gasses.

R3
R3 - Suspected copyvio. See WP:COPYVIO.

R4
R4 - Cite only forms basis of an OR conclusion. IE, article says "No men eat quiche", and source says "we polled 30 men, and none of them eat quiche".

N1
N1 - Source seems valid, may need editors with more experience on this topic to have a look for any possible specific exemptions.

N2
N2 - No source problem, there may be WEIGHT issues, should be discussed on article talk page.

N3
N3 - No source problem, there may be NOTABILITY issues, should be discussed on article talk page.

N4
N4 - No source problem, there may be FRINGE issues, should be discussed on the article talk page.