DOSEN PROFIL LENGKAP

In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means that people can check that facts or claims correspond to reliable sources. Wikipedia's content is determined...

TWL) May not meet WP:Notability, some or all sources may not meet WP:SOURCEACCESS PhantomTech (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Note: This debate has...

summary "not found" means that you could not find the source, but per WP:SOURCEACCESS, " If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so...

how are they verified? LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC) WP:SOURCEACCESS. Are you sure you understand policy well enough to be nominating articles...

that ease of access to references does not affect verifiability (see WP:SOURCEACCESS). However, the extraordinary difficulty in finding these resources suggests...

harder to find, and I am not sure whether that would be successful. WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:NONENG provides solutions to this question. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work...

third-party coverage." This reasoning is in direct contradiction of WP:SOURCEACCESS: "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an...

nomination. Also, sources don't have to be available online, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC) The label is covered...

(UTC) @Elmidae: Sources you cannot access are still valid sources (WP:SOURCEACCESS), and the current state of the article and the sources aren't relevant...

working for me. It likely wasn't archived anywhere. I think that per WP:SOURCEACCESS, it still "counts"(?), but that's a weird situation of course. ~Maplestrip/Mable...

07:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC) whilst not discounting your sources as per WP:SOURCEACCESS, i can't see most of the sources you've added. could you provide a way...

the number of sources can vary!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCEACCESS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NONENGAnasahmed24 Comment Unfortunately...

meant that the sources are offline then the nominator should read WP:SOURCEACCESS which states that such sources are fine. In any case, the information...

significant sources are the books cited in the article. Please read: WP:SOURCEACCESS "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an...

in the 1789-1793 range. My general rule is to WP:AGF and point to WP:SOURCEACCESS in such cases, though I do agree the author should have supplied at least...

sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS. Your inability to access sources is not my problem. You're entirely...

for awards, and two have been named Storylines Notable Books. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly...

David Gerard (talk) 07:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC) I was referring to WP:SOURCEACCESS. You said above the article's sources were "uncheckable", which I took...

required so the fact that most sources are in Dutch is irrelevant. See WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:NONENG. Furthermore, this restaurant was awarded a star by the...

have a source which is said to back up the claim, and the policy WP:SOURCEACCESS states that we are not to reject offline sources but rather WP:AGF. That...

be considered reliable; please read Wikipedia:Offline sources and WP:SOURCEACCESS. LadyofShalott 02:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Comment - interestingly, a number...

that could be online or offline, with or without payment. Read WP:V#WP:SOURCEACCESS Cavarrone (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Fair, but how would the average...

have no prejudice to recreation. Sources need not be online (per WP:SOURCEACCESS) but they must be found in order for a BLP to remain on Wikipedia. Cunard...

[1] I am leaning towards Keep on the additional basis of WP:NONENG, WP:SOURCEACCESS, WP:WORLDVIEW and WP:AGF for the Kullgren reference and the other references...

personal bias." Unawareness of Wikipedia:Verifiability § Accessibility (WP:SOURCEACCESS) policy: An editor determines content has a citation to a source work...

Talk:Ukrainian Artists Society of Australia.  (2) Nominator has called WP:SOURCEACCESS policy "unreasonable".  (3) Nominator has posted, without notice here...

the discussion was: delete. As for using the image as a source, per WP:SOURCEACCESS a source does not need to be easily accessible (lest of all on Wikipedia...

GNG cannot be not met when we have articles we cannot get at--per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC) You cannot assume that the...

which cannot now be viewed. A verifiable citation is needed here: see WP:SOURCEACCESS International station opens There are six paragraphs in this section...

genuine and cannot be argued down on grounds of inaccessibility, see WP:SOURCEACCESS. So, while the present state is unpublishable I do not think it should...

Books as offline sources are verifiable and don't have to be online (WP:SOURCEACCESS). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 04:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)...

article is no hoax and then relying on WP:AGF, WP:NONENGLISH and WP:SOURCEACCESS to keep the article, which is where I am leaning. 24.151.116.12 (talk)...

rejected merely on that basis or the absence of verification. As per WP:SOURCEACCESS, waybackmachine can be used to view these sources and authors can be...

article stands, it's substantiated by a whole lot of OR. I'm seeing a WP:SOURCEACCESS issue here. X-posting from Aftermath's AfD, wouldn't it make more sense...

Bearian (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2026 (UTC) Keep - Consistent with WP:SOURCEACCESS, additional interviews, profiles, and academic indexing. Tarek Jabr (talk)...

there is no demand that sources are available online, see Wikipedia:Sourceaccess. The worst mistake of all is, that nom in an assumed belief in his own...

fact that these sources are offline or paywalled is irrelevant; see WP:SOURCEACCESS.) While I'm not averse to a merge in theory, it probably ought to go...

sources should not be rejected solely on difficulty or cost of access (WP:SOURCEACCESS). Informing interested readers where to find additional reliable information...

the relevant page. Offline and paywalled sources are acceptable per WP:SOURCEACCESS, and these are much more easily accessible than that (they WP:NEXIST)...

122.49.102 (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Comment according to WP:SOURCEACCESS there is no requirement that sources be online. Mathewignash (talk) 14:27...

exclude sources that he cannot or will not personally verify, see WP:SOURCEACCESS (trust me, I have some bitter experience with this). PBS's two productionsThe...

Wikipedia". I believe this rejection was made in error and contrary to WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:AGF. The subject is a traditional Sundanese narrative poem from...

in-depth coverage behind a paywall (which should not be rejected per WP:SOURCEACCESS). This institution, like most other universities, meets WP:GNG. Modussiccandi...

who don't live in Greece, it doesn't mean that no one can verify. WP:SOURCEACCESS exists for this reason. The editor who added the magazine citation to...

April 2019 (UTC) Osomadre: 1. Sources do not need to be online, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. If you have the title of the article/review, the name of the author...

Yet I have found online and offline sources which I'm applying. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, online sources are not required, and offline sources which can be proved...

you can't see these yourself isn't a criterion for deletion, right? WP:SOURCEACCESS applies, as does WP:AGF unless there's some clear reason to disbelieve...

December 2014 (UTC) Verifiability is not the same as access, see WP:SOURCEACCESS. Secondly, I am not talking about including every insignificant landmark...

minor British noble. Mztourist (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC) Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, we should not dismiss a source due to not being able to retrieve its...

government login page. — MarkH21 (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC) Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly...

that "404!" is a totally non-valid argument point to bring up, per WP:SOURCEACCESS from WP:V policy. — Cirt (talk) 06:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Maybe that...

12 February 2012 (UTC) Well then you really really need to read WP:SOURCEACCESS because I've verified this. Complete information about the citation is...

coverage does not need to be the main topic of the source material), WP:SOURCEACCESS (sources are not required to be online or accessible for free, I myself...

Univers1111 (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC) See WP:SOURCEACCESS -- a source does not have to be available on line. Nomoskedasticity (talk)...

don't think it would be worthwhile to link them, especially since WP:SOURCEACCESS permits the use of offline sources. SounderBruce 00:23, 20 December 2023...

verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC) Agreed that WP:SOURCEACCESS does not affect verifiability. However, the Daughters of the Republic...

in that. ⚒️MinecraftPlayer321⚒️ | 💬 01:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC) WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:OFFLINE. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC) Delete...

subject". The sources which we can't access online are allowable per WP:SOURCEACCESS: "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an...

sources have traditionally not been considered a show-stopper per WP:SOURCEACCESS (WP:V). Also consider Wikipedia:General disclaimer#Jurisdiction and legality...

sources out there are subscription based, e.g. scientific journals. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly...

of the sources aren't readily available online, but of course per WP:SOURCEACCESS there's no requirement that they be. Nom should withdraw this ill-considered...

points. First, article references do not require to be online, per WP:SOURCEACCESS, and book sources are perfectly suitable for evaluate notability. WP:PAPERONLY...

sources are perfectly acceptable for demonstrating notability, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Sources being offline or behind a paywall would be an illegitimate reason...

of offline references; I default to trusting them for now. See the WP:SOURCEACCESS section of WP:V which is further explained in the Offline sources essay...

to for the editor to jump through hoops to cite that article, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Joe Roe (talk) 09:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC) Delete (with reluctance)...

do not have to be in the article currently. Also worth noting is WP:SOURCEACCESS, part of WP:V, which says "Do not reject reliable sources just because...

reference).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, sources are not required to be online because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia...

revolutions) 21:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Keep per WP:MUSICBIO#5 and WP:SOURCEACCESS. (This assumes the citations are real.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:01, 27...

(talk) 03:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Please do not assume like this. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. It doesn't "look" like that when even the page numbers are provided...

instance, them being in Finnish does not make them unverifiable (see WP:SOURCEACCESS) or unreliable. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:46, 24 September...

magazine in the country. (3) Accessibility of a source is not an issue (WP:SOURCEACCESS), nor is whether articles exist on other projects. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk)...

received basically the same amount of coverage. Also, offline sources (WP:SOURCEACCESS) are also acceptable and should not be dismissed because some people...

Vexations you can at least use a source like WSJ by looking at its title. WP:SOURCEACCESS states Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult...

WP:SOURCEACCESS only applies to text sources? It certainly doesn't state that in the article. TDL (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC) WP:SOURCEACCESS pertains...

it may cause uncertainty in the minds of some reviewers), as per WP:SOURCEACCESS. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Links to other Wikipedia...

articles about itself. Shortcuts WP:PAYWALLWP:PAYWALL WP:SOURCEACCESSWP:SOURCEACCESS Verifiability in this context means anyone should be able to check that...

quote @192.76.8.85 gets abusive, cites WP:SOURCEACCESS @Sideswipe9th agrees w/ @192.76.8.85 re WP:SOURCEACCESS but demonstrates solution to precluding verification...

unsupportably more narrow and expansive than consensus. And again, per WP:SOURCEACCESS, your inability to read what I have found isn't my problem--if you want...

used as a source because there is no direct online link to it, but WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:OFFLINE state that sources do not need to be available online...

working but JCAla removed the ref without respecting WP:DEADLINK and WP:SOURCEACCESS. That is in the vandalism category actually. These are two reverts in...

and now accuses me of COI 2010-05-20 21:08 -- Naraht reverts citing WP:SOURCEACCESS 2010-05-20 21:11 -- AEKDB again ignores policy, reverts and claims to...

content that has to be verifiable, not sources). Please have a look at WP:SOURCEACCESS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC) ,...

else? patsw (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC) With due deference to WP:SOURCEACCESS, it is quite clear that the policy at WP:RSUE has not been observed....

because it cannot be easily accessed online, in contradiction to WP:SOURCEACCESS Did it ever exist? This is verifiable by any decent librarian. Netmouse...

(edit conflict) Mirela, our verifiability policy contains a section (WP:SOURCEACCESS) stating that sources are not required to be accessible to all users...

there's much to worry about in this report. One thing to consider is WP:SOURCEACCESS -- there's no requirement that a source be easily available (e.g. on-line)...

published by reliable, independent publications (See [3], [6], [12]) WP:SOURCEACCESS Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly...

met if the sources exist, not if you can read them yourself. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, your inability to find what I add simply isn't my problem. Jclemens...

reliable source; and a stubborn refusal to acknowledge the policy WP:SOURCEACCESS — which leads him to believe that such print sources as the St. Louis...

free online all you like but that's not how the policy works. Read WP:SOURCEACCESS, specifically The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease...

passages of text to you and present them to you as the gatekeeper. Read WP:SOURCEACCESS. Go get the books in question, open them at the indicated page, and read...

blacklisted. -- Banjeboi 19:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Also note Per WP:SOURCEACCESS:"The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access...

google land. Cheers!Meishern (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC) See WP:SOURCEACCESS, "Verifiability in this context means anyone should be able to check...

print sources may be available only in university libraries. (from WP:SOURCEACCESS, emphasis added) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC) If...

contribs, and most recent contribs. He seems to be refusing to accept WP:SOURCEACCESS, and claiming that only sources that are fully available online should...

information. Deadlinks do not mean that sources are not cited... see WP:SOURCEACCESS. I've explained this to you on the talk page in much detail. Also please...

When I resist this kangaroo court mentality, based on the policy WP:SOURCEACCESS, which says it's not my job to make it easy for you, I get accused of...

continue to use a dubious image as reference and tell others to follow WP:SOURCEACCESS, which is certainly impossible for dubious references. OccultZone (Talk...

invalid. Fats40boy11 (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Quote from WP:SOURCEACCESS: Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly...

for being unable to access the first two sources, see WP:PAYWALL/WP:SOURCEACCESS. I have access to the book and it contains a full chapter on Exotel,...

26 December 2016 (UTC) Comment Sources do not have to be online (WP:SOURCEACCESS). We have found sources online that verify his positions as a Justice...

Talk:Ukrainian Artists Society of Australia.  (2) Nominator has called WP:SOURCEACCESS policy "unreasonable".  (3) Nominator has posted, without notice here...

being in French).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC) N WP:SOURCEACCESS + N WP:NONENG. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC) You appear...

sources must be easily accessible; only that sources must exist. See WP:SOURCEACCESS part of WP:V. As an aside, your example citation is a {{cite web}} without...

sources are not hard to access once clipped, and even if they were, per WP:SOURCEACCESS, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly...

the vast majority of which may not be accessed by most readers. WP:SOURCEACCESS offers a broad policy on this, which is that we accept sources which...

be available, I said that some sources will be hard to find. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, it doesn't prevent them from being reliable. —Gazoth (talk) 17:05, 22...

required for WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmetyal (talk • contribs) Comment WP:SOURCEACCESS, which is a shortcut to policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, states "Verifiability...

Monopoly board from that vintage if they have the money (which per WP:SOURCEACCESS is okay) and verify that what is on the website (and, one presumes, what...

available to the public in some form". Under that definition and WP:SOURCEACCESS, since it's available in a university library I'd say it qualifies as...

addressing new writers is to "be bold." I am going to take that advice. WP:SOURCEACCESS states that "[s]ome reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For...

a document at the State of Florida exists and it meets WP:VERIFY, WP:SOURCEACCESS. Anyone can call or write and get the information. I want to cite a document...

creates an automatic link to a number of book databases. However, WP:SOURCEACCESS (in the verifiability policy) does not guarantee that an arbitrary reader...

doesn't matter if the source is rare or not, Rocknrollmancer. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. Motor Cycle Mechanics 1974 is a perfectly acceptable source. In fact...

summary "not found" means that you could not find the source, but per WP:SOURCEACCESS, " If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so...

with your computer? If you are unable to access a source, the policy WP:SOURCEACCESS applies. It says "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are...

that ease of access to references does not affect verifiability (see WP:SOURCEACCESS). However, the extraordinary difficulty in finding these resources suggests...

Reliable Source. Sources do not need to be easily accessable. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. RudolfRed (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC) @Sparkle666: What is the...

"adverting freesheet". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC) WP:SOURCEACCESS says Other people should in principle be able to check that material...

sources are reliable, and independent of the actor, then yes: see WP:SOURCEACCESS. Sources don't have to be online or easy to obtain, as long as they are...

minor British noble. Mztourist (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC) Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, we should not dismiss a source due to not being able to retrieve its...

2024 election. Reliable sources are not disqualified by access cost (WP:SOURCEACCESS, WP:PAYWALL), and the record runs well beyond "one and local"; the Washington...

quite obscure requests fulfilled there. For our policy on this, see WP:SOURCEACCESS, Wikipedia:Offline sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. Best...

208.172.35 (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC) @Terre Hominum To quote WP:SOURCEACCESS Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly...

17 February 2011 (UTC) Linking to the rather severe judgement at WP:SOURCEACCESS: "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access...

WP:NOTCLEANUP. Whether you can access a source or not is irrelevant. See WP:SOURCEACCESS, WP:PAYWALL, WP:LINKROT. You should trust your fellow editors per WP:AGF...

online (that I can find), so I can't assess it. I'm well aware per WP:SOURCEACCESS that online availability or the lack thereof does not affect the quality...

sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS. Your inability to access sources is not my problem. You're entirely...

third-party coverage." This reasoning is in direct contradiction of WP:SOURCEACCESS: "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an...

(UTC) @Elmidae: Sources you cannot access are still valid sources (WP:SOURCEACCESS), and the current state of the article and the sources aren't relevant...

available there and at the Cambridge University Library. I understand per WP:SOURCEACCESS that verifiablily need not be free, nor even convenient, and that theoretically...

clipping left there as a courtesy to you (but not required).. see WP:SOURCEACCESS. It's a news source not an image. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:43, 2 December...

the number of sources can vary!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCEACCESS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NONENGAnasahmed24 Comment Unfortunately...

not make it at all un-citeable. For our policy on this, please see WP:SOURCEACCESS, Wikipedia:Offline sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. As to...

Anyone will be able to obtain a copy of the decree absolute". I see WP:sourceaccess says "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult...

GNG cannot be not met when we have articles we cannot get at--per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC) You cannot assume that the...

07:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC) whilst not discounting your sources as per WP:SOURCEACCESS, i can't see most of the sources you've added. could you provide a way...

how are they verified? LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC) WP:SOURCEACCESS. Are you sure you understand policy well enough to be nominating articles...

Univers1111 (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC) See WP:SOURCEACCESS -- a source does not have to be available on line. Nomoskedasticity (talk)...

David Gerard (talk) 07:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC) I was referring to WP:SOURCEACCESS. You said above the article's sources were "uncheckable", which I took...

December 2014 (UTC) Verifiability is not the same as access, see WP:SOURCEACCESS. Secondly, I am not talking about including every insignificant landmark...

because it cannot be easily accessed online, in contradiction to WP:SOURCEACCESS Did it ever exist? This is verifiable by any decent librarian. Netmouse...

working for me. It likely wasn't archived anywhere. I think that per WP:SOURCEACCESS, it still "counts"(?), but that's a weird situation of course. ~Maplestrip/Mable...

instance, them being in Finnish does not make them unverifiable (see WP:SOURCEACCESS) or unreliable. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:46, 24 September...

article is no hoax and then relying on WP:AGF, WP:NONENGLISH and WP:SOURCEACCESS to keep the article, which is where I am leaning. 24.151.116.12 (talk)...

required so the fact that most sources are in Dutch is irrelevant. See WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:NONENG. Furthermore, this restaurant was awarded a star by the...

magazine in the country. (3) Accessibility of a source is not an issue (WP:SOURCEACCESS), nor is whether articles exist on other projects. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk)...

26 December 2016 (UTC) Comment Sources do not have to be online (WP:SOURCEACCESS). We have found sources online that verify his positions as a Justice...

Books as offline sources are verifiable and don't have to be online (WP:SOURCEACCESS). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 04:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)...

sources have traditionally not been considered a show-stopper per WP:SOURCEACCESS (WP:V). Also consider Wikipedia:General disclaimer#Jurisdiction and legality...

have no prejudice to recreation. Sources need not be online (per WP:SOURCEACCESS) but they must be found in order for a BLP to remain on Wikipedia. Cunard...

Page move could be much better option than applying WP:TNT. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, we can not reject reliable sources only because they are inaccessible...

nomination. Also, sources don't have to be available online, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC) The label is covered...

you can't see these yourself isn't a criterion for deletion, right? WP:SOURCEACCESS applies, as does WP:AGF unless there's some clear reason to disbelieve...

exclude sources that he cannot or will not personally verify, see WP:SOURCEACCESS (trust me, I have some bitter experience with this). PBS's two productionsThe...

published by reliable, independent publications (See [3], [6], [12]) WP:SOURCEACCESS Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly...

invalid. Fats40boy11 (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Quote from WP:SOURCEACCESS: Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly...

have a source which is said to back up the claim, and the policy WP:SOURCEACCESS states that we are not to reject offline sources but rather WP:AGF. That...

significant sources are the books cited in the article. Please read: WP:SOURCEACCESS "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an...

harder to find, and I am not sure whether that would be successful. WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:NONENG provides solutions to this question. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work...

genuine and cannot be argued down on grounds of inaccessibility, see WP:SOURCEACCESS. So, while the present state is unpublishable I do not think it should...

April 2019 (UTC) Osomadre: 1. Sources do not need to be online, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. If you have the title of the article/review, the name of the author...

in-depth coverage behind a paywall (which should not be rejected per WP:SOURCEACCESS). This institution, like most other universities, meets WP:GNG. Modussiccandi...

do not have to be in the article currently. Also worth noting is WP:SOURCEACCESS, part of WP:V, which says "Do not reject reliable sources just because...

addressing new writers is to "be bold." I am going to take that advice. WP:SOURCEACCESS states that "[s]ome reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For...

free-to-access but lower-quality sources (see WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:SOURCEACCESS), so I wouldn't worry about readers needing to register on an external...

the cited source. This despite the fact that he's been pointed to WP:SOURCEACCESS and advised of several methods he can follow for getting the source material...

else? patsw (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC) With due deference to WP:SOURCEACCESS, it is quite clear that the policy at WP:RSUE has not been observed....

unsupportably more narrow and expansive than consensus. And again, per WP:SOURCEACCESS, your inability to read what I have found isn't my problem--if you want...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmetyal (talk • contribs) Comment WP:SOURCEACCESS, which is a shortcut to policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, states "Verifiability...

met if the sources exist, not if you can read them yourself. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, your inability to find what I add simply isn't my problem. Jclemens...

[18] I am leaning towards Keep on the additional basis of WP:NONENG, WP:SOURCEACCESS, WP:WORLDVIEW and WP:AGF for the Kullgren reference and the other references...

pages that have no way to be verified and some paywall sites. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. If we can't check it, it's not verified, and this, this person fails...

to for the editor to jump through hoops to cite that article, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Joe Roe (talk) 09:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC) Delete (with reluctance)...

12 February 2012 (UTC) Well then you really really need to read WP:SOURCEACCESS because I've verified this. Complete information about the citation is...

government login page. — MarkH21 (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC) Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly...

subject". The sources which we can't access online are allowable per WP:SOURCEACCESS: "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an...

allows you to use the original for verification without any link. See WP:SOURCEACCESS, Wikipedia:Offline sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. If you...

that "404!" is a totally non-valid argument point to bring up, per WP:SOURCEACCESS from WP:V policy. — Cirt (talk) 06:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Maybe that...

Yet I have found online and offline sources which I'm applying. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, online sources are not required, and offline sources which can be proved...

functioning. While most of these have been removed, in reality under WP:SOURCEACCESS they do not need to be available online to be included as a source. There...

reference).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, sources are not required to be online because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia...

why the link at ottawacitizen.com no longer works. WP:DEADLINK and WP:SOURCEACCESS say that we don't need to have a working link to reference it, but if...

not published in Internet. Is that right? If so, please refer to WP:SOURCEACCESS in the Verifiability policy, which explicitly says sources do not need...

in the 1789-1793 range. My general rule is to WP:AGF and point to WP:SOURCEACCESS in such cases, though I do agree the author should have supplied at least...

sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS. Your inability to access sources is not my problem. You're entirely...

Page move could be much better option than applying WP:TNT. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, we can not reject reliable sources only because they are inaccessible...

sources are not hard to access once clipped, and even if they were, per WP:SOURCEACCESS, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly...

required for WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly...

there is no demand that sources are available online, see Wikipedia:Sourceaccess. The worst mistake of all is, that nom in an assumed belief in his own...

WP:NOTCLEANUP. Whether you can access a source or not is irrelevant. See WP:SOURCEACCESS, WP:PAYWALL, WP:LINKROT. You should trust your fellow editors per WP:AGF...

free online all you like but that's not how the policy works. Read WP:SOURCEACCESS, specifically The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease...

meant that the sources are offline then the nominator should read WP:SOURCEACCESS which states that such sources are fine. In any case, the information...

Vexations you can at least use a source like WSJ by looking at its title. WP:SOURCEACCESS states Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult...

122.49.102 (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Comment according to WP:SOURCEACCESS there is no requirement that sources be online. Mathewignash (talk) 14:27...

2015 (UTC) There is no requirement that sources be on-line (see: WP:SOURCEACCESS). I assume the sources that are cited in the draft are old newspaper...

issue on whether a source is reliable is whether it's verifiable. WP:SOURCEACCESS states that it doesn't have to be easily verifiable, but I'm not sure...

the relevant page. Offline and paywalled sources are acceptable per WP:SOURCEACCESS, and these are much more easily accessible than that (they WP:NEXIST)...

fact that these sources are offline or paywalled is irrelevant; see WP:SOURCEACCESS.) While I'm not averse to a merge in theory, it probably ought to go...

TWL) May not meet WP:Notability, some or all sources may not meet WP:SOURCEACCESS PhantomTech (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Note: This debate has...

the vast majority of which may not be accessed by most readers. WP:SOURCEACCESS offers a broad policy on this, which is that we accept sources which...

rejected merely on that basis or the absence of verification. As per WP:SOURCEACCESS, waybackmachine can be used to view these sources and authors can be...

since vast numbers of the best sources are on paper alone. Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS, WP:RSC and WP:OFFLINE. Meanwhile, vandalism only refers to bad faith...

page, Wikipedia:Verifiability. Quick access to the excerpt below at WP:SOURCEACCESS, and also a link to Wikipedia:Offline sources, where the template reads...

revolutions) 21:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Keep per WP:MUSICBIO#5 and WP:SOURCEACCESS. (This assumes the citations are real.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:01, 27...

—TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC) This is covered by WP:SOURCEACCESS, specifically "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult...

published reliable sources are not (or are behind a paywall). Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS, Wikipedia:Offline sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. So, if...

do not have to have up-to-date links to be usable and valid, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Adding a convenience link to DISQUS could be acceptable, but it looks...

article stands, it's substantiated by a whole lot of OR. I'm seeing a WP:SOURCEACCESS issue here. X-posting from Aftermath's AfD, wouldn't it make more sense...

functioning. While most of these have been removed, in reality under WP:SOURCEACCESS they do not need to be available online to be included as a source. There...

that could be online or offline, with or without payment. Read WP:V#WP:SOURCEACCESS Cavarrone (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Fair, but how would the average...

different newspapers even better. This would satisfy WP:V as per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Yaris678 (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC) ....Well, I guess the topic...

on is concerned with the work itself, its creator, and publisher. WP:SOURCEACCESS addresses some of the issue of accessibility but in IMHO that is more...

to use deaddisc.com is it's easier to access; I appreciate we have WP:SOURCEACCESS, but that doesn't help us when we have an article that can't be fact...

be considered reliable; please read Wikipedia:Offline sources and WP:SOURCEACCESS. LadyofShalott 02:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Comment - interestingly, a number...

(talk) 03:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Not published in the sense of WP:SOURCEACCESS or WP:Reliable sources/Cost. Not reliable as not published. Fifelfoo...

note in the citation.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC) WP:SOURCEACCESS, which is a shortcut to policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, states "Verifiability...

doesn't count"? The only policy that mentions the topic at all is WP:SOURCEACCESS, and it tells us not to favor online sources over other media.--Dennis...

points. First, article references do not require to be online, per WP:SOURCEACCESS, and book sources are perfectly suitable for evaluate notability. WP:PAPERONLY...

(UTC) A further note about the availability of Doctor Who Magazine. WP:SOURCEACCESS says "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access...

for awards, and two have been named Storylines Notable Books. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly...

==Accessibility== ===Access to sources=== {{policy shortcut|WP:PAYWALL|WP:SOURCEACCESS}} {{Seealso|Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange|Wikipedia:Offline...

above have said about the issue that brought you here, please see WP:SOURCEACCESS, Wikipedia:Offline sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost.--Fuhghettaboutit...

of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources" (WP:SOURCEACCESS). If you are going to cite a TV show, you will need to be specific just...

sources for verification and in support of claims to notability. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:OFFLINE, there is no requirement that sources be available online...

one. ​— Newslinger talk 09:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC) Relevant link: WP:SOURCEACCESS. Sources don't necessarily have to be online, freely or even publicly...

hands-on inspection only in the UK, at, e.g., the V&A though I suppose WP:SOURCEACCESS covers that. The material I have in mind is, e.g. Michael Kennedy on...

That an online resource is not needed is clear in WP:V, specifically WP:SOURCEACCESS. The statement about copyright not applying if the clip is short enough...

generally do not buy books that will never do more than gather dust. WP:SOURCEACCESS says that rarity does not eliminate a source. (Answering Tiptoe:) Unsupported...

January 2011 (UTC) I would suggest referring the other editor to WP:SOURCEACCESS. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC) If this question is related...

it because you don't have access to the print issue falls afoul of WP:SOURCEACCESS. Like WP:OFFLINE says, it is not good practice to say "Revert - I couldn't...

Google Books to be acceptable as sources, Samuel-chapkovski. See WP:SOURCEACCESS and Wikipedia:Offline sources on this. For instructions on how to cite...

hold of it. I also note that it is NOT a requirement, per Wikipedia:SOURCEACCESS, that this source is available easily, immediately or on-line. As to...

(talk) 03:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Please do not assume like this. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. It doesn't "look" like that when even the page numbers are provided...

be posted online in order for you to cite it for verification. See WP:SOURCEACCESS / Wikipedia:Offline sources / Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. Furthermore...

summary "Adding archives to assist with Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:SOURCEACCESS". Was it approved for that purpose? Is ghostarchive an approved archive...

The BBC is a reliable source. The aspect of access is covered in WP:SOURCEACCESS and was incorrectly stated above: "If it was only broadcast, and you...

there is a difficulty for ordinary Wikipedians (as acknowledged at WP:SOURCEACCESS) in obtaining the information alluded to. I see no reason to delete such...

to contradict some of what you have said. Note the section about WP:SOURCEACCESS states: ”Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult...

require payment or some shoe-leather with trip to the library. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. If your US government resources are only available to government employees...

time consuming(learning Norwegian so you can read the book). See WP:SOURCEACCESS. 331dot (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC) You may wish to discuss this...

How does "published" not necessarily mean wide distribution? Well, WP:SOURCEACCESS meantions "some print sources may only be available in university libraries"...

be allowed as that would be a link to a copyright violation). See WP:SOURCEACCESS and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. Just cite them, without using a...

problematic; but the Resource exchange may still be helpful. See WP:SOURCEACCESS Normally forums are not acceptable as sources, since they are user generated;...

remote patrons." I'm not sure whether this source is acceptable per wp:SOURCEACCESS. The first sentence of the policy section says that "...'anyone should...

easy to check and/or correct (like an iNat observation)? Yes. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:SOURCETYPES. Wikipedia articles should (in theory) be based on...

The Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland, but WP:SOURCEACCESS means there is some work required to get hold of them. I had a look at...

viewer is necessary to view the content does not detract from that (WP:SOURCEACCESS), although it would be optimal if no special plugin or viewer were required...

not ZjarriRrethues's fault that you don't have access to it (see WP:SOURCEACCESS), and it's not his fault it's not in English (see WP:NONENG).—S Marshall...

notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. WP:SOURCEACCESS Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly...

Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC) The rules in question are WP:SOURCEACCESS for non-online sources and WP:NONENG for non-English sources. Again,...

which can be obtained in a library, on back issue or otherwise. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. When you do cite it with full attribution, e.g., providing the date...

how fair it is that a source be one that must be bought to view. WP:SOURCEACCESS does address this to a degree where it states "The principle of verifiability...

paywalls, so a paywall shouldn't be a reason not to use a source. See WP:SOURCEACCESS on this. Obviously, if there are two equally reliable sources available...

establish notability as much as equivalent online sources. Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS and Wikipedia:Offline sources on this. Of course, it's difficult for...

(UTC) Hi Majorsongs2. Further on to what 331dot writes, please see WP:SOURCEACCESS and Wikipedia:Offline sources. We require that information in articles...

verification easier, but they are not required at all. Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS, Wikipedia:Offline sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost.--Fuhghettaboutit...

absolutely acceptable to use sources that are not available online. See WP:SOURCEACCESS on this. What you can do to aid verification is to add a quote from the...

Sources behind paywalls are perfectly acceptable, CelluloidJam. See WP:SOURCEACCESS on this. Many of the best sources, such as scholarly journal articles...

of templates. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC) S_Q, see WP:SOURCEACCESS -- there is no requirement that a source be available on-line. However...

that sources be available online, only that they be verifiable. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. You would of course be citing the source as Channel 4 News, and not...

WP:V make it unverifiable. The relevant sections are WP:NOENG and WP:SOURCEACCESS. If its in another language and/or not easily available, WP:V allows...

that we do not require sources cited in an article to be online (see WP:SOURCEACCESS), and both newspaper articles can be cited just noting information about...

Gab4gab (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC) On that, Gab4gab, see WP:SOURCEACCESS. We do not require sources to be freely accessible. A more suitable template...

• contribs) 10:33, June 21, 2021 (UTC) As you will see at Wikipedia:SOURCEACCESS, there is no requirement that a source be viewable online to be considered...

to do so. NtheP (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Good question. WP:SOURCEACCESS speaks of material in print in libraries for instance. Noticeboards such...

content that has to be verifiable, not sources). Please have a look at WP:SOURCEACCESS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Practice in the past...

sources are not available online or are behind a paywall. Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS, Wikipedia:Offline sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. So, if...

which are not available online. Please see Wikipedia:Offline sources, WP:SOURCEACCESS and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. You do no necessarily need to cite...

it doesn't have to be available online for it to be verifiable. WP:SOURCEACCESS is clear about it. There is commonly confusion about this; I recently...

to cite reliable published sources that are not online. Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS, Wikipedia:Offline sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. Best...

discussion, one of the editors defending the use of the book as RS claims WP:SOURCEACCESS could be used to keep using the book.) The book is only legally accesible...

but I guess better late than never. But back to your request, see WP:SOURCEACCESS, specifically this: Do not reject sources just because they are hard...

user Darkness Shines is removing the content completely disregarding WP:SOURCEACCESS and rather being uncivil in editsummaries to another editor. --lTopGunl...

including it. But the issue can be construed in a different way. WP:SOURCEACCESS makes it clear that sources do not have to be readily available on-line...

effectively pro-Putin?--Brian Dell (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC) WP:SOURCEACCESS is what matters for that particular issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:35...

Cordless Larry (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Finally, note that WP:SOURCEACCESS makes clear that just because a source is not open-access, doesn't mean...

notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. WP:SOURCEACCESS Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly...

any other editors so far have been able to verify this reference. WP:SOURCEACCESS seems to apply, in that being unable to access a source is not a valid...

should not be removed merely due to linkrot. The relevant policy is WP:SOURCEACCESS. The fact that a link has rotted does not mean the content is unverifiable...

(UTC) Easy access isn't a necessary condition for use of sources, per WP:SOURCEACCESS, though it's obviously preferable, Stocatta. In this case, it seems that...

thinks a source must be available for free on-line can be directed to WP:SOURCEACCESS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC) According to WP:BLPPRIMARY...

not ZjarriRrethues's fault that you don't have access to it (see WP:SOURCEACCESS), and it's not his fault it's not in English (see WP:NONENG).—S Marshall...

dubious -- not a single one is clickable. This is perhaps taking WP:SOURCEACCESS to an extreme. I'm torn as to what to do here; I'm tempted to stubbify...

user who added the source with complete information going against WP:SOURCEACCESS. And I didn't call him a vandal, but his reckless blanking of sourced...

Monopoly board from that vintage if they have the money (which per WP:SOURCEACCESS is okay) and verify that what is on the website (and, one presumes, what...

00:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC) Welcome to the Teahouse, TipsyElephant! WP:SOURCEACCESS may be helpful to you. You should probably have access to the source...

my first request, so please bear with me. I was redirected here by WP:SOURCEACCESS. There's an issue on CSI: Cyber (edit | talk | history | links | watch...

how fair it is that a source be one that must be bought to view. WP:SOURCEACCESS does address this to a degree where it states "The principle of verifiability...

3 September 2021 (UTC) @Riverblade: The relevant policy here is WP:Sourceaccess which states "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult...

explained in the Wikipedia pillar policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:SOURCEACCESS "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access...

image of the newspaper article from the Commons will not matter. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. For purposes of making those citations in any draft you create, I suggest...

But it's not a problem if there are sources not available on-line (WP:SOURCEACCESS). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Oh yes I know they...

requirement that books should be available in Google Books; please see the WP:SOURCEACCESS section of WP:V" "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are...

that a source be easily accessible, e.g. clickable/on-line -- see WP:SOURCEACCESS -- but again that's not meant to imply that D&B can be used even if most...

"(online)" above, please note that source do not have to be online. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC) Thank...

(talk) 00:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Offline sources are fine, see WP:SOURCEACCESS for guidance. Using the ProveIt gadget in preferences makes entering...

believes there may be confusion between WP Guidelines. WP:N, WP:SPS, WP:SOURCEACCESS and finally WP:NPOSSIBLE which appears was never followed by editors...

which cannot now be viewed. A verifiable citation is needed here: see WP:SOURCEACCESS International station opens There are six paragraphs in this section...

everyone is not the responsibility of Wikipedia editors. Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS. Just as the user "disagrees with the addition of information citing...

available to the public in some form". Under that definition and WP:SOURCEACCESS, since it's available in a university library I'd say it qualifies as...

is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC) See WP:SOURCEACCESS, how accessible a source is has nothing to do with how reliable it is...

don't think it would be worthwhile to link them, especially since WP:SOURCEACCESS permits the use of offline sources. SounderBruce 00:23, 20 December 2023...

deleting them all leaving content unsourced be inconsistent with WP:SOURCEACCESS? Betty Logan (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC) The proposal is to delete...

for Alanis? ;-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC) And WP:SOURCEACCESS which is part of WP:V says "Do not reject reliable sources just because...

who don't live in Greece, it doesn't mean that no one can verify. WP:SOURCEACCESS exists for this reason. The editor who added the magazine citation to...

any questions. Qcne (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC) Comment Per WP:SOURCEACCESS you should not be rejecting on this basis. Polyamorph (talk) 11:16, 18...

being in French).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC) N WP:SOURCEACCESS + N WP:NONENG. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC) You appear...

You're certainly welcome to use offline sources, as explained at WP:SOURCEACCESS. Sources available via public libraries and online sources that aren't...

could go and verify the grave itself and that would be inline with WP:SOURCEACCESS, so the image is just a courtesy link. It's really no different than...

Discord chat room being private and inaccessible doesn't run afoul of WP:SOURCEACCESS? How does one verify the claims made? Secondly, do the chat rooms have...

repeat advertising. How expensive a source is doesn't matter, see WP:SOURCEACCESS. As per my previous comment the language used and it's time needs to...

always an issue, but sources don't have to be easy to access (see WP: SOURCEACCESS). Either way archive.today appears to be able to archive Instagram links...

public in some form, and still exists, is considered published. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, that you would have to go to the park to read the plaque doesn't disqualify...

allowed to use sources that are more difficult or costly to find, see WP:SOURCEACCESS. In some cases the newspaper in question has a website hosting its own...

2024 election. Reliable sources are not disqualified by access cost (WP:SOURCEACCESS, WP:PAYWALL), and the record runs well beyond "one and local"; the Washington...

Bearian (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2026 (UTC) Keep - Consistent with WP:SOURCEACCESS, additional interviews, profiles, and academic indexing. Tarek Jabr (talk)...

received basically the same amount of coverage. Also, offline sources (WP:SOURCEACCESS) are also acceptable and should not be dismissed because some people...

assessment is probably right. Paywalled content is acceptable, see WP:SOURCEACCESS (and another opportunity to mention WP:WikiProject Resource Exchange...

of offline references; I default to trusting them for now. See the WP:SOURCEACCESS section of WP:V which is further explained in the Offline sources essay...

for being unable to access the first two sources, see WP:PAYWALL/WP:SOURCEACCESS. I have access to the book and it contains a full chapter on Exotel,...

within WP:NEWSORG and WP:RS guidelines when properly attributed. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, many mainstream publications (including Forbes, TechCrunch, and local...

with your computer? If you are unable to access a source, the policy WP:SOURCEACCESS applies. It says "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are...

difficult something is to access doesn't effect reliability, see WP:SOURCEACCESS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC) This...

anyway to still access the source then this isn't a reliability issue (WP:Sourceaccess). Even if an issue comes up with internet archive another third party...

of the sources aren't readily available online, but of course per WP:SOURCEACCESS there's no requirement that they be. Nom should withdraw this ill-considered...

older and foreign topics"? We aleady have the policies WP:NONENG and WP:SOURCEACCESS. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC) Phil Bridger - I think...

(talk • contribs) 03:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC) Re non-working links see WP:SOURCEACCESS. Also note that you're referring to someone who is no longer pertinent...

online (that I can find), so I can't assess it. I'm well aware per WP:SOURCEACCESS that online availability or the lack thereof does not affect the quality...

in that. ⚒️MinecraftPlayer321⚒️ | 💬 01:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC) WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:OFFLINE. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC) Delete...

in fact, policy based, even if they didn't reference WP:PAYWALL (aka SOURCEACCESS) or WP:OFFLINE. The consensus at that time was Keep, and the non-admin...

are often behind paywalls or not available online, Buryman49. See WP:SOURCEACCESS on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC) If this is...

IPPON01 (talk) 09:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC) IPPON01 extending the idea of WP:SOURCEACCESS, sources shouldn't necessarily be easy to verify. So probably okay. Are...

sources are actually notable (eg, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). Also despite WP:SOURCEACCESS some things like trade publications available only to a limited audience...

Sources don't need to be available online to be acceptable (see WP:SOURCEACCESS), but they do need to have been published in some form. Could you give...

As I wrote above, "Sources don't need to be available online". See WP:SOURCEACCESS for more on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2026 (UTC)...

WP:NOENG) and it is OK to use sources that are difficult to access (see WP:SOURCEACCESS). A newspaper of record is almost certainly going to be a reliable source...

As they can't be accessed by hundreds of millions of people, or is WP:SOURCEACCESS relevant?. The DDoSing is a relevant issue, that some people can't access...

in fact, policy based, even if they didn't reference WP:PAYWALL (aka SOURCEACCESS) or WP:OFFLINE. The consensus at that time was Keep, and the non-admin...