Wikipedia:But there must be sources!

You may be confident that sources exist, but asserting this without proof is unlikely to convince anyone who believes that they don't. They may well have reached that conclusion by searching for references and failing to find any. Closing administrators on AfD debates will frequently afford unsupported assertions less weight. The best and most reliable way of convincing both doubters and the closing administrator is to actually provide the requested sources rather than simply declaring you're sure they must be out there somewhere.

Wikipedia's verifiability policy is one of its core content policies and demands that all material included in the encyclopedia must be sourced, or it may be challenged and removed. While some editors believe that, strictly speaking, this right of challenge only extends to material thought to be factually incorrect, in practice material is challenged on a variety of other grounds including notability concerns, relevance, undue weight, original research, etc. Articles can be, and frequently are, removed on these grounds. The burden of proof is on those who add or defend the contentious material to provide sources that satisfy the concerns of the challenging editor.

Some editors make the mistake of a making a WP:MUSTBESOURCES assertion at AFD which is listed in the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Even worse, some editors claim this type of argument is supported in policy at WP:NEXIST. NEXIST claims require sources available in the real world and are therefore not at all similar to MUSTBESOURCES assertions. This page has developed a test to help editors discern when an argument is a policy supported NEXIST claim versus an argument made using a MUSTBESOURCES fallacy.

Must Be Sources arguments to avoid

Insisting that sources must exist without being able to provide them is generally to be avoided in deletion discussions. Hypothetical examples include:

• Keep – This is obviously notable, so it could be referenced. Prejudger 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
• Keep – There must be plenty of sources. Presumer 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
• Keep – You should find sources, instead of deleting it. ItsUpToYou 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
• Keep – There are 20,000 google hits for some or all of the words in the title so surely there are sources. NeedleHaystack 01:01, 1 January 2001
• Keep – You need to show there are no sources. ProveANegative 01:01, 1 January 2001
• Keep – I expect that sourcing is available to verify basic facts Expector 01:01, 1 January 2001
• Keep – Other people will be able to provide references. HaveFaith 01:01, 1 January 2001
• Keep – I've seen sources but I won't tell you what they are or where I found them. YaGottaBelieveMe 01:01, 1 January 2001
• Keep – If we had access to this subscription newspaper archive there must be sources there somewhere.SuppositionMan 01:01, 1 January 2001
• Keep – I haven't read this offline book but I am sure it must have significant coverage even though I don't have any evidence that it does.GuessworkSue 01:01, 1 January 2001
• Keep – If we lived in that place we would have access to loads of sources about that topic.PostulatePlacePaul 01:01, 1 January 2001
• Keep – This really old topic is obviously notable so people who lived in the past must have written about it, and therefore sources must exist somewhere in some old unnamed, unfound, unread, newspaper, or magazine, or book, by some unknown author and publisher in some random restricted archive or library which nobody, including me, has access to but that some imaginary future editor most certainly will.ConjectureConCarlSeesTheHighlyUnlikelyFutureWhileDiggingUnsuccessfullyIntothePast 01:01, 1 January 2001

We keep articles because we know they have sources, not because we assume they have, without having seen them. Any claim that sources exist must be verifiable. Unless you can indicate what and where the sources are, they are not verifiable.

Keep in mind, as well, that if all you had to do to prevent an article's deletion was to guess at the possibility that better sources might exist than anybody has actually found, then even outright hoaxes would not be deletable anymore, because anybody can say this about literally any article whether its topic actually exists or not. If you are so sure that enough quality sources exist to salvage the article, then find those sources and show them.

Note that sometimes editors posit an even weaker version of this argument: but there may be sources! All criticism of the stronger argument applies in such case too, of course, plus the slippery slope to extreme inclusionism (but there is a tiny chance there are sources... but maybe sources will appear tommmorrow... etc.).

The NEXIST Test: Avoiding the MUSTBESOURCES fallacy

Some editors will make the mistake of claiming that sources exist without proof and argue that WP:NEXIST policy justifies that claim. However, valid NEXIST claims are not the same as invalid WP:MUSTBESOURCES claims. NEXIST claims are supported by sources available in the real world with material evidence that can be seen by everyone, whereas MUSTBESOURCES claims provide no specific material evidence. The following is a NEXIST test to accurately assess whether an argument is a valid NEXIST claim:

NT1- Not easily substitutable

1. A valid NEXIST claim is not easily substitutable with a WP:MUSTBESOURCES claim. If they are interchangeable the claim is likely an invalid MUSTBESOURCES claim.

NT2- Supported by sources in the real world

2. A valid NEXIST claim is supported by sources available in the real world that can be verified to exist by everyone. This means the sources have specific titles, authors and/or editors, publishers, and publication dates in evidence, but may mean that the sources are not accessible to be read for some reason such as being offline or behind a paywall.

NT3- Provides specific evidence of the possibility of SIGCOV

3. A valid NEXIST claim provides specific evidence of the possibility of sources with WP:SIGCOV. Some examples of this could be footnotes or bibliographies in WP:RS which identify specific offline materials about the subject; specific sources found in an archive but which are inaccessible due to a paywall but whose titles are indicative of a strong possibility of significant coverage; or snippet views of publications in google books or another archive with partially viewable text which suggest they contain significant coverage. This is not a complete list of the types of potential evidence that could strongly suggest SIGCOV exists within a clearly identifiable publication.

NT4- Doesn't make a claim based in speculative materials

4. An invalid NEXIST claim makes an unprovable claim to sources that may or may not exist. This type of claim provides no publication details such as the title and publication date of materials. It is a vague claim akin to spotting a WikiUnicorn. This is a MUSTBESOURCES fallacy because it is not clearly based in evidence in the real world, and often relies on circular reasoning. Here are some examples of this type of invalid claim:

"If we had access to these newspapers from this period there would certainly be significant coverage somewhere in them".

"If we had access to this online subscription archive there would be significant coverage somewhere in it."

"If we lived in this place and went to this library, it would most certainly have sources with SIGCOV even though I have no evidence to back that up such as the names of specific publications."

• Note- There are exceptions to this. See NT8.

NT5- Based in a surmountable problem

5. A valid NEXIST claim is based in a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem. The more likely that source access issues can be solved the stronger the NEXIST argument. The less likely that source access issues will ever be solved the weaker and less valid the NEXIST argument. If a WikiUnicorn is just as likely to materialize as that mythical future editor with miraculous source access abilities than the NEXIST argument is a weak one.

NT6– Search hits can't prove NEXIST

6. Editors trying to locate sources will often try and search subscription archives to which they don't have access; or make appeals to an archive to which they do have access without reading materials in the archive. If a large number of hits in the archive return they will often make a sources exist claim, but without having viewed the sources in question. This is an argument fallacy listed at WP:SOURCESEARCH. It is a fallacy for several reasons:

A. Search hits can't prove that the article is about the topic in many cases. For example searching for people names often gets hits on different people who happen to have the same name. Reading the article text is therefore essential with many topics in order to determine if the source in question is even about the topic.

B. Search hits can't indicate the depth of coverage or significance of coverage within a particular source. For example, many sports figures are routinely listed in match reports in passing in newspaper articles. Search hits on athletes are therefore highly unreliable indicators of the existence of significant coverage. This is a problem in many topic areas and is not limited to sports.

C. Search hits can't indicate whether a source is independent. Newspapers and other periodicals often include non-independent materials such as press release based reporting or puffery interviews which are not sufficiently transformative to be considered independent (see WP:INTERVIEWS). Not being able to read/view articles in search results cannot prove that the sources in search hits are independent.

NT7- Fits the NEXIST chart

6. In most cases, a valid NEXIST claim fits easily in the NEXIST chart (see below). Because vague unknown sources (such as those hypothesized but not proven to exist in a digital or physical archive or library) are not citable (ie no known title, author/editor, publisher, publication date, etc.), they are not usable toward NEXIST as it is depicted in the NEXIST chart.

The current state of the article does not determine notability

Current state of the article	Sources available in the real world	Result
N No or few suitable sources cited	N No or few suitable sources that could be cited	N Likely not notable
N No or few suitable sources cited	Y Multiple suitable sources that could be cited	Y Likely notable
Y Multiple suitable sources cited	Y Multiple suitable sources that could be cited	Y Likely notable

NT8- Speculation requires One Amazing Source and avoid betting on the Future Editor Myth

7. NEXIST challenges editors to consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any. Some editors have used this clause to erroneously put forward WP:MUSTBESOURCES arguments. To guide editors in deciding when to consider this line of reasoning, editors should consider the following:

A. Is there at least one independent source with evidence of WP:SIGCOV that addresses the topic directly and in detail? A topic with zero sources meeting SIGOV is not likely to have coverage elsewhere, and editors are not obligated to consider speculative unverifiable sourcing in such cases .

B If that one source exceptionally strong? Sources like a book length biography; a chapter in a scholarly book devoted to the subject; an encyclopedia entry on the topic; or a journal article where the topic is the main subject are strong indicatiors that SIGCOV will exist in other materials. However, a less substantial source such as a single newspaper article (in most cases), or a perfunctory mention of less than 500 words on a topic in a book or magazine, is not as likely to have significant coverage elsewhere. How in-depth, long, detailed, and the type of coverage in that one source matters. Note that some shorter entries can still be One Amazing Source if a strong encyclopedic claim is made within that short text. If editors are not convinced that this source is "ONEAMAZINGSOURCE" than they need go no further in considering speculative unverifiable sourcing claims.

C. Is there RS making a substantial encyclopedic claim? Is the subject known for a notable award or achievement, or been cited as having some broad impact in a reliable source? If that is the case, it is more likely that other RS exists elsewhere. In such cases the topic is likely to pass an WP:SNG and the need to consider speculative sourcing is not necessary. In rare instances, this is not the case and editors may wish to entertain speculative sourcing arguments in such unusual cases.

D. Editors may also wish to consider other barriers to source access such as language barriers, paywalls, physical barriers, etc. The extant to which these issues should be weighed depends on context. Editors may not always agree what those are. A general rule of thumb in such cases is to consider the degree to which the issue is WP:SURMOUNTABLE.

E. Some editors are willing to place hope in a future editor that will have highly improbable amounts of source access that will someday be active on wikipedia and stumble across this one article to finally make it meet GNG. Others have a more sober eye on this, and see it for what it is: a highly improbable future editor myth that will likely never happen. In such cases, deletion or a suitable WP:ATD may be the better choice. That hypothetical mythical editor can always recreate the article on that future magic day they finally materialize like the WikiUnicorn. On that spellbinding and glorious day wikipedia will finally benefit from those mythical sources that have at long last been revealed in the real world.

Frequently asked questions

Q. But what if I feel very strongly about this article and sources on the topic are hard to find?

A. The article can be moved under your Wikipedia account where in most cases it can be edited for as long as necessary without fear of deletion. Once those hard to find sources have been located and used to improve the article, an admin can move the article back into the main article space.

Q. But the article is only X days/weeks/months old, references aren't there yet but they will be. Without the Wikipedia article, how will 3rd parties know to write about this?

A. This idea is completely backwards to how Wikipedia actually works. The references must come first, then the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia isn't here to promote ideas to the point where they may become notable, that notability must come first.

Q. But what about WP:BEFORE?

A. Insisting that an article be kept only because the nominator has not followed WP:BEFORE is unhelpful and borders on wikilawyering because it focuses on procedural quibbles instead of addressing the problem (and unsourced articles are a problem). If an article cannot be sourced then it should be deleted and complaining that the nominator hasn't dotted their i's and crossed their t's is not going to change that. The best thing to do is to look for sources; if the nominator has not done due diligence and good references actually prove easy to find, then the deletion will fail and the nominator will be left with egg on their face. However, also note that not everybody has access to the same research tools, so the fact that you were able to access a database that provided more coverage than somebody else found in other databases is not, in and of itself, proof that the other editor was negligent in their duties. If you can salvage the article, then just salvage it and don't attack other editors for not finding what you found.

Q. Why don't you go and look for sources?

A. Frequently people do. This is a collaborative encyclopedia that works on a process of incremental improvement. But demanding people do your work for you is not fair, for several reasons:

1. It's insulting. They are challenging material because they have been unable to find sources. To tell them that they should go away and do just that comes across as a slap in the face.
2. It's presumptuous. You do not have a claim on other editors' time. You are adding or defending material that, as it stands, does not conform to Wikipedia's requirements and it is nobody else's job to fix it. It is unfair to pass this job on to other editors who may not have the time, inclination or knowledge of the subject material to fix it, especially if they believe in good faith that it can't be done at all.
3. Wikipedia policy puts the responsibility on the editor who adds the material to reference it, not the person challenging it.

Q. But what about biting newcomers?

A. We were all newcomers at some point and someone helped us understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines around references. You repay that by doing the same for newcomers and doing it without biting them. Giving new editors who make vague statements presuming existence of sources a "pass" simply because they are new does not do them or Wikipedia any service.

See also

• Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § There must be sources
• Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue
• Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article