Wikipedia:Source content comes first!

This is an essay on notability.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcuts

This page in a nutshell: A source's reliability doesn't immediately make it a good source. It's the content of the source that matters.

Sources having significant coverage are not the same as sources being reliable. It's always important to check the content of the source(s), because if we as editors based notability on reliability, and did not read the source itself, then it would make the SIGCOV section of the General Notability Guideline useless.

Of course, reliability is important. After all, it's probably the most important part of sources, but the content of the sources is arguably just as important. Take a well-known spokesperson as an example. If all of the sources were added because of reliability, you would not only run the risk of almost all of the sources being passing mentions, but also the risk of there being a lot of unproven information on said article.

Examples

[edit]

Keep. All of the sources are from ESPN, a reliable source; therefore, the topic is notable. ESPNisalwaysagoodsource (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of the sources are game articles, so ESPN being reliable does not save those sources. TrivialIguess (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Trivial mentions" are sources that briefly mention a topic, but don't go into any detail about it. For example, saying that "Bill Gates founded Microsoft" would be considered a trivial mention of Bill Gates.
"Sources with random facts" are sources that don't talk about the statement, but talk about a random fact that has nothing to do with notability. An example would be a statement about a car brand's origin that's sourced from a source that discusses the modern history of the said brand.
"Synthesis" is when multiple sources are combined to draw a new conclusion. This is a common example of original research. For example, if an article states that "The Rutgers Scarlet Knights football team is one of the two founding teams of college football, but it hasn't seen much success lately," this would be a new conclusion drawn from multiple sources.

All of the above examples can be written off due to sources being reliable without taking a source's content into consideration. Either they base it on how popular the source is without checking the source's credibility, or they base it on awards, such as the European Newspaper Award. Either way, the result is an article with a lot of sources with any/all of the examples shown above that were added solely for the sake of reliability, which is something Wikipedia generally wants to avoid.

Philosophy	Article content Articles must be written All Five Pillars are equally important Avoid vague introductions Be a reliable source Civil POV pushing Cohesion Competence is required Concede lost arguments Dissent is not disloyalty Don't lie Don't search for objections Duty to comply Editing Wikipedia is like visiting a foreign country Editors will sometimes be wrong Eight simple rules for editing our encyclopedia Explanationism External criticism of Wikipedia Five pillars Here to build an encyclopedia Large language models Leave it to the experienced Levels of competence Levels of consensus Most ideas are bad Need Not broken is ugly Not editing because of Wikipedia restriction Not every article can be a Featured Article The one question Oversimplification Paradoxes Paraphrasing POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields Process is important Product, process, policy Purpose Reasonability rule Systemic bias There is no seniority Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia Tendentious editing The role of policies in collaborative anarchy The rules are principles Trifecta We are absolutely here to right great wrongs Wikipedia in brief Wikipedia is an encyclopedia Wikipedia is a community Wikipedia is not RationalWiki
Article construction	100K featured articles Abandoned stubs Acronym overkill Adding images improves the encyclopedia Advanced text formatting Akin's Laws of Article Writing Alternatives to the "Expand" template Amnesia test A navbox on every page An unfinished house is a real problem Archive your sources Article revisions Articles have a half-life Autosizing images Avoid mission statements Be neutral in form Beef up that first revision Blind men and an elephant BOLD, revert, discuss cycle Build content to endure Cherrypicking Chesterton's fence Children's lit, adult new readers, & large-print books Citation overkill Citation underkill Common-style fallacy Concept cloud Creating controversial content Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability Dictionaries as sources Don't cite Wikipedia on Wikipedia Don't demolish the house while it's still being built Don't get hung up on minor details Don't hope the house will build itself Don't panic Don't "teach the controversy" Editing on mobile devices Editors are not mindreaders Encourage the newcomers Endorsements (commercial) Featured articles may have problems Formatting bilateral relations articles Formatting bilateral relations templates Fruit of the poisonous tree Give an article a chance How to write a featured article Identifying and using independent sources History sources Law sources Primary sources Science sources Style guides Tertiary sources Ignore STRONGNAT for date formats Introduction to structurism Link rot Mine a source Merge Test Minors and persons judged incompetent "Murder of" articles Not every story/event/disaster needs a biography Not everything needs a navbox Not everything needs a template Nothing is in stone Obtain peer review comments Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area Permastub Potential, not just current state Presentism Principle of Some Astonishment The problem with elegant variation Pro and con lists Printability Publicists Put a little effort into it Restoring part of a reverted edit Robotic editing Sham consensus Source your plot summaries Specialized-style fallacy Stublet Stub Makers Run an edit-a-thon Temporary versions of articles Tertiary-source fallacy There are no shortcuts to neutrality There is no deadline There is a deadline The deadline is now Try not to leave it a stub What is a reliable source Understanding Wikipedia's content standards Walled garden What an article should not include Wikipedia is a work in progress Wikipedia is not being written in an organized fashion The world will not end tomorrow Write the article first Writing better articles
Writing article content	Avoid thread mode Copyediting reception sections Coup Don't throw more litter onto the pile Gender-neutral language Myth vs fiction Proseline Turning biology research into a Wikipedia article Use our own words We shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions Write the article first Writing about women Writing better articles
Removing or deleting content	Adjectives in your recommendations AfD is not a war zone Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions Arguments to make in deletion discussions Avoid repeated arguments Before commenting in a deletion discussion But there must be sources! Confusing arguments mean nothing Content removal Counting and sorting are not original research Delete or merge Delete the junk Deletion is not cleanup Does deletion help? Don't attack the nominator Don't confuse stub status with non-notability Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument Emptying categories out of proccess Follow the leader How the presumption of notability works How to save an article nominated for deletion I just don't like it Identifying blatant advertising Identifying test edits Immunity Keep it concise Liar liar pants on fire Nothing Nothing is clear Overzealous deletion Relisting can be abusive Relist bias The Heymann Standard Unopposed AFD discussion Wikipedia is not Whack-A-Mole Why was the page I created deleted? What to do if your article gets tagged for speedy deletion When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork No Encyclopedic Use

Essays on civility

The basics	Accepting other users Apology Autistic editors Being right isn't enough Contributing to complicated discussions Divisiveness Don't retaliate Editors' pronouns Edit at your own pace Encouraging the newcomers Enjoy yourself Expect no thanks How to be civil Maintaining a friendly space Negotiation Obsessive–compulsive disorder editors Please say please Relationships with academic editors Thank you Too long; didn't read Truce Unblock perspectives We are all Wikipedians here You have a right to remain silent
Philosophy	A thank you never hurts A weak personal attack is still wrong Advice for hotheads An uncivil environment is a poor environment Be the glue Beware of the tigers! Civility warnings Deletion as revenge Duty to comply Failure Forgive and forget It's not the end of the world Nobody cares Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals On Wikipedia no one knows I'm a dog Old-fashioned Wikipedian values Profanity, civility, and discussions Revert notification opt-out Shadowless Fists of Death! Staying cool when the editing gets hot The grey zone The last word There is no Divine Right of Editors Most ideas are bad Nothing is clear Reader The rules of polite discourse There is no common sense Two wrongs don't make a right Wikipedia clichés Wikipedia is not about winning Wikipedia should not be a monopoly Writing for the opponent
Dos	Assume good faith Assume the assumption of good faith Assume no clue Avoid personal remarks Avoid the word "vandal" Be excellent to one another Be pragmatic Beyond civility Call a spade a spade Candor Deny recognition Desist Discussing cruft Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Encourage full discussions Get over it How to lose Imagine others complexly Just drop it Keep it concise Keep it down to earth Mind your own business Say "MOBY" Mutual withdrawal Read before commenting Read the room Settle the process first You can search, too
Don'ts	ALPHABETTISPAGHETTI Wikipedia:Because I can Civil POV pushing Cyberbullying Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack Don't be a fanatic Don't be a jerk Don't be an ostrich Don't be ashamed Don't be a WikiBigot Don't be high-maintenance Don't be inconsiderate Don't be obnoxious Don't be prejudiced Don't be rude Don't be the Fun Police Don't bludgeon the process Don't call a spade a spade Don't call people by their real name Don't call the kettle black Don't call things cruft Don't come down like a ton of bricks Don't cry COI Don't demand that editors solve the problems they identify Don't eat the troll's food Don't fight fire with fire Don't give a fuck Don't help too much Don't ignore community consensus Don't knit beside the guillotine Don't make a smarmy valediction part of your signature Don't remind others of past misdeeds Don't shout Don't spite your face Don't take the bait Don't template the regulars Don't throw your toys out of the pram Do not insult the vandals Griefing Hate is disruptive Nationalist editing No angry mastodons just madmen No Nazis No racists No Confederates No queerphobia No, you can't have a pony Passive aggression POV railroad Superhatting There are no oracles There's no need to guess someone's preferred pronouns You can't squeeze blood from a turnip UPPERCASE
WikiRelations	WikiBullying WikiCrime WikiHarassment WikiHate WikiLawyering WikiLove WikiPeace

About essays	Essay guide Value of essays Difference between policies, guidelines and essays Don't cite essays as if they were policy Avoid writing redundant essays Finding an essay Quote your own essay
Policies and guidelines	About policies and guidelines Policies Guidelines How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance Policy writing is hard

Examples

See also