Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/all/Daily Mail

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mathglot (talk | contribs) at 01:13, 21 September 2025 (Original. Content in this edit was copied from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/2; see that page's history for attribution.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Perennial sources
Source Status
(legend)
Discussions Use
List Last Summary
Daily Mail (MailOnline)
WP:DAILYMAILWP:DAILYMAIL 📌
WP:RSPDMWP:RSPDM 📌
Deprecated Request for comment 2017 Request for comment 2019 Request for comment 2020

54[a]

2024

In the 2017 RfC, the Daily Mail was the first source to be deprecated on Wikipedia, and the decision was challenged and reaffirmed in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are more reliable. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. The Daily Mail has a "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication". The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion. Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context. (Note that dailymail.co.uk is not trustworthy as a source of past content that was printed in the Daily Mail.) The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail. The deprecation includes other editions of the UK Daily Mail, such as the Irish and Scottish editions. The UK Daily Mail is not to be confused with other publications named Daily Mail that are unaffiliated with the UK paper. The dailymail.com domain was previously used by the unaffiliated Charleston Daily Mail, and reference links to that publication are still present.
1 Links Spamcheck
2 Links Spamcheck
3 Links Spamcheck
4 Links Spamcheck
5 Links Spamcheck
6 Links Spamcheck
7 Links Spamcheck
8 Links Spamcheck
9 Links Spamcheck
10 Links Spamcheck
11 Links Spamcheck


Notes

  1. ^ See also these discussions of the Daily Mail: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54