Is Forbes a reliable source on Wikipedia?
It depends on which Forbes. The Perennial Sources list records the community's consensus for each type of Forbes content, and the answers differ.
| Source variant | RSP status | What it means for a draft |
|---|---|---|
| Forbes staff writers | No consensus | Usable with caution, judged case by case; do not rest notability on it alone |
| Forbes.com before 5 August 2010, and print issues | Generally reliable | Full weight, like any established magazine |
| Forbes contributors (the "Contributor" byline) | Generally unreliable | Treated as self-published; no notability value, and barred for claims about living people |
| Daily Mail / MailOnline | Deprecated | Do not cite; no notability value |
| Mail on Sunday | Generally unreliable | Do not rely on it |
These are community decisions recorded publicly on the Perennial Sources list, not our opinion, and they can change after a new discussion. Our media list carries the same statuses, last reviewed in November 2026. For the wider framework see our reliable sources guide.
Why do Forbes staff articles have "no consensus"?
"No consensus" means editors could not agree either way, so every staff article is weighed on its own merits. A byline from a named Forbes reporter, a reported story with several independent sources and a clear editorial chain is stronger than a short item built from a company's announcement.
The practical reading for a company: a genuine staff feature helps as one source among several. It does not carry a notability case alone, and a reviewer may ask for stronger sources next to it. The general notability guideline (WP:GNG) wants significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Why are Forbes contributor posts unreliable?
Contributor posts are written by outside authors, not newsroom staff, and Wikipedia treats them as self-published sources. The entry has its own shortcut, WP:FORBESCON. In policy terms a contributor column weighs about as much as a personal blog, whatever the domain says.
The consequences are concrete. A contributor post adds nothing toward notability. It cannot support a claim about a founder or executive, because self-published material is barred in biographies of living people (WP:BLP); see how this plays out for founders and public figures. The narrow exception is an established expert writing inside their own field, cited as attributed opinion, which most placements never reach.
How do you tell a staff article from a contributor post?
Check the byline label, then the author page. It takes about 30 seconds.
- Read the label under the author's name. "Forbes Staff" or an editor title points to the newsroom. "Contributor", "Senior Contributor" or "Former Contributor" means the self-published network.
- Look for the author disclaimer. Contributor posts carry a line saying the views are the author's own.
- Do not trust the URL. Staff and contributor pieces both sit under
forbes.com/sites/<author>/. The path shows where a piece ran, not who wrote it. - Open the author page. A contributor profile covering many unrelated industries reads very differently from a beat reporter's archive.
- Check the date. Web articles published before 5 August 2010, the date contributors arrived, and print-issue articles sit in the generally reliable group.
The same test applies to other outlets with contributor platforms. Entrepreneur, for example, has no overall consensus, but its contributor pieces are treated as self-published.
Why is the Daily Mail deprecated?
Deprecation is the strongest negative rating on the list. In 2017 a community discussion deprecated the Daily Mail because of its record on fact-checking and sensationalism, and a 2019 discussion reaffirmed it. The status covers MailOnline, the digital edition on the same domain.
Deprecated sources should not be cited, apart from narrow cases such as a claim about the paper itself. An edit filter warns anyone who adds a link, and existing citations are routinely stripped. "This particular article was accurate" is not an accepted argument. Flattering Daily Mail coverage adds nothing toward notability and cannot support a single claim in your article.
What happens if you buy "guaranteed Forbes coverage"?
You usually get a contributor post. A gray market sells placements on the Forbes domain as if they were editorial coverage, but the deliverable is typically a self-published contributor piece. Forbes has its own rules against paid contributor placements, so it is also a commercial risk.
Inside a Wikipedia draft the damage is real. Reviewers recognise padded reference lists quickly, and a stack of WP:FORBESCON links tells them the genuine source base is thin, which invites a harder look at everything else. Such a piece may still serve on your own site or in sales decks; just do not cite it on Wikipedia. We do not buy placements for drafts, and we do not cite ones a client already owns.
Which sources should you pursue instead?
Pursue reported coverage in outlets with a "generally reliable" status: major newswires, national broadsheets, established business press and trade publications with real editorial control. Our media list shows each outlet's status and region, and the media coverage page explains how earned coverage is built. Pitching a story to a journalist is legitimate PR; paying for placement is a different thing, and Wikipedia treats the result as non-independent.
One more point on independence: sponsored sections, press releases and interviews where the subject speaks about itself do not count as independent coverage, whatever the outlet.
How WikiBusines helps
We rate the coverage you already have before any draft is written, and we say plainly what is missing.
- Wikipedia notability audit, from €490: every clipping checked against WP:RSP, with a written verdict. The fee is credited toward the page if you proceed within one month.
- Wikipedia page creation, from €2,400 for English, 4 to 5 weeks. Submitted through Articles for Creation, with paid editing disclosed in WikiBusines' name. We do not guarantee that an article will be published.
- Wikipedia editing, €700 to €1,900: source replacement and cleanup on an existing article.
If you are unsure what your clippings are worth, start with the notability audit or contact us.
Frequently asked questions
It depends on the type. Staff articles have no consensus, contributor posts are generally unreliable, and pre-August-2010 web articles and print issues are generally reliable. Check the byline label first.
Not by itself. Even a staff article is judged case by case, and notability needs significant coverage in several independent reliable sources. A contributor post counts for nothing.
It is the shortcut to the Perennial Sources entry on Forbes.com contributors. The community rates them generally unreliable and treats them as self-published sources.
Almost never. It was deprecated in 2017 and the decision was reaffirmed in 2019. Only narrow exceptions exist, such as a statement about the paper itself.
No. MailOnline is the digital edition on the same domain and falls under the same deprecation.
Lists are weak evidence on their own. A brief listing does not give the significant coverage that notability requires, so pair it with reported articles from reliable outlets.
It may help on your own channels. On Wikipedia it carries no weight, and a reference list built from such pieces can lower a draft's credibility.
Use the Perennial Sources list, or our media list, which mirrors those statuses for hundreds of outlets and is free to use.
Authors and editorial policy
Bohdan DubylovskyiCo-founder and CBO, WikiBusines→
Roman MelnykCo-founder & Chief Editor, WikiBusines→The article was prepared by the WikiBusines co-founders. We sell paid Wikipedia services, so we disclose this interest: paid editing is always declared on Wikipedia in WikiBusines' name, and claims about the rules are backed by links to primary sources.
Editorial policy: payment disclosure, conflicts of interest, sources