<templatestyles src="Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/styles.css" />

    {{Shortcut|WP:RSPAMAZON}}
<!-- TODO: Add DISPLAYTITLE back when generating actual pages, with correct URL -->
<!-- {{DISPLAYTITLE:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/all/''Amazon (company)''}} -->
{{Infobox
| title            = [[Amazon (company)]]
| image            = [[File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svg|100px|alt=logo]] ''(not part of original row)''
| label2           = source type
| data2            = foobar ''(not part of original row)''
| label3           = publisher
| data3            = Fooland (state-funded media) ''(not part of original row)''
| label5           = website
| data5            = 
| label6           = classification
| data6            = [[File:Argentina - NO symbol.svg|20px|Generally unreliable|link=]] Generally unreliable: Editors show consensus that the source is [[WP:QUESTIONABLE|questionable]] in most cases.
}}

User reviews on Amazon are anonymous, [[WP:SELFPUB|self-published]], and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. While Amazon itself is a reliable source for basic information about a work (such as release date, ISBN, etc.), it is unnecessary to cite Amazon when the work itself may serve as a source for that information. Future release dates may be unreliable.

== Prior discussions ==
{{WP:RSPLinks}}

<blockquote>''Please add links to other significant discussions.  When in doubt, read and rely on the discussions themselves, rather than the simple summary.''</blockquote>

* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 20#Citing unverifiable Amazon 'editorial reviews' as book reviews]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 21#Is Amazon.com a reliable source?]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 43#Amazon.com as an RS for unreleased material]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 56#Amazon.com for digital music release info]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 232#BuzzFeed and Amazon.com]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 286#The elephant in the room – amazon.com]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 337#Amazon as a source]]

* Simple summary of prior discussions: '''TBD'''

{{DEFAULTSORT:Amazon (company), Perennial sources}}
==Notes==
{{notelist}}

==References==
<references />
== Original table row for comparison ==
''(remove this when this source page is ready to go live)''
{{Wikipedia:RSPTableHeader}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Amazon"
| [[Amazon (company)|Amazon]] {{WP:RSPSHORTCUT|WP:RSPAMAZON}}
| {{WP:RSPSTATUS|gu}}
| [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 20#Citing unverifiable Amazon 'editorial reviews' as book reviews|1]] [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 21#Is Amazon.com a reliable source?|2]] [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 43#Amazon.com as an RS for unreleased material|3]] [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 56#Amazon.com for digital music release info|4]] [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 232#BuzzFeed and Amazon.com|5]] [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 286#The elephant in the room – amazon.com|6]] [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 337#Amazon as a source|7]]
| {{WP:RSPLAST|2021|stale=n}}
| User reviews on Amazon are anonymous, [[WP:SELFPUB|self-published]], and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. While Amazon itself is a reliable source for basic information about a work (such as release date, ISBN, etc.), it is unnecessary to cite Amazon when the work itself may serve as a source for that information. Future release dates may be unreliable.
| {{WP:RSPUSES|amazon.com|amazon.cn|amazon.in|amazon.co.jp|amazon.com.sg|amazon.com.tr|amazon.fr|amazon.de|amazon.it|amazon.nl|amazon.es|amazon.co.uk|amazon.ca|amazon.com.mx|amazon.com.au|amazon.com.br}}
|}