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

    {{Shortcut|WP:ROLLINGSTONECON}}
<!-- TODO: Add DISPLAYTITLE back when generating actual pages, with correct URL -->
<!-- {{DISPLAYTITLE:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/all/''Rolling Stone''}} -->
{{Infobox
| title            = [[Rolling Stone]]
| 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.
}}

There is unanimous consensus among editors that ''Culture Council'' articles (of URL form rollingstone.com/culture-council/*) are [[WP:SPS|self-published sources]] and are, in most aspects, equivalent to [[WP:FORBESCON|''Forbes''-]] and [[WP:RSP#HuffPost contributors|''HuffPost''-]]contributors. Editors, however, have also expressed concern that at least some of the content published is [[WP:PROMO|promotional]] and thus not usable. Editors should thus determine on a case-by-case basis whether the opinions published there are [[WP:IS|independent]] and also if they constitute [[WP:DUE|due weight]]. Usage of these sources for [[WP:THIRDPARTY|third-party claims]] in [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons]] as well as [[WP:MEDRS|medical or scientific claims]] is not allowed.

== 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 326#Caution: Rolling Stone goes pay-for-play]]

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

{{DEFAULTSORT:Rolling Stone, 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="Rolling Stone (Culture Council)"
| ''[[Rolling Stone]]'' (''Culture Council'') {{WP:RSPSHORTCUT|WP:ROLLINGSTONECON}}
| {{WP:RSPSTATUS|gu}}
| {{rsnl|353|Rolling Stone|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{WP:RSPLAST|2021}}
| There is unanimous consensus among editors that ''Culture Council'' articles (of URL form rollingstone.com/culture-council/*) are [[WP:SPS|self-published sources]] and are, in most aspects, equivalent to [[WP:FORBESCON|''Forbes''-]] and [[WP:RSP#HuffPost contributors|''HuffPost''-]]contributors. Editors, however, have also expressed concern that at least some of the content published is [[WP:PROMO|promotional]] and thus not usable. Editors should thus determine on a case-by-case basis whether the opinions published there are [[WP:IS|independent]] and also if they constitute [[WP:DUE|due weight]]. Usage of these sources for [[WP:THIRDPARTY|third-party claims]] in [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons]] as well as [[WP:MEDRS|medical or scientific claims]] is not allowed.
| {{WP:RSPUSES|council.rollingstone.com|rollingstone.com/culture-council}}
|}