 | This is aninformation page. It is neither anencyclopedia article nor one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect differing levels ofconsensus andvetting. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Thecommunity has decided to exclude certain highlyquestionable sources from articles, except in special cases. |
Deprecated sources are highlyquestionable sources that editors are discouraged fromciting in articles, because they fail thereliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances. Use of these sources may generateedit filter warnings for registered users and may beautomatically reverted for edits from temporary accounts.
Deprecation is a formalization that arises from Wikipedia’s normal processes for evaluating sources. It primarily exists to save time by avoiding the endless discussion of the same issues, and to raise awareness among editors of the status of the sources in question. For example, if editors are unfamiliar with either the specific sources or thegeneral sourcing requirements, they can be saved the experience of having their work undone later on. Deprecation can be proposed with arequest for comment at thereliable sources noticeboard, and the restrictions are only applied if there is communityconsensus.[1]
Since there are an endless number of poor sources, there are also an endless number of sources thatwould be deprecated if we bothered to have discussions on them. These sources have always beende facto deprecated as a normal result of our policies and guidelines that try to ensure that we use reputable sources. A discussion that results in deprecation may involve a change or clarification ofeditorial consensus (thus resulting in a change of current practice), but the only effect of deprecationalone is to explicitly codify the source’s pre-existing status, as already determined by Wikipedia’s sourcing requirements. It does not inherently change how they are evaluated under those requirements.
Deprecated sources should not be considered to be either unique or uniquely unreliable. They may be those that are most often cited by unaware editors, or those that come up in discussion the most often – for example, due to real-world controversy, borderline reliability, or a tendency to be promoted on-wiki despite a lack of reliability. Since there are many reasons that a source may be unreliable, the specific reasons for deprecation vary from case to case. The first source to be formally deprecated was theDaily Mail, which was determined by community consensus ina 2017 RfC to have a "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication". This RfC became alandmark decision, and new deprecation proposals are usually based on language from itsclosing summary.
Deprecating a source is different from blocking the source (blacklisting), which is generally done to addressspam-related issues.
Deprecated sources are restricted in three ways, most of which were discussed in the2017Daily Mail RfC:
Deprecated sources with few valid use cases may be blocked due to persistent abuse. This involves the source being added to thespam blacklist and/or theWikimedia global spam blacklist, which prevents editors from saving contributions containing a link to the source. It is not necessary for a source to be deprecated to be blocked, nor are all deprecated sources blocked.
Deprecation is not a blanket retroactive "ban" on using the source in absolutely every situation, contrary to what has been reported in media headlines.[2] In particular,reliability alwaysdepends on the specific content being cited, and all sources are reliable in at least some circumstances and unreliable in at least some others. Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately. While some deprecated sources have been completely eliminated as references, others have not.
Looking forward, however, the addition of new references from deprecated sources is extremely rare. Deprecated sources can normally be cited as aprimary source when the source itself is the subject of discussion, such as to describe its own viewpoint. Theverifiability policy provides an additional exception: a questionable source may be used for information on itself, subject to the conditions inWP:ABOUTSELF (see alsoWP:SPS andWP:BLPSELFPUB). Anexternal link to the source can be included on an article about the source. Editors are also expected to usecommon sense and act to improve the encyclopedia. If an exception applies, the source can be evaluated and used like any other. Deprecation does not change the application of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and the use ofall sources continues to be governed byWP:RS andWP:V.
Additional exceptions may be specific to individual sources as summarized in the RfC: for example, the 2017 closure of theDaily Mail RfC mentioned that participants said it may have been more reliable historically.
Deprecation is a status indicating that a source almost always falls below Wikipedia'sstandards of reliability, and that uses of the source must fall within one of the established acceptable uses. Establishing new types of acceptable use requires a demonstration that the source is uniquely reliable in those particular circumstances compared to other possible uses of the source.
Deprecating a source is a weaker measure than blocking or banning it, and the terms are not comparable to each other. Wikipedia's equivalent to blocking isblacklisting, which is an entirely separate mechanism, and websites are usually only blacklisted if they are involved inspam-related issues, such asexternal link spamming. Blacklisted sources are listed at theEnglish Wikipedia spam blacklist and theWikimedia global spam blacklist, with new proposals submitted atMediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. External links to blacklisted sources cannot be included in edits, and editors will be shown an error message. In contrast, deprecated sources can technically be entered by editors as long as they are not on either of the spam blacklists.
To start a discussion on deprecation, start arequest for comment at thereliable sources noticeboard (RSN).[1] Editors will then evaluate the source and determine whether there is aconsensus for deprecation. However, if the source is not alreadyde facto deprecated as current practice, or if the source has not already been discussed at length in the past, it may be a better idea to start a regular RSN discussion instead.
In general, a source that is proposed for deprecation should be either frequently used or frequently discussed. Additionally, in order to preventinstruction creep, sources that should be particularly obvious (for example, satire sites such asThe Onion orThe Babylon Bee) are unlikely to be formally deprecated unless there are editors seriously arguing for their reliability. Similarly, the fact that there may be non-deprecated sources which are just as bad as (or even worse than) a source under consideration is not considered to be a valid argument against deprecation.[3]
Any source that fails thereliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances. While we will never have an exhaustive list, most deprecation to date has focused on sources that promote known falsehoods, particularly debunkedconspiracy theories. This does not have to be intentional and may be a result of factors such as poor fact checking or sensationalism. One might assume, for instance, thatfake news websites are effectively deprecated, as are sources that promotepseudoscience ordenialism. The pages onpotentially unreliable sources andperennially discussed sources may also be helpful.
In a2019 discussion, there was consensus tode facto deprecateNatural News; the same outcome was reached forOpIndia andSwarajya in a highly-attended2020 discussion. For procedural reasons, these sources were not formally deprecated (because the discussions were notrequests for comment), but they can be assumed to have essentially the same status. In another case,de facto deprecation was subsequentlyformalized by RfC for the category of state-sponsored disinformation, in order to confirm the use of measures such as edit filtering.[4]
Since each source proposed for deprecation has to be discussed separately, we cannot formally deprecate all possible sources that deserve it. As described above, the fact that an unreliable source is listed here does not make it inherently different from an unreliable source that is not listed here.
| Source | Status (legend) | Discussions | Uses | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| List | Last | Summary | |||
| Al Mayadeen WP:ALMAYADEENWP:ALMAYADEEN 📌 |  |  2023 | 2023 | Al Mayadeen is a Lebanese pan-Arabist news channel. It was deprecated in a 2023 RfC. Some editors believe it publishes lies or misrepresents sources, some describe it as propaganda. | 1   2 |
| ANNA News(Abkhazian Network News Agency, Analytical Network News Agency) | | 2022 |  2022 | ANNA News was deprecated in the 2022 RfC. It is a pro-Kremlin news agency that has been described as propaganda and has published fabricated information. | 1 |
| Baidu Baike(Baidu Wiki)WP:BAIDUBAIKEWP:BAIDUBAIKE | | 2020 | 2020 | Baidu Baike was deprecated in the 2020 RfC as it is similar to anopen wiki, which is a type ofself-published source. Although edits are reviewed by Baidu administrators before they are published, most editors believe the editorial standards of Baidu Baike to be very low, and do not see any evidence of fact-checking. TheBaidu 10 Mythical Creatureskuso originated from Baidu Baike. The Baidu Baike domain also includes a website archiving service (baike.baidu.com/reference), which unlike the encyclopedia articles (which are hosted under baike.baidu.com/item/), are acceptable to use as accessible links for reliable sources. | |
| Best Gore |  | 2021 | 2021 | There is consensus that Best Gore is a shock site with no credibility. It is deprecated and has been added to thespam blacklist. Best Gore shut down in 2020; website content is no longer accessible unless archived. | 1 |
| Breitbart NewsWP:BREITBARTWP:BREITBART | | 2018 | 2023 | Due to persistent abuse,Breitbart News is on theWikipedia spam blacklist, and links must bewhitelisted before they can be used. The site has published a number of falsehoods,conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories as fact. The 2018 RfC showed a very clear consensus thatBreitbart News should be deprecated in the same way as theDaily Mail. This does not meanBreitbart News can no longer be used, but it should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability. It can still be used as aprimary source when attributing opinions, viewpoints, and commentary.Breitbart News has directly attacked anddoxed Wikipedia editors. Posting or linking to another editor's personal information is prohibited under theouting policy, unless the editor is voluntarily disclosing the information on Wikipedia. | 1 2 |
| China Global Television Network(CGTN, CCTV International)WP:CGTNWP:CGTN | | 2020 | 2025 | China Global Television Network was deprecated in the 2020 RfC for publishing false or fabricated information. Many editors consider CGTN a propaganda outlet, and some editors express concern over CGTN'sairing of forced confessions. CGTN was formerly known as CCTV International prior to 2017, andChina Central Television (CCTV) channels that are not under CGTN are not deprecated. SeeList of China Media Group channels for a list of CCTV and CGTN channels. | 1 |
| The CradleWP:THECRADLEWP:THECRADLE | | 2024 | 2024 | The Cradle is an online magazine focusing on West Asia/Middle East-related topics. It was deprecated in the 2024 RfC due to a history of publishingconspiracy theories and wide referencing of other deprecated sources while doing so. Editors considerThe Cradle to have a poor reputation for fact-checking. | 1 |
| CrunchbaseWP:CRUNCHBASEWP:CRUNCHBASE | | 2019 | 2019 | In the 2019 RfC, there was consensus to deprecate Crunchbase, but also to continue allowingexternal links to the website. A significant proportion of Crunchbase's data isuser-generated content. The technical details are that it is only listed onUser:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, so citations to Crunchbase are only automatically reverted if they are inref tags in addition to meeting the standard criteria. | 1 |
| The Daily CallerWP:DAILYCALLERWP:DAILYCALLER | | 2019 | 2019 | The Daily Caller was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information. | 1 2 |
| Daily Mail(MailOnline)WP:DAILYMAILWP:DAILYMAILWP:RSPDMWP:RSPDM | | 2017 2019 2020 54[b] | 2024 | In the 2017 RfC, theDaily 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 theDaily 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, theDaily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. TheDaily Mail has a "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication". TheDaily Mail may be used in rare cases in anabout-self fashion. Some editors regard theDaily 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 theDaily Mail.) The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on theDaily Mail. The deprecation includes other editions of the UKDaily Mail, such as the Irish and Scottish editions. The UKDaily Mail is not to be confused withother publications namedDaily Mail that are unaffiliated with the UK paper. The dailymail.com domain was previously used by the unaffiliatedCharleston Daily Mail, and reference links to that publication are still present. | |
| Daily Star (UK)WP:DAILYSTARWP:DAILYSTAR | | 2020 | 2020 | TheDaily Star was deprecated in the 2020 RfC due to its reputation for publishing false or fabricated information. | 1 2 |
| The DebriefWP:THEDEBRIEFWP:THEDEBRIEF | | 2025 | 2025 | In the 2025 RfC, there was clear and overwhelming consensus thatThe Debrief and its author Micah Hanks are generally unreliable and deprecated as afringe source that lacks fact-checking or editorial oversight. | 1 |
| EADaily(EurAsia Daily) WP:EADAILYWP:EADAILY 📌 | | 2023 | 2023 | EADaily frequently produces false claims to advance their Kremlin-aligned viewpoints and was deprecated following a 2023 RfC. | 1 |
| Encyclopaedia Metallum(Metal Archives,MA) WP:METALLUMWP:METALLUM 📌 | | 2025 | 2025 | Encyclopaedia Metallum was deprecated by unanimous consensus in the 2025 RfC as a site rife withuser-generated content and thus no hope of reliability. | 1 |
| The Epoch Times(New Tang Dynasty Television,Vision Times,Vision China Times) WP:EPOCHTIMESWP:EPOCHTIMES 📌 | | 2019 | 2022 | The Epoch Times was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. Most editors classifyThe Epoch Times as an advocacy group for theFalun Gong, and consider the publication abiased or opinionated source that frequently publishesconspiracy theories as fact. | |
| FrontPage Magazine(FPM, FrontPageMag.com) WP:FPMWP:FPM 📌 | | 2020 | 2022 | In the 2020 RfC, there was unanimous consensus to deprecateFrontPage Magazine. Editors consider the publication generally unreliable, and believe that its opinions should be assigned little to noweight. The publication is consideredbiased or opinionated. | 1 2 |
| The Gateway Pundit(TGP) | | 2019 | 2019 | The Gateway Pundit was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site is unacceptable as a source. It is unreliable for statements of fact, and given to publishing hoax articles and reporting conspiracy theories as fact. | 1 |
| Genealogy.eu | | 2025 | 2025 | Genealogy.eu (genealogy.euweb.cz) was deprecated in the 2025 RfC due to persistent misuse. It is theself-published work of a single non-expert (Marek Miroslav) and is not considered reliable. | 1 2 |
| Geni.com WP:GENIWP:GENI 📌 | | 2025 | 2025 | Geni.com was deprecated in the 2025 RfC due to its persistent misuse and limited utility. Geni.com is anopen wiki, which is a type ofself-published source.Primary source documents from Geni.com may be usable in rare circumstances, but editors should be careful to comply with policies onoriginal research anddue weight. | 1 |
| Global Times(Huanqiu Shibao) WP:GLOBALTIMESWP:GLOBALTIMES 📌 | | 2020 | 2021 | TheGlobal Times is atabloid owned by theChinese Communist Party. It was deprecated near-unanimously in a 2020 RfC which found that it publishes false or fabricated information, including pro-Chinese government propaganda and conspiracy theories. As with other Chinese news sites, theGlobal Times website may host announcements from government agencies not written by the tabloid. Authors are advised to find alternate web pages with the same content. | 1 2 |
| The Grayzone WP:GRAYZONEWP:GRAYZONE 📌 | | 2020 | 2020 | The Grayzone was deprecated in the 2020 RfC. There is consensus thatThe Grayzone publishes false or fabricated information. Some editors describeThe Grayzone asMax Blumenthal's blog, and question the website's editorial oversight. | 1 |
| Healthline WP:HEALTHLINEWP:HEALTHLINE 📌 | | 2023 | 2025 | Healthline is a medical resource that is substantially written by non-expert freelance writers and reviewed by non-expert advisors. The content is frequently incorrect misinformation, sometimes dangerously so. Due to the heightened requirements forbiomedical andmedical sources on Wikipedia, the consensus of editors in the 2023 RfC was to deprecate Healthline as an unusable source that cannot meetWP:MEDRS and to blacklist Healthline for the safety and well-being of our readers. References to Healthline should be removed from Wikipedia. | 1 |
| The Heritage Foundation(The Daily Signal) WP:HERITAGEFOUNDATIONWP:HERITAGEFOUNDATION 📌 | | 2025 | 2025 | Due to security concerns, The Heritage Foundation is on theWikipedia spam blacklist: there is evidence that the group has planned todoxx Wikipedia editors, and links to it should be bypassed orwhitelisted. Editors who are victimized by doxxing tactics mayrequest assistance from the Wikimedia Foundation, although support is not guaranteed. The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative think tank; editors have found that it promotes disinformation. Heritage and its then-publicationThe Daily Signal were found generally unreliable due to the presumption of unreliability forthink tanks and reporting such asclimate change denial; the 2025 RfC deprecated Heritage. However, The Daily Signal was spun off from the Heritage Foundation in June 2024, and the 2025 RfC close did not address its reliability or functional independence. | 1 |
| HispanTV WP:HISPANTVWP:HISPANTV 📌 | | 2019 | 2019 | HispanTV was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed overwhelming consensus that the TV channel is generally unreliable and sometimes broadcasts outright fabrications. Editors listed multiple examples of HispanTV broadcastingconspiracy theories andIranian propaganda. | 1 2 |
| Infowars(NewsWars,Banned.video,National File) WP:INFOWARSWP:INFOWARS 📌 | | 2018 2018 | 2024 | Due to persistent abuse,Infowars is on both theWikipedia spam blacklist and theWikimedia global spam blacklist, and links must bewhitelisted before they can be used.Infowars was deprecated in the 2018 RfC, which showed unanimous consensus that the site publishesfake news andconspiracy theories. The use ofInfowars as a reference should be generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are morereliable.Infowars should not be used for determiningnotability, or used as asecondary source in articles. In November 2024,The Onion (seeRSP entry) attempted to buy the site at its bankruptcy auction,[5] but was subsequently blocked by a judge citing concerns over the auction.[6] | |
| Jihad Watch WP:JIHADWATCHWP:JIHADWATCH 📌 | | 2021 | 2021 | Jihad Watch was deprecated in the 2021 RfC; of the editors who commented on the substance of the proposal, they were unanimous that the source is unreliable. It is a blog generally regarded as propagatinganti-Muslimconspiracy theories. | 1 |
| Last.fm WP:LASTFMWP:LASTFM 📌 | | 2019 | 2019 | Last.fm was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. The content on Last.fm isuser-generated, and is considered generally unreliable. | 1 |
| Lenta.ru (March 2014–present) WP:LENTA.RUWP:LENTA.RU 📌 | | 20192020 | 2020 | Due to persistent abuse,Lenta.ru is on theWikipedia spam blacklist, and links to articles published on or after 12 March 2014 must bewhitelisted before they can be used.Lenta.ru was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site frequently publishesconspiracy theories andRussian propaganda, owing to a mass dismissal of staff on 12 March 2014. The use ofLenta.ru articles published since 12 March 2014 as references should be generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are morereliable.Lenta.ru should not be used for determiningnotability, or used as asecondary source in articles.Lenta.ru's reliability pre-March 2014 was not discussed in the RfC. | 1 |
| LifeSiteNews(Campaign Life Coalition) WP:LIFESITENEWSWP:LIFESITENEWS 📌 | | 2019 | 2019 | LifeSiteNews was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information. | 1 2 |
| The Mail on Sunday WP:MAILONSUNDAYWP:MAILONSUNDAY 📌 | | 2020 | 2020 | There is clear and substantial consensus that theMail on Sunday is generally unreliable, and a slightly narrower consensus that the source should be deprecated. Those supporting deprecation point to factual errors, asserted fabrications, and biased reporting identified on the part of the source, with reference to specific instances, and to common ownership of the source witha previously deprecated source. | |
| MintPress News WP:MINTPRESSWP:MINTPRESS 📌 | | 2019 | 2025 | MintPress News was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information. | |
| National Enquirer | | 2019 | 2019 | TheNational Enquirer is asupermarket tabloid that is considered generally unreliable. In the 2019 RfC, there was weak consensus todeprecate theNational Enquirer as a source, but no consensus to create anedit filter to warn editors against using the publication. | 1 |
| New Eastern Outlook | | 2022 | 2022 | In the 2022 RfC, there is consensus to deprecateNew Eastern Outlook. Editors note that it is considered a Russian propaganda outlet by multiple reliable sources, and numerous examples of publishing false content. | 1 |
| News of the World WP:NOTWWP:NOTW 📌 WP:NEWSOFTHEWORLDWP:NEWSOFTHEWORLD 📌 | | 2019 | 2021 | News of the World was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus thatNews of the World is generally unreliable. As is the case withThe Sun,News of the World should not be used as a reference in most cases aside fromabout-self usage, and should not be used to determinenotability. Some editors considerNews of the World usable for uncontroversial film reviews if attribution is provided.News of the World shut down in 2011; website content is no longer accessible unless archived. | 1 2 |
| NewsBlaze | | 2021 | 2021 | NewsBlaze was unanimously deprecated bysnowball clause consensus in the 2021 RfC. Editors cite NewsBlaze's publication of false and/or fabricated information, conspiracy theories, the site's sourcing practices, and copyright concerns. | 1 2 |
| NewsBreak(News Break) WP:NEWSBREAKWP:NEWSBREAK 📌 | | 2020 | 2020 | NewsBreak is anews aggregator that publishes snippets of articles from other sources. In the 2020 RfC, there was consensus to deprecate NewsBreak in favor of the original sources. | 1 |
| NewsFront WP:NEWSFRONTWP:NEWSFRONT 📌 | | 2019 | 2019 | Due to persistent abuse,NewsFront is on theWikipedia spam blacklist, and links must bewhitelisted before they can be used.NewsFront was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed unanimous consensus that the site publishesfake news and Russian propaganda. The use ofNewsFront as a reference should be generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are morereliable.NewsFront should not be used for determiningnotability, or used as asecondary source in articles. | 1 2 |
| Newsmax WP:NEWSMAXWP:NEWSMAX 📌 | | 2020 | 2022 | Newsmax was deprecated bysnowball clause consensus in the November 2020 RfC. Concerns of editors included that Newsmax lacks adherence to journalistic standards, launders propaganda, promulgates misinformation, promotes conspiracy theories and false information for political purposes, and promotes medical misinformation such asCOVID-19-related falsehoods, climate change denialism, conspiracy theories, and anti-vaccination propaganda. | 1 2 |
| NNDB(Notable Names Database) WP:NNDBWP:NNDB 📌 | | 2019 | 2019 | NNDB is a biographical database operated by Soylent Communications, the parent company ofshock siteRotten.com. It was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. Editors note NNDB's poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, despite the site claiming to have an editorial process. Editors have also found instances of NNDB incorporating content from Wikipedia, which would make the use of the affected pagescircular sourcing. | 1 |
| Occupy Democrats(Washington Press) WP:OCCUPYDEMOCRATSWP:OCCUPYDEMOCRATS 📌 | | 2018 | 2018 | In the 2018 RfC, there was clear consensus to deprecate Occupy Democrats as a source à la theDaily Mail. This does not mean it cannot ever be used on Wikipedia; it means it cannot be used as a reference for facts. It can still be used as aprimary source for attributing opinions, viewpoints, and the like. | 1 2 |
| Office of Cuba Broadcasting(Radio y Television Martí, martinoticias.com) WP:OCBWP:OCB 📌 WP:RYTMWP:RYTM 📌 WP:MARTIWP:MARTI 📌 | | 2024 2024 | 2024 | Any platforms operated by the Office of Cuba Broadcasting of theU.S. Agency for Global Media, including but not limited toRadio y Television Martí (RyTM) and its website, martinoticias.com, are deprecated. There is consensus that RyTM has poor editorial controls that fall below professional standards of journalism, presents opinion as fact, reports on unsubstantiated information, and promotes propaganda, including anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. | 1 |
| One America News Network(OANN) WP:OANNWP:OANN 📌 | | 2019 | 2019 | In the 2019 RfC, there was clear consensus to deprecate One America News Network as a source à la theDaily Mail. Editors noted that One America News Network published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories. One America News Network should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability. It can still be used as aprimary source when attributing opinions, viewpoints, and commentary, meaning that it should not be used as a source outside of its own article. | 1 |
| Peerage websites (self-published) | | 2020 2020 +12[c] | 2020 | Two RfCs found consensus that certainself-published peerage websites are not reliable for genealogical information and should be deprecated. SeeWP:RSP § Self-published peerage websites for the full list. | List |
| Press TV WP:PRESSTVWP:PRESSTV 📌 | | 2020 2021 | 2021 | In the 2020 RfC, editors found a clear consensus to deprecate Press TV, owing to its status as an Iranian government propaganda outlet that publishes disinformation, conspiracy theories, antisemitic content includingHolocaust denial,[7] and a host of other problematic content. | |
| Project Veritas(James O'Keefe, O'Keefe Media Group) WP:VERITASWP:VERITAS 📌 | | 2023 | 2023 | Due to persistent abuse, Project Veritas is on theWikipedia spam blacklist, and links must bewhitelisted before they can be used. In the 2023 RfC, there was overwhelming consensus to deprecate James O'Keefe personally, the O'Keefe Media Group, Project Veritas and future O'Keefe outlets as sources, due to O'Keefe's documented history of deliberate fabrication. There were also strong minorities for adding O'Keefe's works to the spam blacklist and barring evenabout-self claims. Citations to O'Keefe's work in any medium and claims based on any such citations should be removed. | 1 2 |
| Rate Your Music(RYM, Cinemos, Glitchwave, Sonemic) WP:RATEYOURMUSICWP:RATEYOURMUSIC 📌 WP:RYMWP:RYM 📌 | | 2019 | 2022 | Rate Your Music was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. The content on Rate Your Music isuser-generated, and is considered generally unreliable. | |
| Republic TV(Republic World) WP:REPUBLICTVWP:REPUBLICTV 📌 | | 2021 | 2021 | In the 2021 RfC, there was a consistent and overwhelming consensus to deprecate Republic TV. Editors cite hoaxes, fake news, fabrication, misinformation and conspiracy theories. | 1 2 |
| Royal Central | | 2022 | 2022 | The 2022 RfC found a consensus to deprecate Royal Central on the grounds that it lacked serious editorial standards and hosted plagiarized content. | 1 |
| RT(Russia Today, ANO TV-Novosti,Ruptly, Redfish,Maffick) WP:RT.COMWP:RT.COM 📌 WP:RUSSIATODAYWP:RUSSIATODAY 📌 | | 2020 | 2022 | There is consensus that RT is an unreliable source, publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated. Many editors describe RT as a mouthpiece of the Russian government that engages in propaganda and disinformation. | |
| Simple Flying WP:RSPSIMPLEFLYINGWP:RSPSIMPLEFLYING 📌 WP:SIMPLEFLYINGWP:SIMPLEFLYING 📌 | | 2025 | 2025 | Simple Flying was deprecated in the 2025 RfC. Editors agreed that the website engages in churnalism and that its articles often contain inaccuracies. SeeWP:Simple Flying for more information. | 1 |
| SouthFront(South Front) WP:SOUTHFRONTWP:SOUTHFRONT 📌 | | 2019 | 2020 | Due to persistent abuse,SouthFront is on theWikipedia spam blacklist, and links must bewhitelisted before they can be used.SouthFront was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed unanimous consensus that the site publishesfake news and Russian propaganda. The use ofSouthFront as a reference should be generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are morereliable.SouthFront should not be used for determiningnotability, or used as asecondary source in articles. | 1 2 |
| Sputnik WP:SPUTNIKWP:SPUTNIK 📌 | | 2020 | 2022 | There is consensus that Sputnik is an unreliable source that publishes false or fabricated information, and should bedeprecated as in the2017 RfC of theDaily Mail. Sputnik is considered a Russian propaganda outlet that engages in bias and disinformation,[8] a significant proportion of editors endorse that view, with some editors considering it less reliable thanBreitbart News.See also:RIA Novosti, whose international edition was replaced by Sputnik. | |
| The Sun (UK)(The Sun on Sunday,The Irish Sun,The Scottish Sun,The U.S. Sun) WP:THESUNWP:THESUN 📌 | | 2019 2024 +17[d] | 2025 | The Sun was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus thatThe Sun is generally unreliable.References fromThe Sun are actively discouraged from being used in any article and they should not be used for determining thenotability of any subject. The RfC does not overrideWP:ABOUTSELF, which allows the use ofThe Sun for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Some editors considerThe Sun usable for uncontroversial sports reporting, although more reliable sources are recommended. This deprecation does not apply to the broadsheet publication of the same name, that existed from 1964–1969. | |
| Taki's Magazine(Takimag,Taki's Top Drawer) | | 2019 | 2019 | Taki's Magazine was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that it is an unreliable opinion magazine that should be avoided outside of very limited exceptions (e.g.WP:ABOUTSELF). | 1 |
| Tasnim News Agency WP:TASNIMNEWSAGENCYWP:TASNIMNEWSAGENCY 📌 | | 2024 | 2024 | Tasnim News Agency was deprecated in the 2024 RfC due to being anIRGC-controlled outlet that disseminates state propaganda and conspiracy theories. | 1 2 |
| Telesur WP:TELESURWP:TELESUR 📌 | | 2019 | 2019 | Telesur was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the TV channel is aBolivarian propaganda outlet. Many editors state that Telesur publishes false information. As astate-owned media network in a country with lowpress freedom, Telesur may be aprimary source for the viewpoint of the Venezuelan government, althoughdue weight should be considered. Telesur isbiased or opinionated, and its statements should beattributed. | 1 2 |
| The Unz Review WP:UNZWP:UNZ 📌 | | 2021 | 2024 | The Unz Review was deprecated byWP:SnowPro consensus in the 2021 RfC. Editors cite racist, antisemitic, pseudoscientific and fringe content. The site's extensive archive of journal reprints includes many apparentcopyright violations. | 1 2 |
| VDARE | | 2018 | 2019 | VDARE was deprecated in the 2018 RfC. Editors agree that it is generally unusable as a source, although there may be rare exceptions such as in identifying its writers in anabout-self fashion. Such limited instances will only be under careful and guided ("filtered") discretion. | 1 |
| Veterans Today | | 2019 | 2019 | Due to persistent abuse,Veterans Today is on theWikipedia spam blacklist, and links must bewhitelisted before they can be used.Veterans Today was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed unanimous consensus that the site publishesfake news andantisemiticconspiracy theories. The use ofVeterans Today as a reference should be generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are morereliable.Veterans Today should not be used for determiningnotability, or used as asecondary source in articles. | 1 2 |
| Voltaire Network | | 2020 | 2020 | The Voltaire Network is considered unreliable due to its affiliation with conspiracy theoristThierry Meyssan and its republication of articles fromGlobal Research. Editors unanimously agreed to deprecate the Voltaire Network in the 2020 RfC. | 1 |
| Wen Wei Po WP:WENWEIPOWP:WENWEIPO 📌 | | 2020 | 2020 | Wen Wei Po was deprecated in the 2020 RfC as a state-owned Hong Kong propaganda outlet that has published falsified information. | 1 |
| WorldNetDaily(WND) WP:WNDWP:WND 📌 | | 2018 +16[e] | 2018 | WorldNetDaily was deprecated in the 2018 RfC. There is clear consensus thatWorldNetDaily is not a reliable source, and that it should not be used because of its particularly poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The website is known for promoting falsehoods andconspiracy theories. Most editors considerWorldNetDaily apartisan source.WorldNetDaily'ssyndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher, and the citation should preferably point to the original publisher. | 1 2 |
| Zero Hedge(ZeroHedge, ZH) WP:ZEROHEDGEWP:ZEROHEDGE 📌 | | 2020 | 2020 | Zero Hedge was deprecated in the 2020 RfC due to its propagation ofconspiracy theories. It is aself-published blog that isbiased or opinionated. | 1 |
Deprecated: There is community consensus from a request for comment todeprecate the source. The source is consideredgenerally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited. Despite this, the source may be used foruncontroversial self-descriptions, although reliablesecondary sources are still preferred. Anedit filter,869 (hist ·log), may be in place to warn editors who attempt to cite the source as a reference in articles. The warning message can be dismissed. Edits that trigger the filter aretagged.Blacklisted: Due to persistent abuse, usually in the form ofexternal link spamming, the source is registered on thespam blacklist or theWikimedia global spam blacklist. Edits that attempt to add this source are automatically prevented on a technical level, unless an exception is made for a specific link in thespam whitelist.Request for comment: The linked discussion is an uninterruptedrequest for comment for determining the source's reliability on thereliable sources noticeboard or another suitable and centralized venue. The closing statement of any RfC that is not clearly outdated should normally be considered authoritative and can only be overturned by a newer RfC.Stale discussions: The source has not been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard for four or morecalendar years, and theconsensus may have changed since the most recent discussion. However, sources that are consideredgenerally unreliable for beingself-published or presentinguser-generated content are excluded. A change in consensus resulting from changes in the source itself does not apply to publications of the source from before the changes in question. Additionally, while it may be prudent to review these sources before using them, editors should generally assume that the source's previous status is still in effect if there is no reason to believe that the circumstances have changed.
Discussion in progress: The source is currently being discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard. Italic numbers represent active discussions (all discussions that are not closed or archived) on the reliable sources noticeboard. Letters represent discussions outside of the reliable sources noticeboard.