View source for Wikipedia:Deprecated sources

{{infopage|shortcut1=WP:DEPS|shortcut2=WP:DEPRECATE|shortcut3=WP:DEPRECATED}}
{{nutshell|The [[WP:RFC|community has decided]] to exclude certain highly [[WP:QUESTIONABLE|questionable sources]] from articles, except in special cases.}}
[[File:Stop hand.svg|thumb|120px|Deprecated sources are indicated with a stop sign icon in the [[WP:RSP|list of perennial sources]].]]
'''Deprecated sources''' are highly [[WP:QUESTIONABLE|questionable sources]] that editors are discouraged from [[WP:CS|citing in articles]], because they fail the [[WP:RS|reliable sources guideline]] in nearly all circumstances. Use of these sources may generate [[WP:EF|edit filter]] warnings for registered users and may be [[WP:AUTOREVERT|automatically reverted]] for edits from IP addresses. 

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 the [[WP:RS|general sourcing requirements]], they can be saved the experience of having their work undone later on. Deprecation can be proposed with a [[WP:RFC|request for comment]] at the [[WP:RSN|reliable sources noticeboard]], and the restrictions are only applied if there is community [[WP:CON|consensus]].<ref name="footnote1"/>

Since there are an endless number of poor sources, there are also an endless number of sources that ''would'' be deprecated if we bothered to have discussions on them. These sources have always been ''de 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 of [[WP:CONSENSUS|editorial consensus]] (thus resulting in a change of current practice), but the only effect of deprecation ''alone'' 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 the ''[[Daily Mail]]'', which was determined by community consensus in [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC|a 2017 RfC]] to have a "''reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication''". This RfC became a [[landmark decision]], and new deprecation proposals are usually based on language from its [[WP:CLOSE|closing summary]].

Deprecating a source is different from blocking the source ([[WP:SBL|blacklisting]]), which is generally done to address [[WP:SPAM|spam-related issues]].

== Effects of deprecation ==
Deprecated sources are restricted in three ways, most of which were discussed in the [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC|2017 ''Daily Mail'' RfC]]:

# The source is designated as [[WP:QUESTIONABLE|generally unreliable]].
#* [[WP:CS|Citing the source as a reference]] is generally prohibited, especially when other more [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] exist. Images and quotations should also be avoided, since they can be manipulated or fabricated. If the source contains material that cannot be found in more reliable sources, it may be valid to assume that the material in question is incorrect. The source may only be used when there is a demonstrable need to use it instead of other sources.
#* The source is no longer used to determine [[WP:N|notability]].
# Typically, the source is listed on [[User:XLinkBot/RevertList]] and [[User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList]]. {{u|XLinkBot}} automatically reverts links to the source that are added by [[WP:IP|unregistered users]] and accounts under seven days old. This behavior is subject to restrictions, which are described in the lists themselves.
# Typically, an [[WP:EF|edit filter]] set to "[[WP:EF#Basics of usage|warn]]" is implemented, which displays a message to editors having contributed more than 7 days and who are attempting to cite the source in an article, notifying them of the existing consensus and asking them if they want to proceed. At this point, the editor may choose to cancel the edit, or dismiss the warning and complete the edit.
#* This measure is implemented through filter {{efl|869}}, which marks all edits that trigger the filter with the "<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:RecentChanges|tagfilter=deprecated+source}} use of deprecated (unreliable) source]</span>" [[WP:TAGS|tag]].
Deprecated sources with few valid use cases may be blocked due to persistent abuse. This involves the source being added to the [[WP:SPB|spam blacklist]] and/or the [[m:Spam blacklist|Wikimedia 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.

==Acceptable uses of deprecated sources==
Deprecation is not a blanket retroactive "ban" on using the source in absolutely every situation, contrary to what has been reported in media headlines.<ref name="DM ban">Multiple sources:
* {{cite news|author=[[Kalev Leetaru]]|title=What Wikipedia's Daily Mail 'Ban' Tells Us About The Future Of Online Censorship|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2017/02/10/what-wikipedias-daily-mail-ban-tells-us-about-the-future-of-online-censorship/|newspaper=Forbes|date=2 October 2017|accessdate=25 December 2018|url-access=limited}}
* {{Cite web| title = Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source| author = Jasper Jackson| work = The Guardian| date = 8 February 2017| access-date = 21 November 2018| url = https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website}}
* {{Cite web| title = Wikipedia bans Daily Mail because it's an 'unreliable source'| author = Jon Sharman| work = The Independent| date = 9 February 2017| access-date = 21 November 2018| url = https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/wikipedia-editors-ban-daily-mail-source-citation-unreliable-mail-online-a7570856.html}}
* {{Cite web| title = Wikipedia bans Daily Mail for “poor fact checking, sensationalism, flat-out fabrication”| author = Sebastian Anthony| work = Ars Technica| date = 10 February 2017| access-date = 21 November 2018| url = https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/02/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail/}}
* Also see [[Daily Mail#Other criticisms|''Daily Mail'' § Other criticisms]].</ref> In particular, [[WP:RS|reliability]] always [[WP:CONTEXTMATTERS|depends 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 a [[WP:PRIMARY|primary source]] when the source itself is the subject of discussion, such as to describe its own viewpoint. The [[WP:V|verifiability policy]] provides an additional exception: a questionable source may be used for information on itself, subject to the conditions in [[WP:ABOUTSELF]] (see also [[WP:SPS]] and [[WP:BLPSELFPUB]]). An [[WP:EL|external link]] to the source can be included on an article about the source. Editors are also expected to use [[WP:COMMON|common 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 of ''all'' sources continues to be governed by [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:V]].

Additional exceptions may be specific to individual sources as summarized in the RfC: for example, the 2017 closure of the ''Daily Mail'' RfC mentioned that participants said it may have been more reliable historically.

==What deprecation is and isn't==

Deprecation is a status indicating that a source almost always falls below Wikipedia's [[WP:RS|standards 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 is ''blacklisting'', which is an entirely separate mechanism, and websites are usually only blacklisted if they are involved in [[WP:SPAM|spam-related issues]], such as [[WP:LINKSPAM|external link spamming]]. Blacklisted sources are listed at the [[WP:SPB|English Wikipedia spam blacklist]] and the [[m:Spam blacklist|Wikimedia global spam blacklist]], with new proposals submitted at [[MediaWiki 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.

==How does a source become deprecated?==

To start a discussion on deprecation, start a [[WP:RFC|request for comment]] at the [[WP:RSN|reliable sources noticeboard]] (RSN).<ref name="footnote1">Requests for comment are created using the <nowiki>{{rfc}}</nowiki> template; see [[WP:RFC]] for the technical instructions. A common approach to posing the RfC question can be seen in [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 258#RfC: The Daily Caller|this example]].</ref> Editors will then evaluate the source and determine whether there is a [[WP:CON|consensus]] for deprecation. However, if the source is not already ''de 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 prevent [[WP:CREEP|instruction creep]], sources that should be particularly obvious (for example, ''[[The Onion]]'') 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.<ref>See [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]], as well as the formal closure of [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 254#RfC: The Sun|this RfC]] (quote: "That we use other trash-sources is [[WP:OSE|never a good reason to oppose]] (for it can be effectively weaponised as a circular argument across discussions, to prevent deprecation of ''any'' source at all) and there is nothing prohibiting any interested editor from launching referendum-RFCs for those sources.")</ref>

==What sources are ''de facto'' deprecated?==

Any source that fails the [[WP:RS|reliable 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 debunked [[conspiracy 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, that [[fake news website]]s are effectively deprecated, as are sources that promote [[pseudoscience]] or [[denialism]]. The pages on [[WP:PUS|potentially unreliable sources]] and [[WP:RS/P|perennially discussed sources]] may also be helpful.

== Currently deprecated sources ==
{{Shortcut|WP:DEPSOURCES}}
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.

<templatestyles src="Wikipedia:Deprecated sources/styles.css" />
{| class="wikitable sortable deprecated-sources"
|+ Deprecated sources
! Source
! data-sort-type="date" style="width: 8.5em;" | Date of deprecation
! style="width: 4em;" | [[WP:RFC|RfC]]
! [[#Auto-reverted|Auto-reverted]]
! style="width: 4em;" | [[#Edit-filtered|Edit-filtered]]
! style="width: 4em;" | [[#Blacklisted|Black-listed]]
! class="unsortable" | Notes
! class="unsortable" style="width: 3.5em" | Uses
|- id="Baidu_Baike"
| [[Baidu Baike]]
| 4 August 2020
| {{rsnl|305|RfC: Baidu Baike|2020|rfc=y}}
| {{rll||Baidu Baike|2020}}
| {{efd|869|23972|2020}}
| 
|  Unacceptable as it is a user-generated site 
| {{WP:RSPUSES|baike.baidu.com|b.baidu.com|wapbaike.baidu.com}}
|- id="bestgore.com"
| [[bestgore.com]]
| 24 April 2021
| {{rsnl||RfC: Best Gore (bestgore.com)|2021|rfc=y}}
|
|
| {{sbll||bestgore.com|2021}}
|
| {{WP:RSPUSES|bestgore.com}}
|- id="Breitbart_News"
| [[Breitbart News]]
| 25 September 2018
| {{rsnl|248|RfC: Breitbart|2018|rfc=y}}
|
|
| {{sbll|October 2018|breitbart.com|2018}}
|
| {{WP:RSPUSES|breitbart.com}}
|- id="China_Global_Television_Network"
| [[China Global Television Network]] {{small|(CGTN, CCTV International)}}
| 15 September 2020
| {{rsnl|312|RFC: China Global Television Network|2020|rfc=y}}
| {{rll||cgtn.com|2020}}
| {{efd|869|24051|2020}}
|
|
| {{WP:RSPUSES|cgtn.com}}
|- id="CounterPunch"
| [[CounterPunch]]
| 10 October 2021
| {{rsnl|355|RfC: CounterPunch|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{rll||CounterPunch|2021}}
| 
|
|
| {{WP:RSPUSES|counterpunch.org}}
|- id="Crunchbase"
| [[Crunchbase]]
| 18 March 2019
| {{rsnl|261|RfC: Crunchbase|2019|rfc=y}}
| {{rll|1|Crunchbase (crunchbase.com)|2019}}
|
|
| Crunchbase is only listed on [[User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList]], so citations to Crunchbase are only automatically reverted if they are in [[WP:CITEFOOT|ref tags]] in addition to meeting the standard criteria. An [[WP:EF|edit filter]] is not implemented for Crunchbase in order to allow [[WP:EL|external links]] to the website.
| {{WP:RSPUSES|crunchbase.com}}
|- id="The_Daily_Caller"
| data-sort-value="Daily Caller" | ''[[The Daily Caller]]''
| 13 February 2019
| {{rsnl|258|RfC: The Daily Caller|2019|rfc=y}}
| {{rll|1|Deprecated sources|2019}}
| {{efd|869|22235|2019}}
|
|
| {{WP:RSPUSES|dailycaller.com|dailycallernewsfoundation.org}}
|- id="Daily_Mail"
| ''[[Daily Mail]]'' {{small|([[MailOnline]])}}
| 8 February 2017
| {{rsnl|220|Daily Mail RfC|2017|rfc=y}} {{rsnl|255|2nd RfC: The Daily Mail|2019|rfc=y}} {{rsnl|299|(Infomercial voice) But Wait! There's still more!! (News about The Daily Mail)|2020|rfc=y}}
| {{rll|1|Known unreliable sources|2018}}
| {{efd|869|17563|2017}} {{efd|869|22235|2019}} {{efd|869|23857|2020}}
|
| The ''Daily Mail'' was the first source to be deprecated on Wikipedia. The decision was challenged and upheld in the 2019 RfC. This deprecation also includes the newspaper's website, [[MailOnline]]. Editors note that the ''Daily Mail'' may have been more reliable historically.
| {{WP:RSPUSES|dailymail.co.uk|thisismoney.co.uk|pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail|pressreader.com/uk/scottish-daily-mail|pressreader.com/ireland/irish-daily-mail|mailplus.co.uk|dailym.ai|dailymail.com.au|travelmail.co.uk|findarticles.com/p/news-articles/daily-mail-london-england-the/|mailonline.pressreader.com|mailpictures.newsprints.co.uk|dailymail.com}}
|- id="Daily_Star"
| data-sort-value="Daily Star" | [[Daily Star (United Kingdom)|''Daily Star'' (UK)]]
| 21 September 2020
| {{rsnl|311|RFC: Daily Star|2020|rfc=y}}
| {{rll||dailystar.co.uk|2020}}
| {{efd|869|24176|2020}}
|
|
| {{WP:RSPUSES|dailystar.co.uk|thestar.ie}}
|- id="The_Epoch_Times"
| data-sort-value="Epoch Times" | ''[[The Epoch Times]]''
| 6 December 2019
| {{rsnl|279|RfC: The Epoch Times|2019|rfc=y}}
| {{rll||theepochtimes.com|2019}}
| {{efd|869|23543|2020}}
|
|
| {{WP:RSPUSES|theepochtimes.com|epochtimes.com}}
|- id="FrontPage_Magazine"
| ''[[FrontPage Magazine]]'' {{small|(FPM, ''FrontPageMag.com'')}}
| 18 July 2020
| {{rsnl|301|RFC: FrontPage Magazine|2020|rfc=y}}
| {{rll||FrontPage Magazine|2020}}
| {{efd|869|23939|2020}}
|
|
| {{WP:RSPUSES|frontpagemag.com|frontpagemagazine.com}}
|- id="The_Gateway_Pundit"
| data-sort-value="Gateway Pundit" | ''[[The Gateway Pundit]]'' {{small|(TGP)}}
| 21 November 2019
| {{rsnl|278|RfC: "The Gateway Pundit" (October)|2019|rfc=y}}
| {{rll||thegatewaypundit.com|2019}}
| {{efd|869|23734|2020}}
|
|
| {{WP:RSPUSES|thegatewaypundit.com}}
|- id="Global_Times"
| data-sort-value="Global Times" | ''[[Global Times]]''
| 4 September 2020
| {{rsnl|311|RfC: Global Times|2020|rfc=y}}
| {{rll||Global Times|2020}}
| {{efd|869|2020}}
|
| Near unanimous consensus that ''Global Times'' publishes false or fabricated information, conspiracy theories, and propaganda promoting the Chinese government.
| {{WP:RSPUSES|globaltimes.cn|huanqiu.com}}
|- id="The_Grayzone"
| data-sort-value="Grayzone" | ''[[The Grayzone]]''
| 8 March 2020
| {{rsnl|287|RfC: Grayzone|2020|rfc=y}}
| {{rll||thegrayzone.com|2020}}
| {{efd|869|23734|2020}}
|
|
| {{WP:RSPUSES|thegrayzone.com}}
|- id="HispanTV"
| [[HispanTV]]
| 19 May 2019
| {{rsnl|265|RfC: HispanTV|2019|rfc=y}}
| {{rll||Recently deprecated sources (as of November 2019)|2019}}
| {{efd|869|23734|2020}}
|
|
| {{WP:RSPUSES|hispantv.com|hispantv.ir}}
|- id="InfoWars"
| ''[[InfoWars]]'' {{small|(''NewsWars'')}}
| 30 August 2018
| {{rsnl|247|RfC on reliability of InfoWars|2018|rfc=y}}
|
|
| [[File:X-circle.svg|20px|alt=Spam blacklist request|link=m:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2018-02#Beta Cluster spamming of 2018-02-18]]&nbsp;[[m:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2018-02#Beta Cluster spamming of 2018-02-18|2018]]<br />{{sbll|September 2018|InfoWars|2018}}
|
| {{WP:RSPUSES|infowars.com|infowars.net|infowars.tv|newswars.com|banned.video}}
|- id="Jihad_Watch"
| [[Jihad Watch]]
| 20 January 2021
| {{rsnl|325|RFC: "Jihad Watch", should it be deprecated as a source?|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{rll||Jihad Watch|2021}}
| {{efd|869|24429|2021}}
|
|
| {{WP:RSPUSES|jihadwatch.org}}
|- id="Last.fm"
| [[Last.fm]]
| 23 February 2019
| {{rsnl|259|RfC: Rateyourmusic, Discogs, and Last.fm|2019|rfc=y}}
| {{rll|1|Deprecated sources|2019}}
| {{efd|869|23734|2020}}
|
|
| {{WP:RSPUSES|last.fm}}
|- id="Lenta.ru"
| ''[[Lenta.ru]]'' (12 March 2014–present)
| 21 December 2019
| {{rsnl|281|RfC: Deprecation of fake news / disinformation sites.|2019|rfc=y}}
|
|
| [[File:X-circle.svg|20px|alt=Spam blacklist request|link=MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2020/03#Pre-2014 Lenta.ru articles links]] [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2020/03#Pre-2014 Lenta.ru articles links|2020]]
| There is currently no consensus on the reliability of ''Lenta.ru'' prior to 12 March 2014.
| {{WP:RSPUSES|lenta.ru}}
|- id="LifeSiteNews"
| [[LifeSiteNews]] {{small|([[Campaign Life Coalition]])}}
| 4 July 2019
| {{rsnl|268|RfC: LifeSiteNews|2019|rfc=y}}
| {{rll||Recently deprecated sources (as of November 2019)|2019}}
| {{efd|869|22235|2019}}
|
|
| {{WP:RSPUSES|lifesitenews.com|lifesite.net}}
|- id="The_Mail_on_Sunday"
| data-sort-value="Mail on Sunday" | ''[[The Mail on Sunday]]''
| 16 November 2020
| {{rsnl|318|Can we please adapt the Daily Mail consensus to reflect a position on Mail on Sunday?|2020|rfc=y}}
| {{rll||mailonsunday.co.uk|2020}}
| {{efd|869|24273|2020}}
|
| 
| {{WP:RSPUSES|mailonsunday.co.uk|pressreader.com/uk/the-mail-on-sunday/|pressreader.com/uk/the-scottish-mail-on-sunday/|dailymail.co.uk/mailonsunday}}
|- id="MintPress_News"
| ''[[MintPress News]]''
| 4 July 2019
| {{rsnl|268|RfC: MintPress News|2019|rfc=y}}
| {{rll||Recently deprecated sources (as of November 2019)|2019}}
| {{efd|869|23734|2020}}
|
|
| {{WP:RSPUSES|mintpressnews.com}}
|- id="National_Enquirer"
| ''[[National Enquirer]]''
| 17 March 2019
| {{rsnl|261|RfC: National Enquirer|2019|rfc=y}}
| {{rll|1|Deprecated sources|2019}}
|
|
| There is no consensus to implement an edit filter for the ''National Enquirer''.
| {{WP:RSPUSES|nationalenquirer.com}}
|- id="News_Break"
| [[News Break]]
| 1 July 2020
| {{rsnl|301|News Break|2020|rfc=y}}
| {{rll||newsbreak.com|2020}}
| {{efd|869|23938|2020}}
|
| News Break is a [[news aggregator]] that publishes snippets of articles from other sources. In the 2020 RfC, there was consensus to deprecate News Break in favor of the original sources.
| {{WP:RSPUSES|newsbreak.com}}
|- id="NewsBlaze"
| NewsBlaze
| 16 September 2021
| {{rsnl|353|RfC: Newsblaze|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{rll||NewsBlaze|2021}}
| 
|
| 
| {{WP:RSPUSES|newsblaze.com|newsblaze.com.au}}
|- id="News_of_the_World"
| ''[[News of the World]]''
| 4 December 2019
| {{rsnl|279|RfC: News of the World|2019|rfc=y}}
| {{rll||newsoftheworld.com, newsoftheworld.co.uk|2019}}
| {{efd|869|23734|2020}}
|
| Some editors consider ''News of the World'' to be reliable for film reviews.
| {{WP:RSPUSES|newsoftheworld.co.uk|newsoftheworld.com}}
|- id="Newsmax"
| [[Newsmax]]
| 20 November 2020
| {{rsnl|319|Newsmax|2020|rfc=y}}
| {{rll||Newsmax|2020}}
| {{efd|869|24293|2020}}
|
|
| {{WP:RSPUSES|newsmax.com|newsmaxtv.com}}
|- id="NNDB"
| [[NNDB]] {{small|(Notable Names Database)}}
| 23 February 2019
| {{rsnl|259|RfC: Notable Names Database|2019|rfc=y}}
| {{rll|1|Deprecated sources|2019}}
| {{efd|869|23734|2020}}
|
|
| {{WP:RSPUSES|nndb.com}}
|- id="Occupy_Democrats"
| [[Occupy Democrats]]
| 25 September 2018
| {{rsnl|249|RfC: Occupy Democrats|2018|rfc=y}}
| {{rll|1|Known unreliable sources|2018}}
| {{efd|869|23734|2020}}
|
|
| {{WP:RSPUSES|occupydemocrats.com}}
|- id="One_America_News_Network"
| [[One America News Network]] {{small|(OANN)}}
| 21 December 2019
| {{rsnl|281|RfC: One America News Network|2019|rfc=y}}
| {{rll||oann.com|2019}}
| {{efd|869|23734|2020}}
|
|
| {{WP:RSPUSES|oann.com}}
|- id="Peerage_websites"
| [[Peerage]] websites ([[WP:SPS|self-published]])
| 26 May 2020
| {{rsnl|295|Two genealogy sites|2020|rfc=y}} {{rsnl|297|More nobility fansites|2020|rfc=y}}
| {{rll||Peerage websites|2020}}
| {{efd|869|23752|2020}} {{efd|869|24180|2020}}
|
| See the list of sites at [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Self-published peerage websites]].
| {{WP:RSPUSES|almanach.be|almanachdegotha.org|angelfire.com/realm/gotha|chivalricorders.org|cracroftspeerage.co.uk|englishmonarchs.co.uk|jacobite.ca|royalark.net|thepeerage.com|worldstatesmen.org}}
|- id="Press_TV"
| [[Press TV]]
| 24 June 2021
| {{rsnl|346|RfC: PressTV|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{rll||Press TV|2021}}
|
| 
|
| {{WP:RSPUSES|presstv.com|presstv.ir|presstv.co.uk|presstv.tv}}
|- id="Rate_Your_Music"
| [[Rate Your Music]] {{small|(RYM, Cinemos, Glitchwave, Sonemic)}}
| 23 February 2019
| {{rsnl|259|RfC: Rateyourmusic, Discogs, and Last.fm|2019|rfc=y}}
| {{rll|1|Deprecated sources|2019}}
| {{efd|869|23734|2020}}
|
|
| {{WP:RSPUSES|rateyourmusic.com|cinemos.com|glitchwave.com|sonemic.com}}
|- id="Republic TV"
| [[Republic TV]] {{small|(Republic World)}}
| 26 October 2021
| {{rsnl|357|RfC: Republic TV|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{rll||Republic TV|2021}}
| 
|
|
| {{WP:RSPUSES|republicworld.com|bharat.republicworld.com}}
|- id="RT"
| [[RT (TV network)|RT]] {{small|(Russia Today)}}
| 27 May 2020
| {{rsnl|295|RfC: RT (Russia Today)|2020|rfc=y}}
| {{rll||rt.com|2020}}
| {{efd|869|23730|2020}}
|
|
| {{WP:RSPUSES|rt.com|russiatoday.com}}
|- id="Sputnik"
| [[Sputnik (news agency)|Sputnik]]
| 6 June 2020
| {{rsnl|296|RfC: Sputnik|2020|rfc=y}}
| {{rll||sputniknews.com|2020}}
| {{efd|869|23787|2020}} {{efd|869|24413|2021}} {{efd|869|24510|2021}}
|
|
| {{WP:RSPUSES|sputniknews.com|sputniknews.ru|sputnik.by|armeniasputnik.am|sputnik.kz|sputniknews.cn|sputnik.md|sputnik-georgia.com|sputnik-georgia.ru|sputnik-abkhazia.ru|sputnik-ossetia.com|sputnik-ossetia.ru|sputniknewslv.com|sputniknews.lt|sputniknews.gr|sputniknews-uz.com|sputnik-tj.com|sputnik.az|sputnik.kg|voiceofrussia.com}}
|- id="The_Sun"
| data-sort-value="Sun" | [[The Sun (United Kingdom)|''The Sun'' (UK)]] {{small|(''The Sun on Sunday'', ''The Irish Sun'', ''The Scottish Sun'')}}
| 18 January 2019
| {{rsnl|254|RfC: The Sun|2019|rfc=y}}
| {{rll|1|Deprecated sources|2019}}
| {{efd|869|23196|2020}} {{efd|869|24052|2020}}
|
| Some editors consider ''The Sun'' to be reliable for sports reporting.
| {{WP:RSPUSES|thesun.co.uk|thesun.ie|thescottishsun.co.uk|the-sun.com|thesun.mobi|sunnation.co.uk|dreamteamfc.com|page3.com}}
|- id="Taki's_Magazine"
| ''[[Taki's Magazine]]''
| 3 October 2019
| {{rsnl|273|RfC: Taki's Magazine|2019|rfc=y}}
| {{rll||Recently deprecated sources (as of November 2019)|2019}}
| {{efd|869|23734|2020}}
|
|
| {{WP:RSPUSES|takimag.com}}
|- id="Telesur"
| [[Telesur]]
| 31 March 2019
| {{rsnl|262|RfC: Telesur|2019|rfc=y}}
| {{rll|1|Deprecated sources|2019}}
| {{efd|869|23734|2020}}
|
|
| {{WP:RSPUSES|telesurtv.net|telesurenglish.net}}
|- id="Unz Review"
| [[Unz Review]]
| 15 October 2021
| {{rsnl|356|The Unz Review|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{rll||Unz Review|2021}}
| 
|
| The site's extensive archive of journal reprints includes many apparent [[WP:COPYLINK|copyright violations]]. 
| {{WP:RSPUSES|unz.com|unz.org}}
|- id="VDARE"
| [[VDARE]]
| 22 December 2018
| {{rsnl|254|RFC: VDARE|2018|rfc=y}}
| {{rll|1|Deprecated sources|2019}}
| {{efd|869|22235|2019}}
|
|
| {{WP:RSPUSES|vdare.com}}
|- id="Veterans_Today"
| ''[[Veterans Today]]''
| 21 December 2019
| {{rsnl|281|RfC: Deprecation of fake news / disinformation sites.|2019|rfc=y}}
|
|
| {{sbll|December 2019|More disinformation sites|2019}}
|
| {{WP:RSPUSES|veteranstoday.com}}
|- id="Voltaire_Network"
| [[Voltaire Network]]
| 12 June 2020
| {{rsnl|297|voltairenet.org|2020|rfc=y}}
| {{rll||voltairenet.org|2020}}
| {{efd|869|23822|2020}}
|
|
| {{WP:RSPUSES|voltairenet.org}}
|- id="WorldNetDaily"
| ''[[WorldNetDaily]]'' {{small|(''WND'')}}
| 11 December 2018
| {{rsnl|253|RfC: WorldNetDaily|2018|rfc=y}}
| {{rll|1|Known unreliable sources|2018}}
| {{efd|869|22235|2019}}
|
|
| {{WP:RSPUSES|wnd.com|worldnetdaily.com}}
|- id="Zero_Hedge"
| [[Zero Hedge]] {{small|(ZH)}}
| 16 July 2020
| {{rsnl|302|RfC: Zero Hedge|2020|rfc=y}}
| {{rll||zerohedge.com|2020}}
| {{efd|869|23937|2020}}
|
|
| {{WP:RSPUSES|zerohedge.com}}
|}

=== Legend ===
{{plainlist|class=deprecated-sources-legend}}
* {{anchor|Auto-reverted}}[[File:Icons8 flat undo.svg|20px|float|alt=Auto-reverted|link=User:XLinkBot]] '''[[User:XLinkBot|Auto-reverted]]:''' The source is listed on [[User:XLinkBot/RevertList]] and [[User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList]]. {{u|XLinkBot}} automatically reverts links to the source that are added by [[WP:IP|unregistered users]] and accounts under seven days old. This behavior is subject to restrictions, which are described in the lists themselves. Refer to the Notes column for additional exceptions.
* {{anchor|Edit-filtered}}[[File:OOjs UI icon funnel-ltr-progressive.svg|20px|float|alt=Edit-filtered|link=WP:EF]] '''[[WP:EF|Edit-filtered]]:''' An [[WP:EF|edit filter]], {{efl|869}}, is in place to [[WP:EF#Basics of usage|warn]] editors who attempt to cite the source as a reference in articles. The warning message can be dismissed. Edits that trigger the filter are <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:RecentChanges|tagfilter=deprecated+source}} tagged]</span>.
* {{anchor|Blacklisted}}[[File:X-circle.svg|20px|float|alt=Blacklisted|link=WP:SPB]] '''[[WP:SPB|Blacklisted]]:''' Due to persistent abuse, usually in the form of [[WP:LINKSPAM|external link spamming]], the source is on the [[WP:SPB|spam blacklist]] or the [[m:Spam blacklist|Wikimedia global spam blacklist]]. External links to this source are blocked, unless an exception is made for a specific link in the [[WT:WHITELIST|spam whitelist]].
{{endplainlist}}

== See also ==
{{div col}}
* [[Wikipedia:Edit filter|Edit filter]]
* [[Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources|Potentially unreliable sources]]
* [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Questionable and self-published sources|Reliable sources § Questionable and self-published sources]]
* [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard|Reliable sources/Noticeboard]]
* [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC|Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220 § Daily Mail RfC]]
* [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources|Reliable sources/Perennial sources]]
* [[Wikipedia:Spam blacklist|Spam blacklist]]
* [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves|Verifiability § Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves]]
* [[m:Spam blacklist|Wikimedia global spam blacklist]]
* {{tl|Deprecated inline}}
* [[:Category:All articles with deprecated sources]]

{{div col end}}

== Notes ==
* In a highly-attended {{rsnl|288|OpIndia and Swarajya|2020 discussion}}, there was consensus to deprecate [[WP:RSP#OpIndia|OpIndia]] and ''[[WP:RSP#Swarajya|Swarajya]]'', but the discussion was not a [[WP:RFC|request for comment]].

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Wikipedia culture]]
[[Category:Wikipedia information pages]]
[[Category:Wikipedia perennial sources]]
[[Category:WikiProject lists of online reliable sources]]