Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Far Out (website)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. $Salvio giuliano$ 06:29, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Far Out (website)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks notability, fails WP:GNG. The website/magazine has not won any awards, and has not been described in depth by uninvolved writers. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Popular culture, Websites, and England. jolielover♥talk 05:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Film, Music, Entertainment, and Travel and tourism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inclined to agree with the nominator. It can be difficult sometimes to search online for publications about an online publication. However, I can't find anything, save for the one source already cited in the article which is not enough on its own. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whoever wrote the article used the used Rotten Tomatoes as a source to justify Far Out's notoriety, where as RT says only Monica Reid and Matthew Creith were approved. Matthew Creith even has an RT profile with a photo, a summary of where he worked and which critics associations he is associated with. In some cases RT approves the website and all the critics that are part of the staff, but this is not the case.Theys York (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think we're conflating a publication being a reliable source and notability. Because of the nature of the source, the article has been rather aggressively pruned and the source recently declared unreliable. I think it's no coincidence that just as it's decided not to be a reliable source, it's proposed for AfD. Yes, the site does repackage content. However, it gives visibility to that content, often only in video form on YouTube. I view this site as akin to Bored Panda. Davidwbaker (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link where the community declared Far Out as an unreliable source ? @Davidwbaker:. Iennes (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Far Out was judged guilty of churnalism and circular sourcing which I would have termed plagiarism.

My first reaction to seeing this topic nominated for speedy deletion very recently was to go looking for reliable sources, which I thought I would be able to find. I was wrong, so I nominated it for deletion in the usual manner. I did find a Scientology magazine ranting about the bias on Far Out and how its founder blocked them on social media. The rag is Freedom (magazine) which is blacklisted on Wikipedia, which means I am not going to supply a link for your convenience. I found this Bru Times piece from India which looks a lot like churnalism; the other articles on that platform appear to be paid puffery for barely notable and non-notable people. A Modern Drummer page thanks Far Out for its coverage of Ringo Starr, which is not helping with notability because it does not contain in-depth coverage. Binksternet (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Move into draftspace and find more substantial sources. Worth keeping if prosed properly. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 18:53, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete

As mentioned at the talk page of the Far Out article, I gave various instances showing with diffs that Far Out outrageously mirrors the content of several Wikipedia music articles. This is unacceptable. It also means there is not a proper editor in chief at the helm. They copy / paste with poor rewording and even reproduce long quotes of interviews. The wiki article uses sources linking to their own website, this is a mess. It is a third rate source as it doesn't fit with our standard of editing : that wiki article about them is an anomaly. For all these reasons we should delete it. Iennes (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per lack of independent coverage. Svartner (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This would be an instant Delete as it fails WP:ORG. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 00:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There really isn't much of anything out there. There are a lot of hits for the term itself and many links from the website itself, but not really much else. There are a smattering of database type sites that list them, but otherwise the hits are typically non-reliable sources (churnalism sites, people linking to them on social media, etc). I didn't see anything that would firmly establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.