→Intellectual Dark Web: revised my !vote Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
→Intellectual Dark Web: Closed as no consensus (XFDcloser) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> |
|||
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' |
|||
<!--Template:Afd top |
|||
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> |
|||
The result was '''no consensus'''. There's still disagreement about whether there's enough quality coverage for an article. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 10:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC) |
|||
===[[:Intellectual Dark Web]]=== |
===[[:Intellectual Dark Web]]=== |
||
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|S}} |
|||
<div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify"> |
<div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify"> |
||
{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellectual Dark Web}} |
{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellectual Dark Web}} |
||
Line 62: | Line 68: | ||
*'''Delete''' (without prejudice) - It is [[WP:TOOSOON|too soon for prime-time]]. K.e.c's suggestion to redirect to the Eric Weinstein article as a home for what little encyclopedic information presently exists is an excellent interim solution. '''If''' / when quality, in-depth secondary reliable sourcing on the subject becomes available, a stand-alone article can be reconsidered. "[[WP:NEO|Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia ... when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic]]". All we have at present is an [[WP:Recentism|indiscriminate collection of opinion pieces opining about a recently published opinion piece]]. [[WP:SUSTAINED]] and [[WP:NOTPROMOTION]] are requirements that have not been met. [[User:Xenophrenic|Xenophrenic]] ([[User talk:Xenophrenic|talk]]) 01:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' (without prejudice) - It is [[WP:TOOSOON|too soon for prime-time]]. K.e.c's suggestion to redirect to the Eric Weinstein article as a home for what little encyclopedic information presently exists is an excellent interim solution. '''If''' / when quality, in-depth secondary reliable sourcing on the subject becomes available, a stand-alone article can be reconsidered. "[[WP:NEO|Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia ... when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic]]". All we have at present is an [[WP:Recentism|indiscriminate collection of opinion pieces opining about a recently published opinion piece]]. [[WP:SUSTAINED]] and [[WP:NOTPROMOTION]] are requirements that have not been met. [[User:Xenophrenic|Xenophrenic]] ([[User talk:Xenophrenic|talk]]) 01:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete'''. I'm simply not seeing significant, in-depth coverage. Some passing mentions plus one or two op-eds is not enough to be [[WP:SIGCOV]], especially for neologisms. I think a brief mention in the Eric Weinstein article would be fine. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 23:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC) |
*'''Delete'''. I'm simply not seeing significant, in-depth coverage. Some passing mentions plus one or two op-eds is not enough to be [[WP:SIGCOV]], especially for neologisms. I think a brief mention in the Eric Weinstein article would be fine. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 23:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC) |
||
{{clear}} |
|||
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''<!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> |
Revision as of 10:07, 21 May 2018
- 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 no consensus. There's still disagreement about whether there's enough quality coverage for an article. Sandstein 10:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Intellectual Dark Web
- Intellectual Dark Web (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously deleted and redirected to th3 article on Weinstein. Re-created recently by a sock puppet, deleted, and now re-created again, this time by a good faith editor. We have a list of names, a definition which is a repeat if the section in the Weinstein article, and a colour piece. In fact the only substantive change from last deletion is one more colour piece, covering substantially the same very small factual element. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not clear why this article would not just be marked as a "stub" and people invited to add more rather than deleted altogether? It seems like a current significant social movement that is getting the attention of the New York Times. I'm also unclear why you removed all the content related to race/ prejudice that was sourced/ referenced and why you indicated that it was not? The addition of the some of the ideas, which you deleted, that define this group (free speech, etc.) and their ideas re: race/ prejudice seem to be an important contribution to the topic on wiki. --Hantsheroes (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep because there are plenty of things this article has yet to cover and it is easy to find sources. There are many different opinions about what this loose affiliation means and about whether it's a good or bad thing. Do the people named in this article embrace the term? Are there other people who were once alleged to be part of the IDW before they rejected it? All of these should be discussed. Connor Behan (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep The subject has received considerable media interest. The first AFD's result was merge to Eric Weinstein. Since that a major article in the New York Times with interviews a photo-shoot by a Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer [1] appeared this lead to several subsequent articles in press: The Chronicle of Higher Education[2], National Review [3], Washington Post[4], New Statesman[5], a humorous piece in the Guardian[6]. Due to this media interest and discussion on the talk page the closer of the original AFD leaving it void. Several people have deleted and recreated the article since.
- I was the person who first performed the merge to Eric Weinstein, but it did not feel like a particularly good solution, much of the information in the original article did not fit the bio of one of the minor players. --Salix alba (talk): 22:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, although we should be prepared to move the article as the name changes. The NYT editorial is sufficient for notability, but probably not for naming names.
Since I will be reverted, I will not remove the list of names, even though they present a probable WP:BLP violation. I'm not sure what would be sufficient; I only know that neither source so far provided is adequate.The NYT column seems adequate for the names, but the list of names was probably taken from clearly unreliable sources. It needs to be carefully watched, to avoid BLP considerations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- The Chronicle of Higher Education article is interesting as it gives an insight into the process of the NYT article from someone who declined to be included. Those with photos have agreed to the photo shoot associating their names with the project. Other post NYT articles offer criticism of the term for many of the same reasons editors have expressed here. --Salix alba (talk): 22:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep While it might have been borderline at the last AfD there is now unquestionably enough coverage to ring the WP:N bell. The only question is whether or not there is enough reliably sourced content to build a stand alone article that isn't doomed to being a perma-stub. I believe there is. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Intellectual has an established meaning. Shouldn't be thrown about to refer to Dave Rubin (youtube show for a year or two) or Eric Weinstein (Biologist protesting race center policies). A NYT article glorifying a group of people is not the same as creation of an entity. These individuals, bound by political views and very questionable stances on ethnicity and mental capacity call themselves "intellectuals". A NYT article isn't enough reason for them being referred to as intellectual. I'd hate to use a more direct Nazi analogy, so I won't. Paulthemonk (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- The term is being used by a lot more than the NYT. If you have a disagreement with the manner in which it is being employed you need to take that up with the sources. All we do here is repeat what the sources are saying. Nothing more and nothing less. It's not our job to say they are wrong. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- They don't call themselves "intellectuals". Eric called them "intellectuals". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Again, the term is being used by multiple reliable sources. Until the sources change their language that's what we go with. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep In the last AfD for this, I was one of the editors who suggested "Merge" because it just did not have enough notability. The NY Times piece and the associated writings and controversy in reaction to it put the subject clearly in the "notable" column for me. Dozens of mainstream and respected writers writing in mainstream publications reacted to that piece and not only commented on the piece itself and its author but debated, often passionately, the merits and demerits of the philosophies, personages and concepts associated with the term "Intellectual Dark Web", adding significantly to its notability and visibility in the public fora. Marteau (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- What has this to do with "conspiracy theories"? --Epipelagic (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep – Over the last few days it has ceased to be an issue whether this article should be retained. Google makes clear that legions of triggered ideologues in the mainstream press are swarming what they imagine to be politically "correct" battlements in self-righteous attempts to put the genie back in the bottle. In this way they have legitimised the situation as clearly notable. The movement, if that is what it is, was overdue twenty years before Trump became president. There needs to be a restoration, or at least a semblance, of rationality, Enlightenment aspirations, and respect for what is true. Unfortunately, Eric Weinstein didn't widen his perspective enough to think through the implications of the name he suggested. To my surprise, I find myself agreeing with Arthur Rubin, hi Rubin, that we should "be prepared to move the article as the name changes". As Buddhists say, in connection with the worst curse they can conceive, "interesting times". --Epipelagic (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - per User:Salix alba. Coverage in reliable sources appears sufficient to meet WP:GNG. DynaGirl (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing has changed since the last time this was deleted. The only thing added was an op-ed fluff piece. Why are we here again? --Tarage (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- We are here to determine notability of the subject, not just blindly compare the way the article was then with the way it is now. And for what it's worth, there's more than just one "fluff piece" added to the article since then... a lot has changed, and it's still a work in progress. It's a very young article.
- Anyway to address your question: What Changed Since Last AfD? A LOT changed since then. Last AfD was closed 9 May. A google search for "all" occurrences of "Intellectual Dark Web" JUST since 9 May returns SEVENTEEN PAGES of results. A google search for "news" occurrences of "Intellectual Dark Web" returns four pages of results. JUST since May 9. Just since six days ago.
- Literally dozens of newspapers and magazines carried articles addressing the "fluff piece" and the ideas the "fluff piece" brought up. Writers from The Washington Post, The Washington Examiner, National Review, Chronicle of Higher Education, "Reason", The Village Voice, The Boston Herald, The American Enterprise Institute, Vanity Fair, New York Magazine, Esquire, Spectator UK, Media Matters for America, Washington Free Beacon, Los Angeles Times, and dozens others all had writers who discussed the "Intellectual Dark Web" NY Times article, and most of the directly addressed and debated the issues that article brought up. AND THIS WAS ALL SINCE MAY 9. Whether or not those writings will make it into the article as a citation is not the question. The question is, is the subject notable. The fact that so many big name writers from big name organizations discussed the issue is proof that the subject is notable in a big way. This explosion of interest is well demonstrated by looking at Google Trends for "Intellectual Dark Web". They use a relative scale of 0 to 100 with 0 being no interest and 100 being maximum interest for that subject. On May 5, interest was at a "2". Today, it is at "100". In nine days, interest in the subject has increased FIFTY TIMES.
- THAT is "what changed" Marteau (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- WP:BLUDGEON --Tarage (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Just because something became a blip on the radar doesn't make it notable. What will you say if interest vanishes over the next few days/weeks/months? Should we have a wiki article about every briefly mentioned phrase? Better draft an article on 'bae'. I'm not convinced that an opinion piece and responses to said opinion piece are notable. Nor am I convinced based on a google search history. Neither even remotely count towards something being notable. --Tarage (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- We have an article on bae. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Bad example but my point stands. --Tarage (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree that your point stands. While I feel that contemporaneous news coverage is not a secondary source, the consensus is to treat it as such for the purposes of determining notability of recent events. Various "pop culture" terms are as a result included, despite the possibility that they may just be an irrelevant fad in the long term. I believe there are plenty of "Tea Party" or "Occupy Wall Street" articles created based on that theory which might not survive AfD today.
- Notability is not temporary, but how the notability of current events is perceived sometimes is. When the media covers The dress, we have an article on it. When the media covers the latest neologism for contrarian political thinkers, we have an article on it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- By that standard we should be stalking every opinion piece that someone writes that gets replies. I frankly don't agree with that in the slightest. This is not a neologism. People have to USE it before it reaches that point. I don't see anyone using it in reports outside of replying to the opinion piece. It was fine when it lived in the article it's been ripped out of numerous times. --Tarage (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- The standard for inclusion in the encylopedia is not whether you see people using it. Here's nine pages of google results where people obviously not on your radar or in your social circle who were talking about it before April 30 of this year (i.e. before the NY Times article) It was a thing well before the NY Times article, and before everyone replied to it.
- By that standard we should be stalking every opinion piece that someone writes that gets replies. I frankly don't agree with that in the slightest. This is not a neologism. People have to USE it before it reaches that point. I don't see anyone using it in reports outside of replying to the opinion piece. It was fine when it lived in the article it's been ripped out of numerous times. --Tarage (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Bad example but my point stands. --Tarage (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- We have an article on bae. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep the press insists on talking about this for some reason. The article is going to be a nightmare to write and keep compliant with NPOV and BLP policies, mais c'est la vie. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Keep.Delete. I agree with Power. There's very little reliable content, but there's enough. For those who are unaware, the NY Times piece everyone is talking about is clearly marked as opinion. We generally do not use opinion sources for facts, so if it's used in the article it should be done with care. I also agree there's a BLP angle here that needs to be watched for. After all the Guardian source calls this thing "the supposed thinking wing of the alt-right." (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Changing my vote per WP:SUSTAINED. (See Jytdog's reasoning below.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- It is not clear to me why the New York Times article is not referenced in the footnotes of this article at all even when it is referenced in the body of the article. Further, the fact that the NYT article is an Op Ed piece doesn't negate that it is discussing a fact - a group of people have identified themselves with the Intellectual Dark Web. The opinion isn't whether or not the group exists or what it stands for - the opinion is evaluating the merits of the group. We can be cautious about elevating this opinion as fact, but not dispute that this group of people exist. The NYT article can be used to reference/ prove the group exists and what it stands for. Why would attacks on/ opinions about the NYT article and the IDW be okay to reference with footnotes from other newspapers but not the NYT article itself? Please clarify.--Hantsheroes (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Off-topic for this AfD. I responded on the article talk page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. I was not familiar with the concept of this (I found the Intellectual Dark Web article from a reference from Jordan Peterson's wikipedia page). From it, I learned that Peterson's point of view is not unique; the IDW is "notable", and the WP page directed me toadditional well-founded sources and references, both pro and con. Thus, the article serves a valid purpose and does so without prejudice and in a balanced way. Thus, "keep". Dr. Crash (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment The article is currently undergoing rapid editing, with various editors adding and removing large amounts of oftentimes contentious material, and there is much disagreement over what should and should not be included. Just something to keep in mind when determining your position on the deletion or retention of this article... the current version will almost certainly be significantly different once the dust settles and we achieve some sort of consensus on the content (which we have not yet achieved, as a quick visit to the page history will confirm). Marteau (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep and admonish the nominator for persistently (and unsurprisingly) source-stripping this, per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- That's neither AGF nor accurate. Guy has been removing unreliable sources. That ain't source-stripping, there's nothing wrong with it, and this isn't the forum for admonitions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- He has been SELECTIVELY removing sources and saying they are unreliable. For example, removing a Boston Herald source saying it is "an unsigned editorial" while at the same time insisting that an unsigned satire piece be used in the second sentence of the article to link the IDW to the "alt-right". Marteau (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- This is neither the time nor place for that, Marteau. The sources in question are all readily available, and consensus is forming around your keep position. Please let it rest. As I said at article talk, if you have issues with Guy's behavior you'd be best off raising them on his user talk. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- He has been SELECTIVELY removing sources and saying they are unreliable. For example, removing a Boston Herald source saying it is "an unsigned editorial" while at the same time insisting that an unsigned satire piece be used in the second sentence of the article to link the IDW to the "alt-right". Marteau (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- That's neither AGF nor accurate. Guy has been removing unreliable sources. That ain't source-stripping, there's nothing wrong with it, and this isn't the forum for admonitions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
KeepRedirectSeems to be clearly notable as I have seen/heard it discussed by various people, though not RS. Sources should improve overtime.As other comments have pointed out, if nothing else, it isn't ripe yet. I am changing my !vote to redirect to Eric Weinstein and if RS sources come along later the redirect can get expanded.{{u|zchrykng}} {T|C}
21:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC); edited{{u|zchrykng}} {T|C}
23:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- The closing administrator should accord zero weight to this comment. "I've heard of it" (like "I've never heard of it") is not a policy-based reason to keep, especially when — as the user concedes — this knowledge does not come from reliable sources. See WP:IKNOWIT (one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). Neutralitytalk 23:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- delete. Why does the community so consistently blow off WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SUSTAINED? Yes there is a little media circus. WP is a lagging indicator of notability - we are not part of the blogosphere. Where is the sustained coverage? (it takes effort to tell because of the incompetent citations - whoever added that shit to WP thinks readers and other editors care when that editor "accessed" the source. Nobody cares about that. What matters is the date the source was published.). If you waste your time like I just did and click on every one of the refs to see when they were published, you will see that all but one is from the last two weeks. One is from February. That fails SUSTAINED by a very long way. "Everybody is talking about it now!!!!!" is not an N criteria. Jytdog (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete: WP:TOOSOON per review of available source. Ill-defined concept with insufficient sources to build an NPOV article. Eric_Weinstein#Intellectual_dark_web already covers it and this is sufficient. Can be redirected to he section in Weinstein's article as a plausible search term. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete (without prejudice) - It is too soon for prime-time. K.e.c's suggestion to redirect to the Eric Weinstein article as a home for what little encyclopedic information presently exists is an excellent interim solution. If / when quality, in-depth secondary reliable sourcing on the subject becomes available, a stand-alone article can be reconsidered. "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia ... when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic". All we have at present is an indiscriminate collection of opinion pieces opining about a recently published opinion piece. WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTPROMOTION are requirements that have not been met. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm simply not seeing significant, in-depth coverage. Some passing mentions plus one or two op-eds is not enough to be WP:SIGCOV, especially for neologisms. I think a brief mention in the Eric Weinstein article would be fine. Neutralitytalk 23:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- 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.