Talk:Notorious market

Exclusion of red link sites?
I see you removed the red linked markets. I disagree with this decision. Firstly, the markets are by definition from the USTR, because they are notable, notorious. Therefore I would argue every site the USTR lists should be eligible for inclusion into Wikipedia, use of red links I consider appropriate.

Secondly, I see you added Darknet markets as a see-also. I don't agree with it's inclusion as the war on copyright infringement and war on drugs only overlap in the area of pharmaceuticals as far as I'm aware. I may one day write some higher level 'legally questionable business practices on the internet' article or category to encompass both, but today is not that day.

As such, I've reverted your changes, but feel free to tell me why you disagree here! Deku-shrub (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Notable is a technical term on Wikipedia (WP:N), so that something has been called notorious doesn't mean it's notable. If there's an authoritative list of notorious markets, then we would either include the list in its entirety (presuming, I think safely, that the list of sites itself has gotten sufficient attention such that it's due weight to include) or include those which are "notable" on Wikipedia. With the current heading, the redlinks definitely don't belong, especially since several of those have actually been deleted, not simply not created yet.
 * As for darknet market, I feel less strongly, but a darknet market doesn't have to sell drugs. Those are the well-known markets, but it's just "darknet" + "market", which while it doesn't necessarily contain any of these sites, is nonetheless a related concept. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought the list was exhausive already but it's not. As a result I've reimplemented your red-link removal 15:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)