Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of hidden wikis and Tor hidden service directories


 * 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 the first no consensus on the second. Secret account 15:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Index of hidden wikis and Tor hidden service directories

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to fail WP:GNG, if not falling foul of WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTGUIDE and I'm sure we're not here to guide people through the Tor network. Also including List of Tor hidden services as whilst they exist, we cant WP:RS them tutterMouse (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Once all the HOWTO text is removed, the only blue link in the list is The Hidden Wiki. A list with one item is of no value. Pburka (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note my !vote applies only to the primary article. I have no opinion about List of Tor hidden services. Pburka (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep List of Tor hidden services. It's reasonably referenced. Pburka (talk) 05:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTMANUAL are the main problems here, and are unlikely to be fixed due to the lack of secondary sourcing.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete – no claim to notability, see WP:N; is a guide which goes against policy, see WP:NOTGUIDE Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage)  19:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 *  Relist . Why I was not informed about it, I'm the creator of List of Tor hidden services. It has been repeatedly vandalized by autoconfirmed users, who added unsourced spam to both articles. I requested a page protection, however they were autoconfirmed. I've removed the spam, again (see its scary history!) to its best shape - also Talk:Tor_(anonymity_network). Relist it please. --Rezonansowy (talk &bull;&#32; contribs) 19:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Why on earth would we need to relist this? It was only nominated this morning, and there has been good participation. We relist debates when the initial time period has elapsed and there has been insufficient discussion or consensus is unclear. Pburka (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * So just keep the second. --Rezonansowy (talk &bull; contribs) 01:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Make a separate entry. After mass revert in List of Tor hidden services that's a completely different article than before this deletion request. There is no reason to taking them to one sack. List is just a list and and has nothing to do with Index of hidden wikis and Tor hidden service directories. --Rezonansowy (talk &bull; contribs) 11:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep both preferably (or else delete both).
 * I posted a very long response to defend my contributions to this page (Index of hidden wikis and Tor hidden service directories), on my talk page.
 * and also to defend my contributions to List of Tor hidden services, which were summarily reverted by Rezonansowy (talk &bull; contribs) (who then, several times, accused me of "vandalism" and then "spamming", with no explanation on the talk page at all, my talk page, or on any talk page, when in fact all I was doing was adding sources to content that was unsourced. I feel the need to defend myself to some extent, because these are serious accusations.)
 * But mainly I want to defend the idea that it can, sometimes be acceptable to use Tor sources as sources about themselves, and to write articles about Tor hidden services that can be held to be notable by consensus of the Tor community, even when only primary (and no secondary) reliable sources can confirm this.
 * :: Sgutkind (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Response: I see that you don't understand which Wikipedia is and which not. Please reread WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTMANUAL. I've copied your work to my computer, maybe a part of your contribs can be reused. Don't blame me for it, I like Tor, but your edits are completely unencyclopedic and and can not be part of Wikipedia in this shape. Not Wikipedia, but maybe WP:Wikibooks, Tor needs a guide and Wikibooks is place for books, guides. But before you edit, please read its guidelines. You have good intentions and all Wikimedia projects need people like you, but you have only to know how to do it. In the end, please. Don't judge an article which he drove to deletion candidacy. --Rezonansowy (talk &bull; contribs) 11:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Response: I respect your disagreement, I appreciate you now have good faith understand my intentions are not to post spam but to add primary sources to Wikipedia that can say something reliable about Tor. Like I said, I'm familiar with Tor but less so with Wikipedia, perhaps I am not familiar enough with what qualifies as an article. But it needs to belong somewhere because otherwise the other article you started (List of Tor hidden services) would have no sources to draw from (i.e. & no way to prove the sites exist, their place in Tor, reliability for Tor users, notability, etc.) whether primary or secondary
 * I still think that arguably the article doesn't have to be a guide/directory/manual and can be made encyclopedic.
 * I still think that primary sources from Tor can sometimes satisfy WP:N and WP:RS as well as WP:NOT
 * I still think that Wikipedia would be missing something by not including this article indexing the most reliable (not 100% reliable primary sources on Tor, it has to be said somewhere
 * It's not a bad thing to move it to Wikibooks as a guide/manual. But it still has to be somewhere or else Wikipedia and other places will have basically no sources to draw from to talk about Tor.
 * If it's on a Wikimedia project (not just my own website) it can probably be made reputable enough to be a secondary source for Wikipedia, because people can verify that the primary sources I list are accepted by the community, and not just people like me.
 * If that works and is acceptable for other people, then the other articles about hidden services ('''The Hidden Wiki, Silk Road, etc.) will have primary sources to draw from too, we can all contribute URLs of the sites in List of Tor hidden services to the index.
 * That way those articles will have both primary sources, from the URLs, and a secondary source (from the index/guide, whether it's in Wikipedia or Wikibooks). Whereas right now List of Tor hidden services and its sub-articles don't have any sources that they can list.
 * Of course they do have primary sources indeed, on Tor, ...but,
 * I guess the problem is that, these can't appear on a list of sources because of these policies, because currently they don't have any secondary sources establishing that they are the real primary sources, with the criteria like reliability/notability/etc., so we don't know anything for sure except that they exist.
 * I appreciate that any of you might disagree with me, as long as there's a constructive way to solve this problem, by placing the information somewhere that's reliable and community property, so that information won't be wiped out from the public Internet. --Sgutkind (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

'KEEP' I vote to keep the article. It is useful to the many who use Tor and you find Tor users world over. I also feel that until a decision has been made that the Editors instruct Moderators to lock down the article to prevent possible vandalism and spam. I also request that Wikipedia re-examine the policy of Notability. Notability prevents articles about local topics of interest from being published. I suggest the editors also request the assistance of World Book Encyclopedia, and Encyclopedia Britannica in re-examining the policy of Notability Magnum Serpentine (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails notability, disparate list of links based on a protocol shouldn't have its own article. Zambelo (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * May I know why it shouldn't? --Rezonansowy (talk &bull; contribs) 21:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete The former is written like a how-to guide; you should not use "you" when writing a Wikipedia article. The former is a paltry "list" that barely has any content. Neither shows any evidence of reputable sourcing or notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete both (one is unsalvageable, the other is a list that can easily fit into the main article on tor), its just going to continue to attract SPA editors who want to turn our articles and templates on tor and other hidden services into guides or indexes for using these services. they can do this on their own damn website. You kids get OFF my lawn! this whole topic needs to be carefully monitored so that the SPAs dont ruin their encyclopedic nature. all we need is the main article. i really dont think we need the template either, and its a target for inappropriate editing as well. and if i need to say it, i will: this is NOT a diatribe against the subject. i really dont even care. i just want the articles to be NPOV and based on reliable sources. maybe they could write a wikibook on it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I indeed have "my own damn website", LOL, (and have made use of it in making contributions to these articles); it is one (among many) of the primary sources on the Tor network you can consider (and the only one which I personally have verified or know is reliable or verifiable), but alas: Seriously: If the Wikipedia editor community at large, thinks that having a list of (semi-)reliable sources about Tor, is against Wikipedia policy (or against the policy of being encyclopedic in general), then it might as well be deleted. We can indeed write a Wikibook about it, I hope nobody will find it objectionable if we link to the Wikibook from the Wikipedia articles that need it as a source.  The rest of my response is long and so I put it on my talk page, I accept why people might want to delete these articles, so look on my talk page only if you care to.  Thanks for contributing to a useful debate with me; and I am not being sarcastic. Sgutkind (talk) 04:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please notes that Wikibooks doesn't permit original research either. I'm a bit worried about the suggestion that you could publish your research elsewhere and then use that to bootstrap a Wikipedia article. Unless the place you publish has some sort of editorial oversight, it can't be used in Wikipedia. Pburka (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not quite; the policy proposal reads: “In practice, however, Wikibooks allows material based on repeatable information from personal experiences […]”, which (I believe) covers the material in question.
 * Note, however, that Wikibooks, being essentially self-published, is not considered a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia.
 * It’s not entirely inappropriate to publish “[one’s] original research elsewhere and use that to bootstrap a Wikipedia article,” either, – as long as that place is, say, a known peer-reviewed journal with a considerable impact factor.
 * — Ivan Shmakov (d ▞ c) 09:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, for failing both Verifiability and Notability. The content may be moved to Wikibooks, indeed, yet the resulting wikibook should not be deemed a reliable source for Wikipedia articles.  (It can be referenced in the “External links” section of the articles on the subject, as per Wikimedia sister projects, though.  Check Wikibooks, for instance.)  — Ivan Shmakov (d ▞ c) 09:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, I wasn't going to list the Wikibook in "references", only in "External links". It should be relevant enough for that. As I said, no presumption is intended regarding its reliability; if God His Omniscient Self wrote a book indexing Tor hidden services, I would find reason to doubt that it's 100% reliable, owing to the lack of verifiability unless God were wiling to engage in every illegal activity imaginable in order to "test them out". (God cannot commit sins, I'm not an expert in Christian theology, not to mention an atheist at any rate, so don't take my word for it, but you get the point.) I tried to make it clear in everything I said (and anything I might publish in the future) that nobody can claim verifiability of such sites without making serious confessions that would put oneself at legal risk.  I would find it worthwhile if someone, not necessarily me, would make an effort to publish such a thing in a respected publication, but I'd find it likely that none of them would touch the subject with a 10-foot pole, for the same reasons as have been cited here.  Thanks for sharing your views on the point; I want to make it clear that such a Wikibook or other project would not be cited in the References sections, for the reasons other editors have already made clear; maybe it could be put in a list of Self-compiled primary source references however, with the intention and explicit warning that it not be used to bootstrap citations for claims made in other parts of Wikipedia articles, only as a place to look for people who want to look further into the subject and are looking for a (semi-)reliable, community-edited source of information.  The goal of a primary reference on Tor hidden services that isn't "self-published" or "self-compiled" is a dream that may never be attained.  At any rate, this editorial debate itself has proven at least almost as interesting as the content of the original articles themselves, and is a topic that invites much further discussion, maybe not here, but I'd personally suggest mirroring this debate on any forum, wiki, or Wikibook that proposes being a primary source on hidden services.Sgutkind (talk) 12:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Will moving the contents to Wikibooks make it any less accessible to the Tor users?
 * As for the “local events,” Wikipedia aims to be a worldwide encyclopedia. The events of no importance to a worldwide audience are clearly out of scope.  (That being said, a discussion on such a matter should surely be directed elsewhere.  Also to note is that recent events, that are likely to be interesting to a large number of people, are perfectly appropriate for Wikinews.  Wikipedia may be the most important of the Wikimedia projects, but it’s far from being the only one.)
 * — Ivan Shmakov (d ▞ c) 07:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't a directory. If they really want to find such a list, they can go to Google and do that. Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage) 14:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't judge both articles on this page! List of Tor hidden services is now just a list of wikilinked articles. --Rezonansowy (talk &bull; contribs) 11:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not? Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage) 14:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep on the basis of both being nominated at the same time. The Index... is an easy delete as it consists of a single blue link and doesn't establish notability. List of Tor hidden services is a subject discussed as a whole set in reliable sources and is comprised of a number of individually and collectively notable sites. The current version needs work and the services themselves could have a better presence on Wikipedia but to me it's clearly notable. Nominate them separately. --Rhododendrites (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Changes made - I've cleaned up and added several more links to List of Tor hidden services, including a link to a recent research paper which looks at them as a group. I have many others from popular and academic publications but I'm not sure how best to incorporate them if purely to establish notability. Just throw them at the end of the lede? This one is really an open and shut keep (not so much for the Index of indexes though). --Rhododendrites (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - For anybody arguing for deletion on the basis of notability....even the most cursory search for sources before commenting would show many sources in just the first few pages of Google hits. Here are just a few of the sources talking specifically about hidden services as a group (and I haven't even looked at google news or scholar):
 * IEEE symposium, digital trends, infosec island, applied cryptography and network security, thomson reuters white paper, practical anonymity, computers in human behavior, baltimore sun, rogue media, IEEE proceedings --Rhododendrites (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It needs a serious rewrite, if that is the case. Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage) 16:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate on how you would like to see List of Tor hidden services rewritten? Pburka (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "It needs a serious rewrite" is not a reason for deletion. It would appear as though it's now about WP:DONTLIKEIT. --Rhododendrites (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. taking account of the changes made in the articles since the beginning of the AfDs ,  DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * DELETE Per the numerous WP:NOT reasons given above. Q  T C 21:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific? The relist comment asks for new comments taking account of the changes made since the beginning of the AfD. By saying all of the above you're including comments about the pre-changes articles, and not differentiating between the two nominated. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk |  04:44, 21 November 2013 (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.