Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellectual Dark Web


 * 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. Numerically, it's 21 delete to 16 keep. That's not a clear consensus, so we have to look at the arguments.

As Jeff5102 writes, "one side sees references from established, third-party news outlets, while the other side disqualifies them because they are opinion pieces." That's the core disagreement in view of which I need to weigh the arguments.

WP:QS, part of WP:V, excludes sources "that rely heavily on ... personal opinion". WP:GNG likewise requires "reliable sources" in the sense of WP:RS, which in turn allows "opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable" for "statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact" (WP:RSOPINION).

My reading of these rules is that opinion pieces alone are insufficient to establish notability, because the purpose of our notability guidelines is to ensure that there are enough reliable sources to base an article on. And as seen above we can't write an article, which always includes assertions of fact, based solely on opinion pieces.

For these reasons, in my view, the majority of "delete" opinions is also based on clearly stronger arguments, and the article must therefore be deleted. It can be recreated if more coverage of this topic in reliable sources that are not opinion pieces is found. It can also be editorially redirected, as a plausible search term, to Eric Weinstein.  Sandstein  19:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Intellectual Dark Web
AfDs for this article:




 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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 appeared this lead to several subsequent articles in press: The Chronicle of Higher Education, National Review, Washington Post, New Statesman, a humorous piece in the Guardian. 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)
 * comment In response to comments about sustained coverage, there are more sources from before the NYT article, these are currently in deleted revisions, Conatus News, January 18, 2018 Rubins Report, Jan 30 Big Think, March 15 Provident Journal, March 22 Sam Harris April 16 --Salix alba (talk): 03:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not one of those is a reliable independent secondary source. Most are primary and have a vested interest. Guy (Help!) 13:06, 22 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 &bull;&#32;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 &bull;&#32;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.
 * And how many of those are reliable sources? How many actually matter? Are we just going to create articles on whatever bullshit search terms people find amusing for a second? Also sign your post. --Tarage (talk) 00:54, 15 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." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote per WP:SUSTAINED. (See '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)


 * Keep Redirect Seems 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.   21:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC); edited    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 &mdash; as the user concedes &mdash; 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)
 * That is a good point, see my revised !vote.   23:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted after an initial "no consensus" closure because of a participant's assertion that arguments provided in the second half of the discussion could sway opinions. Let's see how that goes.
 * 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 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)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging all prior participants to invite them to respond to the recent comments (starting with Jytdog). --22:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per reasoning of Xenophrenic and K.e.coffman. wikitigresito (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as before, and my comments on the inappropriateness of the nominator stripping sources from it still stand. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: Please be careful not to count this as a double vote. I'm sure that wasn't Andy's intention. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm unfamiliar with this new policy where AfDs are closed and re-opened repeatedly until they give the right answer. I was pinged specifically, to re-submit my !vote, and so I did. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - It's not a clearly defined and coherent concept. It's impossible to build an encyclopedic article about a loose term that has no sustained and signiicant coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete with no objection to a redirect. There are two problems here. One is that the topic is a neologism that is only very minimally notable, as demonstrated by the small number of Google News, Google Scholar and Google Books hits. The reliable sources verify that the term exists but do not show it to have a particularly coherent meaning or to hold much traction. The second problem is that the article is unclear to the point where it almost completely fails to explain what the subject actually is. At times it sounds like the subject is "Lefties on Youtube" and at other times it sounds like it is "People abusing lefties on YouTube", which seems to be closer to correct. The sources seem to disagree between that latter option and a broader idea of "Various non-mainstream politics on YouTube". As far as I can tell the subject can be very broadly construed as "people talking about politics and trying to sound edgy and clever on YouTube" and even in that broadest definition it has nothing to do with the actual dark web at all. Is there anywhere on the web less dark than YouTube? People are on YouTube to be seen not to hide. So we have a minimally notable neologism, which is itself confusing and poorly defined, being explained very poorly. How does it serve our readers to keep such stuff? Even if it were notable it would be a TNT case. As I say, a redirect to Eric Weinstein would be OK as there is a short section there on the subject. Even that is pretty woeful though. Of its three sentences only the first is actually on topic before it goes off on a complete non-sequitur which looks a bit coat-racky. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The potential confusion with the dark web and the fact that some of us would have personally preferred a different term is not relevant. Diminishing interest in the neologism is, but some people are missing the fact that reliable sources talked about the "intellectual dark web" before it was called the "intellectual dark web". Look at how much coverage some of these events generated. A proper article would give a mini-biography of each member which mentions the controversies that propelled him or her into this loosely defined group. For Peterson it could be the opposition to a civil rights bill. For Harris it could be the Murray fiasco and so on. We could then discuss the Weiss article, the reaction to it and the uncertainty some people have about whether they are in this movement. Cathy Young is an example. The main reason I haven't started adding all of this is that I don't want to put the work in when the article is still unsafe. Connor Behan (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That you think "dark" does not mean what they think it means is irrelevant. That you think they are trying to be "edgy and clever" is also irrelevant. Answering your question, How does it serve our readers to keep such stuff? as you may have noticed, coverage on this has been unbalanced and divided. We have the opportunity to do a service unavailable from other sources and provide balanced coverage... something which is sorely lacking in not only this, but in other controversial political topics.  Marteau (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per above comments. Michipedian (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't believe things that exist in the sphere of 'opinion articles and reactions to them' are notable without sustained coverage or events happening that were influenced by these opinions. Article name would have to be changed if we did keep this. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly a notable 'thing' that is receiving mainstream coverage. The participation in the AfD reflects its notability as do the searches that return coverage in reliable sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:F15F:D980:8971:23A0 (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Anything that has been up for AfD before is bound to already be on quite a few people's watchlists and attract a bit of interest if it is put up for AfD again. That doesn't make it notable in itself. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ya, and there are lots and lots of AfDs that see much more participation and end up with Delete outcomes. Not to mention that there are well-known systemic biases at Wikipedia and editor interest should in no way, shape, or form play a role in determining the outcome of any content discussion. This is actually addressed directly by WP:INVOLVE. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice to recreation or redirect. I believe that this is a thing we are going to want to have an article on, but the sourcing we need hasn't been found or created yet, and this particular iteration of the article is not in good shape. Vadder (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Let's wait for these people to accomplish something, and have continued coverage in media. However, nominator should read WP:RAPID. w umbolo   ^^^  19:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Your reference to WP:RAPID isn't very fair. The article was already deleted twice. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * you do realise that all the references in the article are newer than the last AfD? w umbolo   ^^^  11:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not particularly relevant. Guy's "rush" to AfD was eminently reasonable purely from a procedural perspective, given the article's deletion history. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment -- Editors should not thread their double votes as extra votes. The AfD was relisted, but it's not a new vote. If they want to re-affirm, they should start a thread with a Comment or Re-affirm starting the thread. Or enter their comment under their !vote. Dave Dial (talk) 06:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Per Jytdog and DanielRigal. Reading the discussion here and reading the article and sources, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SUSTAINED apply here. As well as the reasoning DanielRigal gives. Op-eds & the discussion of those(mostly in a derisive manner) don't cut it. We do our readers a disservice with this article name. The Dark web isn't YouTube or Twitter, and it's an absurd title. Put their names on List of YouTubers article and mention the op-ed in the Bari Weiss and Eric Weinstein articles. Dave Dial (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you consider the term absurd or not, or whether or not it has anything to do with the Dark Web or not is completely irrelevant toward the question of its notability. Marteau (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep because of the large amount of reliable sources. For me, it looks like an article to avoid editing, because that would be as much fun as tractor pulling in a swamp. Just see how the game of "raising the WP:RS-bar for sources I disagree with" already is played by some; that drains all the joy away I get from improving an article. But WP:IDONTLIKEEDITINGIT is no valid reason to dismiss it. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: I don't know how this term will evolve in the future or if there is something else to be said about it right now, but the subject is still notable. --MaoGo (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, doesn't pass WP:NEO. Nearly all these sources are opinion pieces and op-eds; the article literally has only a single sentence that isn't just quoting someone's opinion, cited to the only non-opinion source.  This fails the bare minimum of sourcing necessary for any article - we need at least two sources we can cite for statements of fact, and as it stands we only have one.  I'm just not seeing how people can support keeping it based on these sources - they're really, really poor.  A handful of op-eds is not enough to support an article on a neologism. This could support a sentence or two on Eric Weinstein, but there's clearly not enough to support a full article. --Aquillion (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. While it currently fails WP:SUSTAINED from my googling, it seems certain that the term still stick, so deleting it now just means it has to be remade in 3 months. Why bother? Might as well keep it and expand it as the term spreads. There's lots of RS right now. Deleet (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just an observation, there seems to be a strange, sharp split between editors saying there are lots of reliable sources, and editors saying there are no or very few reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. That is because one side sees references from established, third-party news outlets, while the other side disqualifies them because they are opinion pieces. I believe both sides have a point. The dillema here is that both Wikipedia's policies on opinion pieces, as well as the tendency of today's media outlets to prefer opinions above facts, make it hard to write an article on present-day intellectual discussions without that "strange, sharp split." The best solution would be something like delete without prejudice to recreate it in 2068, if notability by then is established, but maybe someone could discuss this issue on one of Wikipedia's boards on guidelines instead.Jeff5102 (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * When I google the term to see if its been getting attention, I see articles in a quite wide variety of outlets, including: Vox, Slate, Reason, The Guardian, DailyBeast, Chronicle, WashPost, National Review, the Federalist, and of course NYT. Seems unlikely this term will just disappear again. Sam Harris is going strong from what I can tell, and there's many other of these talk host people (e.g. Stefan Molyneux) who talk to the IDW 'members'. The culture war is raging at full strength right now (judging from e.g. divergence in social media), so IDW movement will continue to have left-wing extremism to react against. Deleet (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And then there is new (hit-)piece of The Outline;, about Bret Weinstein identifying himself “[a]s a member of the Intellectual Dark Web...” I do not know if The Outlook counts as a "reliable third-party-source" (in this case, IDW-fans will disagree, while those who hate it will consider it as acceptable), but at least it contributes somewhat to the notability of the IDW.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * in any case, it is an opinion piece and not useful for establishing notability. w umbolo   ^^^  11:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per K.e.coffman. Very clearly WP:TOOSOON, given that the best sources on offer here are op-eds. An op-ed is not a good secondary source for anything.  A  Train talk 22:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a useful term with some breadth of use that refers to a discrete (albeit shifty) intellectual movement. Lukacris (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. These votes are divided into two groups. People claiming the article subject is "reliably sourced" and notable, and people claiming this is sourced to opinion and commentary sources as a recent neologism.  I just clicked on every source listed in the article footnotes, and every source listed here in this discussion.  The result: only one half of these voters are actually telling the truth, and my vote reflects this.  If this is allegedly so widely covered in reliable sources, when will these sources be added to the article?  They are not there now. TwitterBird (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is filed under "News and Politics". w umbolo   ^^^  23:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's clearly an opinion piece... the writer uses the words "pencil necks", "Wingnut Avengers" and "libtards" and in keeping with Village Voice tradition it's sloppy to boot... twice they call it the "Dark Intellectual Web". Several delete voters here, including this one, say there are no reliable news sources... I disagree, I count two, the Spectator Life piece and the Examiner one.  Those, combined with the blizzard of opinion pieces in very high profile publications by very high profile writers satisfy the notability guidelines to me. Others, obviously, disagree. Marteau (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a nice article, albeit clearly an opinion piece, and I do now feel that I have a clearer idea what the subject actually is after reading it. The trouble is that the key message it has for us, here on this AfD, is in the phrase . That was published two weeks ago so it is far too early to say that they have been proved wrong about that. So we do have a Reliable Source opining about the subject (which is a small plus point for its notability) but the opinion is that it is just a short term thing with little chance of sustained notability (which diminishes that already small plus point into a vanishing point). --DanielRigal (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree that this is sourced to an opinion piece which is attempting to discredit a group of thinkers by attaching a sinister label to them. Keeping the article on Wikipedia would wreak a rather unpleasant sort of mischief. So, WP:TOOSOON - perhaps if the term is actually in mainstreamuse in a year or two the situation would be different. Bmcollier (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NOTNEO. This is a neologism which was first published popularised in the NYT by Bari Weiss. (Note that although it has been pointed out that an article in Spectator used the term in February 2018, there was no follow up or commentary about this piece). I have seen the references which have been brought to the discussion and it seems that every reference is an opinion on the Bari Weiss article. Each reference refers to it roughly in this way: "...referred to as the Intellectual Dark Web by Bari Weiss in the NYT...". We should keep articles about such neologisms only when multiple journals, books and academic sources refer to it frequently. It needs to be demonstrated first that the neologism has entered into common parlance. It would be hard to assess that right now as the coverage is still fresh (it has been less than a month) and we may be suffering from a recentism bias. I suggest deleting this article right now or moving into draft space and letting it be there for the next 6 months. Based on the coverage at that point, we can then decide if we want to restore the article.--DreamLinker (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC) (slight edit- added main reason and corrections based on comment below) --DreamLinker (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ... this is a neologism which was first published in the NYT by Bari Weiss. The very first reference in the version you yourself reverted to this evening was published several months before Weiss's piece.
 * I have seen the references which have been brought to the discussion and it seems that every reference is an opinion on the first article. Incorrect. Besides the first reference, your categorizing sources which mention Weiss's piece as just "an opinion on the first article" is misrepresenting them. Most of them (if not all of them) do a lot more than just opine on Weiss's work, but go into detail above and beyond what Weiss wrote.
 * It needs to be demonstrated first that the neologism has entered into common parlance What policy or guideline says that? It's a specialized term used by people who are particularly interested in politics and philosophy. A "common parlance" requirement would rule out thousands of specialized terms in the sciences and arts.  Marteau (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I stand corrected that the article in spectator (in February 2018, 3 months earlier) did use the term. However there was no article which used it after that (till May). The next article which used the term in a reliable source was the NYT opinion piece by Bari Weiss.
 * Almost every source is a response/commentary on Bari Weiss's piece. I stand by this fact. Whether they have extra information doesn't diminish the fact that it is a follow-up on the original piece. The interesting question to ask is, if the NYT piece was not published, would these followup articles be published as well? Would they also use the same term? (This is a WP:RECENTISM bias we are seeing here).
 * Regarding "It's a specialized term used by people who are particularly interested in politics and philosophy", WP:NOTNEO is the relevant policy. If this is indeed a specialised term, could you point me out to at least 3 article in reputed academic journals, over a period of time which uses this term and critically examines it? (It doesn't need to be "layman's parlance". Specialised terms in philosophy are OK. But I would at least expect some discussion of these terms in academic journals).--DreamLinker (talk) 08:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's not a true movement or network. The IDW has no existence outside of Bari Weiss' mind. Alice Dreger criticized, almost to the point of mockery, the mere concept of an IDW — and she was one of the people whom Weiss sought to include in the article that presented the idea of the IDW, which only highlights the non-existence of such a group. So far, the term is nothing but a cringy, mauvais mot launched by a young writer who doesn't have much of a name yet. The article made a splash, mainly due to backlash (at least from where I'm standing), so the creation of this entry may have been a manifestation of recentism bias. We're taught in the guidelines to avoid recentism, not least because events or ideas may soon lose their relevance even if they made a lot of noise on their introduction. And in the case of the "IDW", this has been happening for a while already.Rafe87 (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The IDW has no existence outside of Bari Weiss' mind. Did you even look at the references? In particular, the first one, published months before the Bari Weiss article? Marteau (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The is beautiful! Even some of the people alleged to be in it don't know what it is and don't want anything to do with it. It almost seems like there is something akin to astroturfing or, given that they just want to provoke a response, trolling in it. If the subject becomes notable to the point where we need an article about it then these will be the sources we should use but, for now, it is not our job to do other people's PR work for them. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Association with a political or philosophic category is not always voluntary, see Mike Cernovich who objects to being called 'alt-right'... does not stop reliable sources or our encyclopedia from labeling him as such. Marteau (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment As a common objection to the viability of the article is a lack of reliable, non-opinion based sources, I feel it is appropriate to note that today, "El Confidencial", a Spanish digital newspaper specializing in economic, financial and political news, published an article about the IDW called "Cómo ganar un millón de euros al año siendo un intelectual (oscuro)"... Google translates the title as "How to earn one million euros a year by being an intellectual (dark)". I find no mention of the source in the relaible sources notice board, however a search for their URL in Wikipedia returns 1290 results, most of them showing the source being used as references.  It appears to be news and not opinion.  It also refers to a documentary about the IDW called "A Glitch in the Matrix" by David Fuller which, now that it has been referenced by a reliable source, I will add to the article, if not in the body, at least in an 'External Links' section. Marteau (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider Google translation as an evidence that the term has entered common parlance. In particular. Cómo ganar un millón de euros al año siendo un intelectual (oscuro) is also translated as How to earn one million euros a year by being an intellectual (obscure). The article itself is again a commentary on the original article by Bari Weiss. ...although it has been a controversial report by Bari Weiss published in the opinion section of ' The New York Times ' which has popularized the term and has opened a debate about the role and intentions of this group... (Google translate). As per WP:NOTNEO, I would look for evidence that this is not a temporary news spike but a sustained usage of this term. This can be achieved by showing that reliable sources use this term and discuss it independently. Currently what we are seeing is a discussion and commentary on the NYT article by Bari Weiss.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * ’’’Keep’’’ enough has been written about the IDW to sustain an article Prelogger (talk) 15:17, 29 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.