Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellectual dark web (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. Consensus exists that the article's sources establish notability. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Intellectual dark web
AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Intellectual Dark Web
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Best discuss this time. Articles for deletion/Intellectual dark web has many "keep" votes. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep the term has proved its persistance and is not going away any time soon. We have for example this May 22, 2019 article in the The Chronicle of Higher Education. and this April 4th article takes the IDW as its central focus examining its political makeup., and couple more from April. The number of articles mentioning the term has grown a lot since previous discussions. The merge solution is not very suitable as Weinstein is not the most promenent person associated with the movement. There is a lot of material which would be appropriate for a separate article but is not suitable for the Eric Weinstein article.
 * I also disagree quite strongly with User:Sandstein closure of the Articles for deletion/Intellectual Dark Web. In it the large number of references are dismissed mearly as opinion pieces. But we have NYT article which had the entire weight of the paper thrown behind the article, there were interviews with the major player and photoshoots, it was much more than a simple think piece. And what are we trying to prove here the notability of the article, an opinion piece strenthens that claim. Sandstein set the bar much higher that is applied to most other articles. --Salix alba (talk): 16:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. If op-eds were insufficient sources in 2018, they are insufficient in 2019. w umbolo   ^^^  21:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep we have many sources in mainstream publications over a long period of time (more than a year) focused on the group including from the Chronicle of Higher Education, Politico, the Los Angeles Review of Books, The New York Times, The Washington Post... --RaphaelQS (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources look good enough and i've heard this movement be discussed in the news quite a lot. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep It may yet prove to be only a neologism, but at this point its usefulness continues, and neologisms often grow up to be real live boys.--NapoliRoma (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * KeepThis a valid and useful reference point in the current discussion over free speech and censorship on the internet. --User:Jim Proser
 * Note. There is a !vote on the talk page. w umbolo   ^^^  18:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Salix alba. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep coverage of this movement exists in reliable sources. See e.g. the sources given in the article currently, which are articles on this topic in respectable news publications. SJK (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2019 (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.