Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hidden Wiki


 * 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 do not appear to be any legal issues with writing about this content, and it is covered adequately in sources. That said, there is no consensus between keeping or merging the material. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The Hidden Wiki

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete Fails GNG and legal issues involved. Linking to The Hidden Wiki has previously been ruled out per consensus at Talk:Tor_(anonymity_network), as it contains links to material that would violate State of Florida law. ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I would like to point out that "The Hidden Wiki" is no different from Silk Road (marketplace). Both use Tor's hidden services and both are supposedly illegal. If Wikipedia can have an article about the Silk Road (marketplace) then why can't it have article about The Hidden Wiki. The Silk Road (marketplace) article does link to the corresponding .onion website so why avoid doing the same for The Hidden Wiki.

And The Hidden Wiki is quite notable. It has been covered by the UK's top newspapers including the Daily Telegraph. It has a substantial number of users therefore it is a matter of interest for everyone who uses the internet. Being widely used and widely known warrants having a Wikipedia article.

Lastly, there are no legal issues in having an encyclopedia article about something that is illegal as long as the article itself does not contain any illegal material.

Prachursharma (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Not every newspaper story leads to a Wikipedia article. The existence of hidden services is mentioned in Tor (anonymity network) but there is not enough sourcing for a spinoff article. The Hidden Wiki openly contains links to child pornography and drug deals, which is why linking to it fails WP:EL.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright then, don't link to it. But atleast let the article about it remain on Wikipedia. And there are sources for The Hidden Wiki. If you do a Google search for "The Hidden Wiki", you find thousands of sources. The Hidden Wiki deserves its own article because it is a phenomenon in its own right. Major newspapers have reported about it in that manner. It is not just any Hidden Service within Tor. It is a particularly notable hidden service in its own right because it attracts the wrong type of people and large number of such people. Prachursharma (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't see any "linking to The Hidden Wiki" in our article. The article provides information verifiable in reliable sources. I consider the information (about the "darkest corners of the internet", to quote The Telegraph) very interesting and important, no matter how disgusting and scary it is. For possible sources look also here. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The link to the .onion of The Hidden Wiki was removed in a previous diff, this is unacceptable. The real issue here is WP:GNG. Rather than creating new articles in response to newspaper stories, it is better to look at articles already existing where the material might go. The Mikelsons case in September 2011 was discussed at Talk:Tor_(anonymity_network), while Operation Darknet in November 2011 also picked up some media coverage. However, per GNG, coverage needs to be significant, otherwise every story in the newspapers would have a separate article, which is impractical. This is an area where great caution is required, as blogs are not reliable sources and pastebin links which could contain practically anything are dangerous.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 13:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've revdeleted the diffs mentioning the link (I'm not sure if everything is OK, I have a little experience with REVDEL). Where do you think the material might go? There's in my opinion enough reliable coverage to build a stand alone article about this site. The article cites well known and reliable media, not blogs and "pastebin links". --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The best places are Tor (anonymity network) and Silk Road (marketplace). There is not enough coverage for a separate article that would meet WP:GNG.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, but merging is something different than deletion. I strongly disagree with deletion of this information. Our readers should have access to verifiable information about the practices of bastards selling child porn. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable enough to merit it's own article; merge with articles mentioned by ianmacm. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So ... delete or merge? Ian mentioned two articles. Where do you think the material might go? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The two articles mentioned above (Tor (anonymity network) and Silk Road (marketplace)) are the best place.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If I understand this correctly, Silk Road is a different (similarly focused, but different) service operating under Tor. Why should we merge (and confuse) two different topics? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Hidden Wiki has numerous links to drug related sites, child porn, hacking etc. It is the unofficial clearing house and directory for these links. They all operate via an .onion link and cannot be accessed in an ordinary browser.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * keep - I find no apparent reason to delete this article.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * keep Cleduc (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep That it is illegal is no reason not to include it. So is Murder. There's very good reason for not linking to it, but in terms of what we cover, the rule is NOT CENSORED.  It's possible the day may come where we cannot even legally write about subjects like this, but that level of public repression is not yet with us.  DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 1 February 2012 (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.