Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hidden Wiki (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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The Hidden Wiki
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

All coverage seems to come from October 2011, when Anonymous shut down a child porn site on the hidden wiki. Literally 100% of the hits on Google News are from that one week. No other notability asserted, no good sources found at all. This seems to be a WP:NOTNEWS. Last AFD closed in 2012 as "no consensus" with no policy-based arguments in either direction. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: Just about satisfies WP:GNG. This is the best known site which indexes Tor .onion sites.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So it's notable because it's notable. Just checking. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Almost any article or book that talks about specific Tor hidden services at least mentions Hidden Wiki. It played a role in the various child pornography stories as well as the lesser known but still briefly mainstream hitman for hire stories. It's frequently mentioned or discussed, always controversial, and it's very commonly people's gateway/introduction to Tor. It's true a lot of the hits that deal with it specifically are marginal sources at best, but if there was still any doubt the Telegraph piece puts it over the edge. --Rhododendrites (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Even though the Telegraph piece comes from exactly the same one-week span in which 100% of the other news coverage does? How is it "Frequently discussed" if I was completely unable to find any coverage not from October 2011? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * - Even if we assume you're right that every source is from that one week, you're responding to each Keep here as though coverage across a wide span of time is an absolute requirement for inclusion. It is one way that notability can be established -- a sufficient way to say something is notable not a necessary one. It's not even part of the GNG or WEBCRIT, neither of which pose a problem here. The article isn't about that event, and even within that one week not all of the articles talk about the site within the context of the event, focusing on the site itself. --Rhododendrites (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - per comments above. --Rezonansowy (talk &bull; contribs) 12:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Again. Sources. Where are they? I see only one small run of sources from a one-week period. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In the References section. --Rezonansowy (talk &bull; contribs) 12:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The time period of which sources came from is not relevant as this is not an event or a BLP. I see enough sources to satisfy GNG.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 03:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So if I get four news articles in a week about the packet of Burger King coupons on my desk, then it's good enough to be notable? Don't be stupid. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Bad reasoning. Especially as qualifier for a personal attack.
 * Your objection isn't that there are only four articles (there are far more than that); your objection is that they don't span enough time.
 * You're relying on everybody's presumed agreement that a packet of Burger King coupons is not notable such that you could put whatever you want after the "if." I could swing the other way by saying "So if the only articles I have about [the President of United States] or [a nuclear bomb explosion in a big city] or [the richest person in the world] are from the same week he/she/it isn't notable?"
 * Burger King coupons already have a place in the article for Burger King should you find sources substantiating their significance on their own. If there were a company called The Hidden and this were its wiki then the analogy would at least work on that level, but it's not the case.
 * If there is something sitting on your desk that does not currently have an article or an obvious parent article, if it passes the GNG and other relevant notability criteria, if it is sourced with reliable secondary publications...then yes, create an article for it. --Rhododendrites (talk) 05:09, 19 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.