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 ~~merge~~ to Eric Weinstein. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC) AFD closed voided based on this discussion Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual dark web[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable neologism. Coined by Eric Weinstein this January, and coverage universally refers to him when using the term. I don't see evidence anyone else identifies with the term, and, much like "alt-right", identifying people as being part of this without them self-identifying is likely to be controversial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I concir with the nom. Neologism without proper sourcing. Best covered in creator's article. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a merger suggestion to both articles to reflect this. Seems like a good compromise suggestion. - IDW5605 (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree that listing people as part of the movement who do not explicitly identify with the movement is contorversial. In fact, I think it actually adds credibility, given that people are not usually objective with themselves, which is why we require secondary sources in an encyclopia like this. David Duke, who is a former Klansman, is referred to as a White supremacist on Wikipedia even though he objects to this and refers to himself as a "European–America human rights activist". I know this is an extreme example, but the logic is the exact same. Furthermore, the Intellectual dark web is not just mentioned by E. Weinstein: Douglas Murray wrote an essay in the Spectator on it (as cited on the page); Sam Harris, Ben Shapiro, and Weinstein had a live podcast that sold out an entire theatre entitled the Intellectual Dark Web that covered this topic exclusively. It has been covered on The Rubin Report (as cited), on Big Think (as cited), The Providence Journal (as cited) and Quillette. - IDW5605 (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A term that has been gaining ground and certainly will keep doing that. All the people involved share a specific vision and thus, a certain group identity but have no other term to describe them (from the inside, I suppose we can dismiss derogatory terms assigned by their opponents). "Dark" in this context refers to it's counter-cultural aspect. The ideas expressed by those people can't be expressed on the main stream media, except very few outliers. While at the same time the combined number of followers/viewers on the internet reaches the same magnitude as several mainstream TV channels combined. Should solve the problem of "insignificance" quite nicely. The idea that a reference to a counterculture can be interpreted as ad hominem attack only shows total lack of understanding of both the term itself and the cultural phenomenon it describes. All the people listed here are under constant attack for their relatively controversial views and so is, by the extension, also anything created by them or related to them. Attempt to delete is just an attempt at covert political censorship[1] in the wider context of the ongoing cultural war in the 20-21st century western society. Which, once again, underlines how accurately the term describes the reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fifth Entity (talk • contribs) 19:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. As per nom. It's a horrible term anyway (there is nothing "dark" or countercultural or subversive about several of the cited figures). Will just end up in ad hominems. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dark in this case doesn't mean sinister, it refers to the percieved lack coverage of some of these ideas in the mainstream press. At least do a modicum of research before voting. - IDW5605 (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "sinister". Invest in a dictionary. Some of these figures are, in fact, mainstream. Sam Harris, Steven Pinker, Maajid Nawaz... these are mainstream public figures with near celebrity status. It'd ludicrous to portray them as part of a "dark web" of any kind. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Invest in a dictionary" I think you mean thesaurus given sinister is a synonym for dark. From looking at your talk page you seem to have a habit of making combative edits while pushing your POV. - IDW5605 (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*No, a dictionary. You don't seem to know the meaning of the word "sinister". And, from looking at your talk page and contributions, you are an obvious sockpuppet. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No personal attacks! ^That kind of comment is why you've been blocked at least once in each of the last four months. Just stop. -- IDW5605 (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion about whether it is ludicrous or not is irrelevant. What is pertinent is what reliable sources say, and whether or not it has enough weight to support inclusion. Marteau (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now with Eric Weinstein's article as a separate section or paragraph due to WP:RECENTISM. Keep working on the article in sandbox (according to NPOV and other editing policy) until the term or movement gains enough notability for creation of separate article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Weinstein's article. Barely notable, and seems to be a case of recentism. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 13:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge unfortunately. I say "unfortunately" because one argument for keeping it as a separate article would be an included list of those characterized as such. I don't see how a list of those characterized as "intellectual dark web" types can be migrated to Weinstein's article, and that will probably be lost in the merge. As Miki Filigranski advised, I would keep a version in a sandbox because the term does seem to be gaining traction and I suspect it will gain notability and warrant an article soon. But for now, it's ALMOST there, but not quite. The feature piece in The Spectator was big, and Megan Daum in the Provident Journal has credibility. Some of the other links might be useful for context but don't go far enough to establish enough weight for a separate article, in my opinion. One more heavy hitter would be enough for me (and I'm talking New Yorker level or NY Times level, not "Rubin Report" level). Quillette looked promising, but I can't see any mention of it in any of their articles. "intelectualdark.website" is literally the work of an anon and can't really be used to link any of the people to being "intellectual dark web". Marteau (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while I'm at it, @Power~enwiki: your complaint about "identifying people as being part of this without them self-identifying is likely to be controversial" is something a clueless newbie would complain about, not someone who has been here as long as you. That's not how Wikipedia works, and you should know better than that. Marteau (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent months watching, participating, and ultimately avoiding discussions regarding whether people are "alt-right". If this is half as controversial, it will also be painful to determine what examples should be listed of people associated with the movement. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The difference being, 'alt-right' is often used as a political pejorative, while this doesn't have the same negative conotation whatsoever. – IDW5605 (talk) 06:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I'm sure Harris and Pinker would be delighted to be listed as "intellectual dark webists". Ludicrous. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except Harris hosted a live podcast entitled The Intellectual Dark Web, featuring himself, Weinstein, and Shaprio. — IDW5605 (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because he was interviewing Weinstein about The Intellectual Dark Web, among other things. At no point does he identify as a "member" of the "intellectual dark web". He's also hosted - on his Waking Up podcasts - a show entitled "White Power". Does that make him a neo-Nazi? ~~Engage your brain, Mr Sockpuppet Single Purpose Account.~~ ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "Comment on content, not on the contributor"

Best we keep the discussion civil, hurling accusations and insults is petty and doesn't advance the discussion.

If you want to discuss the validity of Sam Harris being mentioned in this article, you may do it at the talk page: Talk:Intellectual dark web#Sam Harris, but this page is about what to do with the article itself. Thanks, -- IDW5605 (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Here's a pertinent observation, not a personal attack: you are a sockpuppet.~~ ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not true! — Assume good faith. -- IDW5605 (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Weinstein's article. Unfortunately, Weinstein did not choose the term "intellectual dark web" with enough care. As a physicist, he was thinking perhaps of dark matter, which is not a bad association. Just as 80 percent of the universe may be unrecognised dark matter, so also perhaps 80 percent of rational debate on social and political thinking may be missing in mainstream media. But the association most people will have will be with the dark web, which conjures a spectrum of dubious, if not nefarious activities. Maybe that is stopping a wider acceptance of the term. There is also something paradoxical about Wikipedia requiring that the term must first go mainstream before it can warrant an entry here. I have been following the use of the term on the web, and at the moment it is stalling. In time the concept of the "intellectual dark web" may win acceptance, perhaps because a better name is found for it. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.