RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Deep web secrets

Deep web secrets | Result: Merge

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Merge nomination (see below for details) by  20:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

 * 1) This should be merged with the Deep Web article because the two basically cover the same content. See the discussion on the talkpage for more details.  20:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree that it's more than a little odd (and redundant) to have articles on both the deep web and deep web secrets, so they should be merged. It also looks as if the former could use a cleanup whereas the latter, insofar as it deals with myths/conspiracy theories, could be fitted into the section on darknet myths and exaggerations. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Yep. 21:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Sí.- 22:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) This. Hipocrite (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) These articles are both pretty long. They also serve as FAQs for the community I run at /r/deepweb/. If they were merged together the chances of people reading them would be significantly reduced. The 2x article format increases their utility as a debunking resource. Additionally, this is a rehash of a previous discussion which was left unconcluded. This is a prime example of the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion being ignored IMO. Deku-shrub (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what the difference between the content of the two articles is, succinctly? 21:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * One is focused on the terminology, the other is focused on specific myths associated with it. Deku-shrub (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We aren't wikipedia.  21:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. If you disagree with my point and want to argue that polling is in fact superior to discussion, make the argument Deku-shrub (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Polling is common place in rationalwiki to create decisions that are ruled by popular decisions. We make decisions all the time the chicken coop with polling to decide to ban a user, deop sysops, and delete an article; these are all ruled by popularity. If you disagree with polling, you are clearly on the wrong website because rationalwiki is completely different culture than wikipedia and is based on polling.  21:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So, Deku-shrub, why does RW need two long articles on both terminology and myths? It would seem to me that the latter is the relevant bit and the former can easily be paired down and rolled into it, serving only to provide explanations necessary for the understanding of the myths. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Because the article serves as an FAQ for a subreddit as Deku-shrub explains above. I have argued in the past that RW articles should be made for RW not a subreddit.  22:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Cheeseburger, I prefer Deku-shrub to argue for himself/herself/whatever and I asked exactly because I found the Reddit answer irrelevant not only because RW isn't guided by what some Reddit group needs, but because if they use it as a quick ref for debunking, it would make even more sense to focus on the myths and put in only the terminology necessary for dealing with them. And Cheeseburger, please don't move these posts out of chronological order, it makes it a hassle to find the latest comment and follow the flow of the discussion. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, I have discussed this with Deku-shrub extensively so please excuse me; the explanation I discussed is the only one I have been given by him, I apologize. In addition, for future reference, should all talk pages be arranged in chronological order?
 * It's quite okay, Cheeseburger, I wasn't exactly laser precise in my first post about whom, I was addressing, so I apologise if my response to you was a bit brusque. As a general rule, talk pages are organised chronologically (I had to get used to that myself too), but long and/or meandering threads can be split off into their own (sub)sections to make the whole thing more manageable and navigable via the table of contents. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have never said that the articles cannot be merged, simply that it's my preference that they not be merged. I've put a year of research into this article and it's dependent references (most of which are also created by me) all as a part of my mission to educate people about the dark web, separating fact from fiction. Utilitarianism drives everything, and to that end I believe the large amount of issues communicated in the articles are more likely to be read at approximately the length and format they are now rather than one large article. These resources are entirely unique on the internet and exist to serve a certain market I have also studied extensively. Allow the articles to serve this purpose. Deku-shrub (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the deep web secrets article contains a total of no more than 14 references and most entries simply link to other existing RW articles without further content in the deep web secrets article itself, then perhaps a condensed version as a subsection of the deep web article in conjunction with a deep web secrets category would be more useful? As it stands, deep web secrets look more like a telephone directory to me. ScepticWombat (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Goat
Possibly, this should be moved to the Duplicate articles category instead? Unless we're actually going for a major chop job on one of the articles it sounds more like a merger proposal and elimination of superfluous material to me. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Please use this page to highlight any examples you find of duplicate articles or other pages which you believe should be merged'. Yes, I apologize.  22:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No need to apologise and no worries, Cheeseburger. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Talk:Deep web could do with more participants too - David Gerard (talk)