RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Autistic dark web

Autistic dark web | Result: Goat

Autistic dark web (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. Lacks references, or solid reason to exist- appears to be primarily a snub-piece to oppose differing views, needs reliable sources from the reference "autistic dark web" group, to prove it even exists. Along with the removal of statements that are clearly personally-targeted, like making an "or claims to be autistic" remark. - It should also be noted that the majority of source cited do not reference any "autistic dark web". MichaelB2019 (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

   "Oppose differing views." You mean call out Nazi tools for what they are? — Oxyaena ^Harass 06:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

   The vast majority of claims here have no form of references to confirm their authenticity, and the ones which do eiter link to a literal satire (openly fake news) website, or link to blog-posts that are making libelous claims about individuals without providing evidence. If it is "calling out Nazi tools for what they are" they provide evidence, do not simply allow claims to remain unsourced and empty. MichaelB2019 (talk)

   I`m sorry I don't speak Nazi, can you translate for me? — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

   I'm not a Nazi, I am a left-wing liberal, moderate socialist. Voting Democrat in 2020, But thanks I guess? MichaelB2019 (talk)

   Christ, Oxyaena. If you're going to try to convince someone (I have little knowledge of this concept), then your behavior isn't helping me at all. Give out actual arguments, not just labeling people Nazis. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 17:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

   Thank you, I have decided I will go about re-writing the article according to available information, since the concensus appears to be that it is worth keeping, even as a term used to describe individuals over an actual group. MichaelB2019 (talk)

2. It doesn't say much about the ADW at all. Probably not worth keeping. Yuvle (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Keep

1. "Pro-cure." Fuck off. — Oxyaena ^Harass 06:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

   Yeah because writing "Fuck off" is a real argument as to why it should be kept. MichaelB2019 (talk)

2. MeToo. --BluePink (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
3. It's a term people use, even if nobody wants to be called it. Needs improvement, like most articles here. (I don't know if merge is a possible solution, maybe.) --Annanoon (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Goat

1. If your argument is true, that'll mean you rewrite the article or add the missing information, not outright delete the article. I think firing a talk page comment would be way more appropriate than an article for deletion at this moment. Also, it seems like most sources refer to that term directly? I didn't see it in Guardian piece, but it's there in every other reference. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 04:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

   If that is the appropriate approach that should be used, than I will re-write the article with what information I can find. But I will provide some evidence as to the inaccuracies of this article here. It references the autism cafe ran by Eileen Lamb as "providing a greator platform" without adding evidence to this; rather they cited an article which includes the same accusations (no evidence), but also includes the author admitting to have contacted Eileen's employer for information. At most this article by the Aspergian should be referenced as "Eileen has been accused of supporting the Autistic Dark Web", as there is nothing indicating her support. - It should also be said that another source, Glossy News is literally a satire website. MichaelB2019 (talk)

   Sure. I don't know if autistic dark web is much of a concept myself rather than a term describing a loose set of people. In the meantime, I'll get @QuietLuna, the initial user that made the article to try to explain the edits being made. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 04:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

   I am an autism advocate over on various social media platforms, from my experience with hearing the term it is nothing more than a slur to describe someone who is pro-cure(pro-cure as in actual medical research, not anti-vaxxers, ew). The "founder" (referenced in the article) Thomas Clements has even stated that it's a satirical buzzword [1][2], I would like the input of the original creator to have made this article as well, and to know if they have any source for half of the claims here. MichaelB2019 (talk)

2. As an autistic person, I don't want to delete the document (though I didn't fill it out).--BluePink (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

   But is there any specific reason for it to be kept? if there is I will happily re-write the article with the proper sources and descriptions of the satirical term. Personally I only found out about this article whenever I saw Eileen Lamb replying to a Twitter thread about it, stating that it was libel. (...which it is, as she's never supported any group called the autistic dark web, or given them a platform). Actually has rejected any affiliation.[3] MichaelB2019 (talk)