Deletion of Intellectual Dark Web

Comment: I'm simply not seeing significant, in-depth coverage. Some passing mentions plus one or two op-eds is not enough to be , especially for neologisms. I think a brief mention in the Eric Weinstein article would be fine
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: because of the large amount of reliable sources. For me, it looks like an article to avoid editing, because that would be as much fun as tractor pulling in a swamp. Just see how the game of "raising the -bar for sources I disagree with" already is played by some; that drains all the joy away I get from improving an article.  But  is no valid reason to dismiss it. Regards
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:IDONTLIKEEDITINGIT)

Comment: as per . This is a neologism which was first publishedpopularised in the NYT by Bari Weiss. (Note that although it has been pointed out that an article in Spectator used the term in February 2018, there was no follow up or commentary about this piece). I have seen the references which have been brought to the discussion and it seems that every reference is an opinion on the ''Bari Weiss article''. Each reference refers to it roughly in this way: "{{tq|...referred to as the Intellectual Dark Web by Bari Weiss in the NYT...}}". We should keep articles about such neologisms only when multiple journals, books and academic sources refer to it frequently. It needs to be demonstrated first that the neologism has entered into common parlance. It would be hard to assess that right now as the coverage is still fresh (it has been less than a month) and we may be suffering from a recentism bias. I suggest deleting this article right now or moving into draft space and letting it be there for the next 6 months. Based on the coverage at that point, we can then decide if we want to restore the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTNEO)

Comment: as . Let's wait for these people to accomplish something, and have continued coverage in media. However, nominator should read 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:RAPID)

Comment: although we should be prepared to move the article as the name changes.  The NYT editorial is sufficient for notability, but probably not for naming names.  Since I will be reverted, I will not remove the list of names, even though they present a probable  violation.  I'm not sure what would be sufficient; I only know that neither source so far provided is adequate.  The NYT column seems adequate for the names, but the list of names was probably taken from clearly unreliable sources.  It needs to be carefully watched, to avoid BLP considerations
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: Why does the community so consistently blow off  and ?  Yes there is a little media circus. WP is a lagging indicator of notability - we are not part of the blogosphere. Where is the sustained coverage? (it takes effort to tell because of the incompetent citations - whoever added that shit to WP thinks readers and other editors care when ''that editor'' "accessed" the source. Nobody cares about that. What matters is the date the source was published.). If you waste your time like I just did and click on every one of the refs to see when they were published, you will see that all but one is '''from the last two weeks'''.  One is from February. That fails SUSTAINED by a very long way.  "Everybody is talking about it now!!!!!" is not an N criteria
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:SUSTAINED)

Comment: without prejudice) - It is |too soon for prime-time.  K.e.c's suggestion to redirect to the Eric Weinstein article as a home for what little encyclopedic information presently exists is an excellent interim solution.  '''If''' / when quality, in-depth secondary reliable sourcing on the subject becomes available, a stand-alone article can be reconsidered. "|Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia ... when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic".  All we have at present is an ecentism|indiscriminate collection of opinion pieces opining about a recently published opinion piece.   and  are requirements that have not been met
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:NEO||WP:R||WP:SUSTAINED||WP:NOTPROMOTION)

Comment: doesn't pass .  Nearly all these sources are opinion pieces and op-eds; the article literally has only a single sentence that isn't just quoting someone's opinion, cited to the only non-opinion source.  This fails the bare minimum of sourcing necessary for any article - we need at least two sources we can cite for statements of fact, and as it stands we only have one.  I'm just not seeing how people can support keeping it based on these sources - they're really, really poor.  A handful of op-eds is not enough to support an article on a neologism. This could support a sentence or two on Eric Weinstein, but there's clearly not enough to support a full article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: per User:Salix alba. Coverage in reliable sources appears sufficient to meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: While it currently fails  from my googling, it seems certain that the term still stick, so deleting it now just means it has to be remade in 3 months. Why bother? Might as well keep it and expand it as the term spreads. There's lots of RS right now
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SUSTAINED)

Comment: Per Jytdog and DanielRigal. Reading the discussion here and reading the article and sources,  and  apply here. As well as the reasoning DanielRigal gives. Op-eds & the discussion of those(mostly in a derisive manner) don't cut it. We do our readers a disservice with this article name. The Dark web isn't YouTube or Twitter, and it's an absurd title. Put their names on List of YouTubers article and mention the op-ed in the Bari Weiss and Eric Weinstein articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:SUSTAINED)