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. v/r - T P 16:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Silk Road (anonymous marketplace)[edit]

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

The Silk Road just isn't notable enough to have its own article. The only references anyone has been able to provide are a Gawker blog article and a passing reference on a Guardian blog. Heck, we're still not entirely sure that it isn't just a hoax, so verifiability is another big issue here. Cyde Weys 14:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "hoax" possibility mentioned is something of a red herring – even if that were true, that a topic might be a hoax is by no means an obstacle to our having an article on it. On the face of it, this nomination seems underresearched if only two references could be found and "just isn't notable" is the rationale for deletion. A quick Google search brought up many more, which I've added to the article along with a ((rescue)) tag so that editors can assess the coverage and perhaps develop a viable article. Skomorokh 14:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Between the Gawker article and all the RSs sourced using it, and the Schumer letter (and all the RSs covering that), this passed the GNG a while ago. As far as hoax goes, I take it you've never used SR or even visited it, Cyde Weys? --Gwern (contribs) 15:53 13 June 2011 (GMT)
Keep. As the largest anonymous marketplace on the web it is notable. It isn't a hoax. There is significant ongoing media coverage. - Shiftchange (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really, "the largest anonymous marketplace on the web"? Surely, you have a good reference to uphold such claims, no? KLP (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Largest seems pretty unlikely to me. Largest using Bitcoins, probably; largest using Tor hidden sites, maybe; largest on the web, surely not, if only because of all the big carding forums. --Gwern (contribs) 17:58 13 June 2011 (GMT)

As a Tor hidden service, is it even technically on the web? KLP (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, that's a good question. On the one hand it uses web protocols, such as HTTP and HTML. On the other hand, it can only be accessed through the use of the Tor proxy, so it isn't on the interconnected network known as the "World Wide Web" (i.e. you can't just point a web browser to an IP address or a DNS hostname to reach it). But we digress. --Cyde Weys 19:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And on the other hand, there are sites which proxy to the Tor network, so you can read-only browse a number of .onion sites, so it is on the Web in a sense beyond the landing page http://silkroadmarket.org/ --Gwern (contribs) 22:21 13 June 2011 (GMT)

Keep, but only because of the media and political attention it has received. Contributors shouldn't contribute to the article under the presumption that similar services haven't already existed for some time. KLP (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge (to Bitcoin) a premature creation on the basis of three sources (one of which isn't particularly reliable) published within the last day or two -- no evidence of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A website is notable do to the coverage it gets in reliable sources, which this one has plenty of. Dream Focus 06:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm with Dream Focus here that there's enough coverage in reliable sources for the notability to be established. The recentness of the coverage should not be an issue. Anthem 06:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [1]. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There has been a lot of media coverage. Also, the US government is trying to shut it down. Hum richard (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether it's real or not, Schumer thinks it's real, so it deserves a Wikipedia article per WP:N. I suspect more coverage is likely in the future, just because of that. Also, The Sydney Morning Herald [2] is not a blog. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a hoax; no merge as Bitcoin and SR are two different, unrelated things, albeit one happens to use the other. --Mithrandir^∞ (Talk!) (Opus Operis) 21:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as its own article. The fact that it uses a particular currency (bitcoin) doesn't mean it should be merged there. Plenty of high profile coverage is about the site itself, such as: Silk Road: Not Your Father's Amazon.com (NPR); Schumer Calls For End Of Online Illegal Drug Sales; Schumer Pushes to Shut Down Online Drug Marketplace (NBC), and more. First Light (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Coverage by NPR seals it for me, plus it's an interesting topic in terms of covering the darker side of society. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2011 (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.