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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Galaxy (Hidden social network)

Galaxy (Hidden social network) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Not finding even one good source on the subject (fails GNG, et al.). — Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Well, it's pretty bloody hard to find info on it in the clear web. Are you even aloud to cite sources to the onion net? §Alphaslucas§ ( talk) 01:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Doesn't matter where the sources are, just that they're reliable according to Wikipedia standards. I'm not sure of any reliable sources on Tor that aren't also available elsewhere, but I don't know. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  03:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC) reply

I don't see the issue explicitly addressed in WP:RS, and my guess would be that community consensus would not accept such references, but unless someone is claiming such sources establish notability, I don't think it matters for this discussion. Agyle ( talk) 23:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Ok, I added three more citations that according to Wikipedia standards should be reliable.Take a look /info/en/?search=Galaxy_(Hidden_social_network) Alphaslucas ^talk 04:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• The references assert that Galaxy exists, but it's all passing mentions or directory listings. No evidence of the "significant coverage" re: WP:42. -- LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete which of these are RS? lack of WP:RS fails WP:GNG (I'm not counting the weak and passing mentions as significant coverage in RS). Widefox; talk 12:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Couldn't find any reliable sources, didn't meet notability standards. This is a difficult topic to search for, since "galaxy" is a common word with many meanings, so it's extremely possible I overlooked valid sources. I would note that the article's current references strain my acceptance of "good faith" intent on the part of the editors. This reference in particular is a page of meaningless gibberish, with the phrase "GALAXY SOCIAL NETWORK" among the babble, apparently as some fraudulent mechanism to attract search engine notice or something, but in the interest of fairness, it could also have been cited due to incompetence, illiteracy, or perhaps it's a legitimate source steganographically encrypted, or was changed since the time it was cited. Agyle ( talk) 22:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete I am not even sure if it is verifiable, much less notable. -- Bejnar ( talk) 02:49, 5 June 2014 (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.