How should we deal with the Marianas Web question?

Question

There has been some dispute over the best way to deal with the following question:

Is there any evidence of a secret level of deeply-hidden web-pages called "Marianas Web"?

In particular:

• The OP has demonstrated that they have seen debunkings based on people explaining the concept is a hoax, but remains unconvinced.

• The leading answer argues that the claim is unlikely, based largely on opinions, without providing direct evidence whether the phenomena exists or not.

  • Upon being challenged, the answerer claims that it is consistent with scientific skepticism.

• There are disputes about whether edits to the question are improvements.

• People keep weighing in with comments (often deleted) and even an answer about conjectures about how it could be true (if you changed the definitions words) or it could never be true.

What could we do to fix this question and answers?

Answer 1

What could we do to fix this question and answers?

Nothing. This question is unsalvageable, and should be closed and deleted.

• This question is essentially a proof-of-existence question. These questions are inherently unfalsifiable, which is something which this site does not handle well.

  Changing the question title from "does this exist" to "does any evidence of this exist" doesn't change anything. The questions are synonymous; proving non-existence and proving non-existence of evidence are equally impossible.

• Since the web sites that are claimed to exist are also (supposedly) so secret as to be virtually inaccessible, these claims are also virtually unverifiable. Any sort of convincing proof of existence would make these sites no longer secret!

• There is no substance to the claims being investigated by this question. Notable proof-of-existence claims which can be investigated (like the Loch Ness Monster) involve a specific subject, and have enough supporting information surrounding them (folklore, supposed sightings, researchers) as to at least be discussable -- but the claims involved in this question are all nebulous, and there doesn't appear to be any serious secondary discussion of those claims. The articles linked in the question simply regurgitate the original infographic's claims without adding any substance, so there's still very little to go on.