Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shock sites (2nd nomination)

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 of the debate was keep. After discounting votes by IPs and new users, it's 21/12 in favor of keeping. howch e ng {chat} 18:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shock sites

KEEP. If nothing else, it will serve as a good warning--how are people going to know about the content otherwise?

Sorry, but I can't believe this page survived the last vote for deletion... looks like a sockpuppet hard at work, all non registered users with one one or two edits in history. This site is disgusting; there is enough crap on the web and wikipedia is meant to break away from that. Strong delete! Dyslexic agnostic 08:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I've started a new discussion page for this, instead of the editions being made to the previous deletion debate. This debate can be found here, and resulted in a Keep vote. All new votes/content has been pasted here, and the previous page has been reverted to its status at the conclusion of the previous discussion. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 08:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep i also say it should be merged with shock site. Jamesinclair 21:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep although maybe it could be merged with shock sie, i dont feel it warrantsdeleion Benon 03:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Share knowledge 69.234.200.100 01:35, 18 January 2006
Keep cos its teh fun only boring ppl vote delete 80.73.204.178 06:58, 15 January 2006
Delete, makes it too easy to find this stuff. I suspect a significant proportion of those voting to keep it would be banned from the computer if their parents knew what they were looking at—Copey--203.109.252.196 01:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, wikipedia is not ~~a place to take a break from the crap on the web~~ censored. Kappa 08:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a warning for people not to visit all these sites. --Terenc e Ong 08:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Terence Ong. (aeropagitica) 09:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 10:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Terenc and Kappa. Englishrose 11:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This page lists many internet sites that people should be warned about. An edit might be needed, but deletion is going too far. hobbie 11:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Somehow simply putting the word "list" in front of an article seems to make our normal standards vanish. Where to begin: is this simply meant to be a list of every shock site? If so, delete per Not as above. Since there don't appear to be any standards applied to the external links, delete per NOT a linkfarm. While I suppose that there is some micro-micro stub of a list under there that could be meet WP:NPOV and WP:CITE, it would probably be better served as a category. This will almost certainly prove impossible to maintain, impossible to verify, and what's the encyclopedic aim in this list anyway? Delete. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 11:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a collection of links. Any particularly famous or notable ones can be merged to shock site or elsewhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep God knows why anyone would want to have a list of all the shock sites on the web, but ... meh ... someone might, so keep it. 86.20.198.162 17:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — The large majority of the sites listed on this page would not stand on their own merits of notability. This page appears to be essentially a blow-by-blow list of web site links. I see nothing notable about this page. — RJH 19:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Impossible to define exact criteria for a shock site. Impossible to keep complete. It won't be complete and just because someone might want to have it doesn't make it encyclopedic. Crunch 19:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Aaron Brenneman. Lukas 19:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate -- Krash 20:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above -- 68.148.192.33 20:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, specific sites that fail to meet standards may be removed. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as failing to meet any deletion criteria. Even if that were not true, it's bad faith to nominate again so soon after the last AfD (closed with 21 keep / 5 delete on November 30, 2005). If you don't like the result of an AfD, please wait at least a good amount of time before renominnating, and bring a better reason for deletion that stating that the article is "disgusting". If you have concerns about sockpuppets in the last AfD, raise it in Deletion Review - it's for keeps as well as deletes. Turnstep 22:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know quite a few people who'd like this page hehe, but yeah it's useful either way. --RBlowes 23:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, and it just got off AfD. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 00:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This website saved me from a possible bad experiance samwh
Keep, again. This does not meet any deletion criteria at all. Stifle 01:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! LEAVE KIRK ALONE 59.167.84.219 02:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above -- RexNL 02:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and put a notice up to stop morons from putting this up for deletion yet again. Skinmeister 03:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This site is terrible... delete as per above comments. 161.184.71.53 08:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again. 86.138.241.63 15:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. ≈ Ekevu ^talk_contrib 17:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into shock sites. This is a useful article. Rennix 17:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep. Sadly shock sites are a notable phenomenon of the internet, and examples are necessary for a full treatment. David | Talk 18:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is not censored to comfort those with no sense of humor. The repeated relisting/survival cycles of this page on VfD is nothing if not proof of its notability. jdb ❋ (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A thousand times keep. This is a wonderful resource for people who are curious as to what these images are without actually having to see them. It is precisely the sort of thing an internet encyclopedia should do.Vonspringer 22:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only consists external links. *drew 23:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, informative; WP:NOT censored. // paroxysm (n) 00:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for those voting for keep: Is the article okay the way it is or does it need some cleanup? ≈ Ekevu ^talk_contrib 01:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just about every page on Wikipedia needs cleanup. :) This one seems no worse or better than average, and a cleanup would be most welcome, but I would not make cleaning up as a factor in the AfD decision or anything. Turnstep 04:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Wikipedia is a repository of information. Just because some people find it squeamish or don't like something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, or that its history doesnt need to be recorded. Hobbeslover 19:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It allows people to see the various ways at which they work and understand them. Users do not have to visit them if they don't want to and the list is a useful resource. --Djkinsella 22:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The few websites and pages that have their own Wiki articles could go into a List of notable shock sites (but could just as easily be merged into Shock site), all the others should get booted for unverifiability. Ziggurat 00:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia collects information. This is information and should be here. Deleting it because you don't like it is just censorship and, from my understanding, goes completely against the Wikipedia philospohy. Timgould 13:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This user appears newly created, likely sockpuppet vote. -- Dyslexic agnostic 15:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE: This webpage is a source of information. If you look up "Pornography" in any dictionary, will it show you example photos and where such material may be obtained? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.156.6.54 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Oh noes! A source of information on Wikipedia? Get rid of it now! (Note: This was a sarcastic comment only. I'm pointing it out because Dyslexic seemed to thing it was a vote.)
Strong Keep Shock sites are incredibly prevalent on the internet as a trolling device; it would be irresponsible not to note them. As stated above, people have a chance to avoid them if listed here, there are dozens of lists on Wikipedia (a list is not a reason to delete), and just because you are uncomfortable with it does not mean it needs to be deleted. --Ntg 22:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this an important part of interent culture, and any web surfing fanatic knows about the classic shock sites like lemonparty, tubgirl, and Goatse. Weather you liked the experince or not most of us have probally been tricked into visiting these "lovely" sites on a few ocasions. The article contains no offensive material and the info on this page is NOT worthless --Joe dude 01:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP 132.178.195.206 04:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to shock site. Only notable/popular shock sites, such as rotten.com, should be listed. Dbtfz 05:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP!! Breadboi 05:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Please keep this, it's hilarious 206.125.60.109 16:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I would be hesitant to vote keep, which does seem to be the lean of the community, and while I would much rather redirect to Shock Site, I am compelled to be the recent cleanup of the Rock Opera page. The example list was rediculously bloated, the resulting cleanup proved beneficial. So my vote is Keep as Shock Site will eventually become so bloated as to merit a list. Dragoonmac 01:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
""KEEP"" This page is useful for people who want to know about odd links posted on forums, and as long as there are WARNINGS about the content then it's fine. 71.104.188.69 20:38, 18 January 2006 (PST)
Strong Keep shock sites are a quite notable Internet phenomenon. Yeltensic42.618 don't panic 04:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hesitant keep Sinblox 07:34, 19 January 2006 (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.