Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shock sites (fourth 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 uh......no consensus. Mailer Diablo 10:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

List of shock sites
This article is in need of deletion because it violates several of Wikipedia's policies. For one, it is simply a list of random shock sites that various people have compiled; in effect, an advertisement for shock sites. Wikipedia is a repository for notable information, not an indiscriminate linkfarm. If any of the sites mentioned in the article are notable, then individual articles can be created for them, but most of them would not likely merit an article.

Furthermore, in terms of censorship, while Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, that does not mean that any form of content is acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. In fact, links to shock sites is something specifically mentioned against in What Wikipedia is not. Several users have pointed out that this only refers to placing links to shock sites in articles that are completely unrelated, and that placing links to shock sites in an article dedicated to them is naturally acceptable. However, that would mean that by creating an article dedicated to something that is normally prohibited, the prohibition can just be bypassed. An analogy would be a person disagreeing with Wikipedia's policy about having POV in articles, and creating an article on a subject and specifically noting that POV is allowed in the article as a loophole. Having a link to a specific shock site in the article for that site may fall into Wikipedia's category of appropriate usage, but creating an article that is an indiscriminate list of shock sites is really just a way to bypass Wikipedia's policy of inappropriate linkage.

It should be noted also that a Category:Shock sites already exists.

In addition, I would like to bring to light the interests of those whom have taken both sides of this issue. Though I cannot speak completely objectively, I find that many those who are for the deletion of this article to have the interests of Wikipedia in mind, while those who oppose the deletion often seem concerned primarily with their own interests. Examples of this may be seen in the many of the votes cast during deletion debates.

The following are three votes submitted during previous deletion nominations for this article that share my sentiment:


 * 1) Delete WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information -- User:Thesquire 10:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC) {2nd nomination)
 * 2) 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. — User:RJHall 19:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC) (2nd nomination)
 * 3) Delete - This page is just a resource for those Internet trolls out there who want to scare/disgust other people with these shock sites. There is absolutely no need for this article to stay. I can't believe people are asking to keep this article; It's basically advertising vulgar photographs. I suppose anyone can make a shock site and use this article to "advertise" it. I strongly doubt anyone will come into the mishap of seeing these vulgar links if no one sees this page. I suppose the page that just defines a shock site is OK, but there is no need to post links to shock sites. People know what a shock site is, and they don't need to see an example. --User:Blackeye 12:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC) {3rd nomination)

I would also like to mention that one of the most repeated reasons for the opposition of deletion has been about Wikipedia not being censored. There are two things wrong with this:


 * 1) Wikipedia, while not censored for the protection of minors, does have content guidlines, and, as I stated before, shock site links is something specifically mentioned against.
 * 2) Completely disregarding censorship for a moment, the article is not suitable for Wikipedia. As was stated before, it is just an indiscriminate collection of links and violates policies related to spam and advertisement/promotion. If the article had delt with inoffensive material, it would have been deleted promptly, yet because it deals with shock sites, many have opposed its deletion even though it merits it for fear that by supporting its deletion they might be participating in "censorship".

I will conclude by asking those who are considering casting a vote to think this matter through and to vote with Wikipedia taking precedence over their own interests. Thank you. - Conrad Devonshire 07:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * One other thing that I would like to mention that has merited this article's deletion is that most of the sites listed there made no attempt at verification (though this has been corrected since this nomination began). in other words, they had a discription listed beside their link of what content the link contained, but as most of the sites were said to contain just a single image, there was no way of determining whether or not the discriptions were accurate.

Make recommendations below this line

 * Keep Shock sites are a part of the internet, and it is only fair to give them a dedicated page. The reasoning "each site wouldn't stand in a page of it's own on wikipedia" is stupid, as you could say that about an album, for example. Why would you list the tracks of an album when you could write a page for each song? You wouldn't. That is why most songs don't have a wikipedia entry, only more notable ones.
 * Keep Like whoever said above, just delete specific ones. If you delete the list you really should delete the individual entries for the important site as well or your whole purpose is defeated. --What does this do? 15:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - I have explained myself above. - Conrad Devonshire 07:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Oh man, I'd nearly forgotten about this article. I'd like to think our seriousness about WP:V has improved beyond this level. There is exactly one item in this entire list that makes even an attempt at verification, and that's the main article of Goatse.cx, which has exactly one reliable source, and it's already linked from Shock site. I will understand if List of shock sites is kept on pure inertia, but I will then remove the unverifiable items from it, one by one, until there is just the one item left, and it can be merged to Shock site and this whole mess forgotten for good. Melchoir 08:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Excellent arguments for deletion made by User:Conrad Devonshire. Bwithh 08:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Mgekelly - Talk 08:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I believe in not helping publicize websites that do more harm than good. I believe in protection for minors no matter what Wikipedia says, and my votes and edits will reflect that. Actions that protect minors also tend to protect some adults. When the downside of such actions is just fewer entertainment websites, such actions should generally be taken. If the entertainment is commonly labled as "shock" then it's a no-brainer, and it's even more of a no-brainer when you see what the sites in question actually are.


 * The Wikimedia Foundation shouldn't allow certain content whether it's legal and technically meets the wikipedian-created guidelines and whether it's voted out or not. The shock site article isn't even the worst. At the very least, articles for deletion should be monitored by that bunch of liberals and some should be deleted on the spot. -Barry- 08:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was curious about this a few months ago and I found this article to be very informative and it was intereresting to read the types of things people come up with as shock sites.  In addition, I have used this list to see if a suspect link someone has sent me is on there on more than one occasion as to avoid clicking on something I don't want to see. Furthermore, this was nominated for deletion only a week ago which resulted in speedy keep, and one might consider a nomination for deletion so soon after that a bad faith nom.  I have not been involved in any debate about this prior to this nom and I consider myself a neutral 3rd party. VegaDark 08:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per WP:NOT and WP:RULES. talk to +MATIA 09:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If community concensus results in keeping this article on three seperate occasions, and one does in fact think this breaks the rules of Wikipedia, then I can see no better time for WP:IAR to be considered. VegaDark 09:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That guidline does not mean that rules can be oughtright broken. That's ridiculous. It simply means that if one feels too constrained by the rules he should just try to do the best he knows how without memorizing them. - Conrad Devonshire 11:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of the policy is that if a rule is getting in the way of making a better encyclopedia, ignore it. I feel that, if you believe it does break rules (which is disputed), then it does in fact fall in to this category.  I would most likely argue the same for any article that has survived 3 AfD's that supposedly breaks rules.  It shows the community wants it, and we shouldn't be deleting it because of a "rule" when so many people want it. VegaDark 19:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete With Prejudice - why does this article keep getting remade? It wasn't worthy the last three times, this one isn't any different. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 09:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence of this article having been deleted and remade. The article was created a year and a half ago according to page history, and the only AfD discussions the talk page links to are 3 keep outcomes. I didn't see any other AfD discussions linking to the page that weren't mentioned on the talk page, care to explain? VegaDark 09:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It is actually one of Wikipedia's oldest articles, having been forked from shock site in 2002. Rhobite 16:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Possibly because it was never deleted? -- Rory 0 96 (block)  18:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Shock sites are a notable phenomenon of the internet. The article is not a mere list of external links, as it describes the sites and their history. David | Talk 09:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * delete or merge more "popular" examples into shock site. The article just seems like an effort at advertise the sites, or justify inclusion on wikipedia of non-notable websites. Deli nk 09:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I completely agree with the rationale of the nominator. RexNL 09:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Someone should go leave a message on the talk page of all people who have previously voted to keep this (as the nominator did for all people who previously voted to delete this) if we want an accurate representation of community consensus on this nom. VegaDark 10:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've left a message on the talk pages of all the users who voted keep on the last (third) vfd. Skinmeister 10:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep (note to sysops: this user is suspected of using the account User:Rennix to register multiple votes) of course. But these votes are irrelevant, as I have removed the vfd. This article was voted to be kept just seven days ago, and it is far too soon for another. Skinmeister 10:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've reverted his removal of the AfD tag, even though I agree with him this is far too soon for another Afd. I'll leave that for an admin to decide, however. VegaDark 10:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. (note to sysops: this user is a suspected sockpuppet of User:Skinmeister used to register illegitimate votes) It's good for pissing off religious freaks for one thing! Rennix 10:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - My point proven. - Conrad Devonshire 10:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dbiv. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 10:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Firstly, this is not just a list of shock sites it shows their history. Secondly, shock sites are an internet phenomenon and should be kept. Thirdly, this has already been kept three times and it is getting silly by renominating it. Englishrose 10:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for my own benefit, as someone who wants to be able to read about these things in a neutral, enclopedic venue rather that visiting them first-hand. Kappa 11:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Several ads combined in one article are still ads, and they are not for notable companies or products. Hawkestone 11:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * They are not for any products, let alone notable ones. Any links to commercial sites have been removed, so your argument fails. Skinmeister 11:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong. An article does not have to be about commercial products in order to be in violation of the "no promotions/advertisements" policy. - Conrad Devonshire 11:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * COMMENT - Please be aware that User:Skinmeister has been using his sockpuppet User:Rennix to influence the voting, and has since vandalised my own talk page. - Conrad Devonshire 11:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * He's not a sockpuppet, it's just morons like you keep thinking he is. And by vandalizing your page, you mean by doing the exact same thing you done to mine? Hypocrite. Skinmeister 11:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Then I suppose its just a coinsidence that his only edits have been seconding your votes in deletion nominations for this article? And by me vandalising your talk page, do you mean me warning you for vandalism? - Conrad Devonshire 12:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The CheckUser going through now will prove this matter. And yes, that's what I mean, your blanking entire sections of articles, like you did with Goatse, is vandalism, yet you considered my warning a vandalism. 86.128.222.36 13:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per Dbiv and English Rose's comments, the page is more than a mere list of links (but could be combined into main Shock Sites article). Shock sites are an Internet phenomenon and should be recorded as such. Whilst I agree with the policy that pages in general shouldn't link to shock sites, links on this particular page are relevant to the content and context. Psychomusicianuk 11:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: Users eighth edit The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 16:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Some shock sites are notable and have spawned a following. I'd rather have them arranged in one easy to monitor and well-organized list than have a bunch of poorly maintained stubs. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 11:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Never mind, if sites like Goatse have whole articles of verifiable information on Wikipedia, then a list appears to be a useful reference. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 11:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete: First, it's an eternal list with no internal mechanism for limitation.  Second, it is inherently POV to have "List of (notable/significant) shock sites":  without any objective criteria for inclusion, the include/exclude is POV.  Third, there is no internal organization to the list -- chronological, in terms of hits, in terms of amount of animation.  Fourth, the topic is ephemeral, and sites wink in and out of existence, so, by the time a site is listed, the list is already out of date.  Fifth, it's not explained in any context -- it's just a list.  "List of shoes in my closet" is also a list, and my shoes are very important to my feet.  Without anything internal to the article to give the items listed a function, there is no internal logic.  Geogre 11:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Normally I'm an inclusionist but this is basically just an advertisement of disgusting websites. Delete per nom. DarthVader 11:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong, speedy keep But clean-up as per George. The argument about this page being specifically prohibited by WP:NOT, it specifically says inappropriate links to shock sites. I can't see anywhere else where they would be more appropriate. Also, the interpretation of the voting is highly biased. There were plenty of votes for deletion that were primarily selfish (e.g. "This site is disgusting; there is enough crap on the web and wikipedia is meant to break away from that.") and plenty of selfless keep votes. This article is not an advertisment, if anything it deters people from visiting these sites. For every troll that uses this page as a reference there are about 50 innocent users who now avoid visiting any of these sites. There is also fact that every time this article is nominated for deletion the number of keep votes heavily outnumber those for delete. As for none of these sites meriting an article, Goatse.cx, Last Measure and HAI2U all already have their own articles. So in conclusion I think that this article should be kept, but cleaned up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Foolish Child (talk • contribs).
 * First of all, most of the sites linked to on that page have just been random sites of no notablitiy, and therefore the links are inappropriate. And of 20+ sites listed there, only three have their own articles (and the article HAI2U is being considered for deletion). While the page may help people to know not to visit those sites, it would also provide a haven of sites for trolls to get their hands on and link people to. Most people who end up visiting those sites do so unintenionally due to a troll's meddling, correct? So knowing not to intenionally go to them would not do much good. Also, while I do admit that there was selfishness and selflessness on the parts of both the "keep" and "delete" voters (and showed an example of an unselfish "keep" vote in order to be balanced), the lack of consideration for Wikipedia has been far more apparent on the part of the "keep" voters than it has on the part of the "delete" voters. - Conrad Devonshire 12:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's quite a simple matter to block your browser from ever taking you to a site, so yes, it does cut down on the number of visitors to a site. One can visit this article and add all the sites contained to a "block-list". I know of several people who use this article in such a way. And besides, the vast majority of people ending up on these sites are due to entirely unmasked social engineering attempts in forums by users exploiting the new memebers' ignorance. And while I know that several of these sites are definately not notable, I did say this page required cleanup, which would involve deleting those. And sorry for not signing my comment ><. Foolish Child 14:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I know how that could be helpful, but it is not what Wikipedia articles are intended to be. There are other sites for that. - Conrad Devonshire 15:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Name me one. (BTW, I realise I've now stopped being relevant so I'll just STFU). Foolish Child 15:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. Also, this article is unsourced and seemingly will never be sourced.  Just because a site contains shocking imagery does not make it a "shock site" so some proof of popularity is at least needed, but only the very most significant examples will have any verifiable information.  The concept of shock sites is notable, maybe, but we have Shock site already.  Mangojuice 12:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I now think Weak keep. My previous voice was partially out of frustration with certain editors of this page; I had been trying to encourage improvement of this article but was basically thwarted repeatedly, but I now think I'm starting to make some progress.  I wouldn't mind seeing this article merge with Shock site but I also don't mind it having its own article, there's a reason for it as an article, but the article needs severe cleanup.  Many of the sites in the list aren't even worth mentioning, and there's a total lack of sources.  However, I think if we stick to reasonably established sites, they may be sourceable eventually.  Mangojuice 04:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. *drew 12:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per the last three keeps. Useful and encyclopaedic, and also a way to avoid them when they're linked by friends. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Stifle (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia isn't a linkfarm either. - Conrad Devonshire 12:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- the notable sites in the list will be notable under other criteria and don't need to be put in a single clearinghouse. Andy Saund e rs 12:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per eloquent nomination. Far too indiscriminate and unencyclopedic. -- Krash (Talk) 12:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I'm keeping this due to the fact that Wikipedia is NOT censored for minors, these sites ARE in fact notable, and because it's already been voted on and kept three previous times. There's a difference between an article being disgusting to a person and an article being blantantly useless. This is just going to be yet another moral battle, meaning a deletion would not be a neutral point of view. --Wizardman 13:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Only a few of the links on that page could be considered notable. - Conrad Devonshire 13:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * COMMENT -  has been reinserting the votes cast by User:Skinmeister and his sockpuppet User:Rennix. Is most likely (and claims to be) that user's IP address. - Conrad Devonshire 13:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep for process reasons (wait a couple of months until you renominate again). Oh, and keep anyway: a notable phenomenon, and having a list of shock sites is useful so you know which links to avoid. Kusma (討論) 13:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. as per Englishrose/Stifle/Wizardman. Also links to shock sites are something specifically mentioned against in WP:NOT, except from an article directly concerning the content which would be the case with this article. -- blue 520  14:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly why this article should be deleted, as it is just a host for random shock sites. - Conrad Devonshire 14:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nowhere does it say we can't have an article with links to shock sites. What it means is not to link shock sites in articles that have nothing to do with them, i.e. do not troll. Foolish Child 14:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It includes several sites which are included in the Wiki and thus considered notable. I see no objection to maintaining a list of articles which wikipedia itself hosts. The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 14:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed to delete. There is already a Category:Shock sites, making this article redundant. The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 14:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It is the place of the closing Admin to make judgements on the validity of comments (votes) put forward by users especially if there is suspected sockpuppetry. Users should not remove comments from deletion discussions, no matter if they believe they are cast by sockpuppets or not-- blue  520  14:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm not saying our votes shouldn't be discounted. In fact, I'm sure at least Rennix's will if it hasn't been proven he's not me by the time the vfd closes. What I'm saying it's up to an admin to decide that, not some POV-pushing kid. 86.128.222.36 14:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, but I am at least going to post warnings for admins here saying that you are suspected of sockpuppetry. - Conrad Devonshire 14:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Per nom--Zxcvbnm 14:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --rogerd 14:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but only with a major cleanup. Some of the sites aren't even worth mentioning, but some have almost become meme's(goatse, anyone?).  If everyone in favor of deletion would just spend two minutes adding their $.02 on the talk page instead of throwing the good out with the bad, I'm sure the page could be a lot better.  hobbie 14:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "Goatse" is probably the only notable site mentioned there and it already has its own article. - Conrad Devonshire 15:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep for good or for bad this is a phenomena and should have an article. 84.43.17.161 15:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Note to closing Admin: Users eighth edit The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 15:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Like whoever said above, just delete specific ones. If you delete the list you really should delete the individual entries for the important site as well or your whole purpose is defeated. --What does this do? 15:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: Users third edit The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 16:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and merge with internet phenomena or Shock sites. Also, this list is very important. Without knowing which sites are shock sites how are people susposed to avoid them? Think about it. Don't be so quick to dismiss this list as something that's unimportant. --Machrider 15:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: Users first edit The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 16:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per nom jon 15:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * WTF? Foolish Child 15:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep This was a useful article explaining origins sources and purpose of some otherwise puzzling images forming part of an emergent internet subtrend. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.81.40.13 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: users third edit The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 16:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep --Ter e nce Ong 15:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is not censored.  (aeropagitica)    (talk)   15:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This really is a great and sound article. The information is accurate, and extremely notable. Hell, it lets you "preview" the horrors instead of having to see them for yourself. I don't know of any other sites I would really trust with giving a synopsis on shock sites. It even gives history on sites that seem to have unknown origin. Where else can you find that? brabblebrex 16:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong, speedy keep. Further calls for deletion of this article should be summarily closed by any admin.  Let's give this a rest.  Smerdis of Tlön 16:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, WP:POINT. Rhobite 16:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, WP:POINT. Adebeus 17:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Give this a rest.  This page is fine.
 * Note to closing admin. Users second edit The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 16:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure about how this afd is supposed to violate WP:POINT (I could be persuaded though) but I am sure that I'm highly skeptical that discussion is an effective way of leading to wikipedia content policy changes. It seems to me that in such discussions, if even 10-20% of the users in a discussion is opposed to a rule reform, the rule reform doesnt happen. Wikipedia discussion seem to work largely on the inefficient principle of changing only when there is absolute or near-absolute consensus. Bwithh 16:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This article has been around for four years, and it's survived AfD on three separate occasions, the last one a single week ago. Waiting a month or two to nominate it again wouldn't be the end of the world. Rhobite 16:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Speedy Keep Despite what the nom said, this article does not violate any policies. It is not merely a linkfarm, as there is information on the sites; the policy regarding links to shock sites that the nom cited has absolutely nothing to do with this; if this is an ad, then the article on [any article here] is an ad for [subject of said article]; it can be cleaned up; the sites that lack their own articles are lumped together here for that reason; any Delete votes with the argument "it's indecent, immoral etc" are irrelevant; it's been kept in three AfD noms, one of which occurred very recently; and it's ridiculous that the nom highly selectively presented examples of votes, being careful only to show the ones that supported his/her arguments, and didn't bother to show us the context. Yeltensic42 don't panic 16:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Very strong speedy keep. These are notable sites, wikipedia is not censored, and this is a terrible-faith nomination, especially attacking users who want to keep this. This site has survived three AfDs. Let's please move on. Grand  master  ka  16:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. While I am willing to assume good faith in the nomination, I think that these issues have been discussed and settled several times in the past, including a very recent AfD, and that nothing new has really been brought up. (I'm also somewhat uncomfortable with the nominator "cherry-picking" some votes from the previous AfD as examples.) As a substantive matter, I believe the content to have encyclopedic value in showing examples of a notable Internet phenomenon that is followed by a large audience. As with any article, specific items of content that are inappropriate can (and will be) removed, and/or replaced by better content. I think this should be speedily closed as keep and further time, energy, and emotion be spared the participants in AfD. MCB 17:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dbiv. -- Rory 0 96 (block) 18:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: To those who argue that the list is useful, being useful is not part of our content policies. We do not entertain cookbooks and FAQs, and WP:NOT an Internet directory. To those who are concerned with process: the third nomination was bungled by a throwaway account that never presented a coherent argument. User:Conrad Devonshire deserves a lot more respect. Melchoir 18:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; A series of paragraphs describing graphic images shown on the front page shock web sites is not encyclopedic IMO. If you removed the image descriptions this page would be virtually empty. There is no criteria determining what is a "major" shock site; who decided this? Have they had some type of political or economic impact? I can't tell from this page. Sorry, but I have to vote to dump favor dumping this steaming pile. &mdash; RJH 19:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Shock sites are an important phenomenon. They are certainly notable, as they many represent some of the most vulgar material found anywhere--on the internet or otherwise. Deleting the list I do not think is in Wikipedia's spirit of exploration, as the sites actually should be studied and discussed. I would like to know why exactly they are created and how people can endure such poses. In other words, I am advocating expansion of the list to get to the bottom of it.--Primetime 19:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * We have shock site and articles on notable sites. We don't need an additional list-article to circumvent the extremely weak notability standards already in practice. I suggest starting ShockSiteWiki if you're eager to explore the issue. / Peter Isotalo 19:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No thank you. Wikipedia is not censored, so I don't have to. Perhaps you could start your own censored wiki, though? But I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that we should discuss shock sites but not mention which ones exist?--Primetime 20:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Provocative linkspam. / Peter Isotalo 19:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per being an explicit example in WP:NOT. JoshuaZ 19:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - as I had voted in the 3rd nomination, relevant shock sites like goatse and tubgirl have their individual articles, we don't need links to unheard of shock sites that some unscrupulous editors' friends created. --Philo 19:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete not encyclopaedic. Midgley 20:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The list is good adjunct research material to the article shock sites, providing the reader with an overview of what a shock site is (and what is considered shocking in our society) without having to actually look at the sites themselves. If I had no idea what these sites were, but wanted to know, this list tells me. Useful, but also needs a cleanup. Natgoo 20:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Links to disgusting and non notable pages. This should not be allowed anywhere on the internet, let alone an encyclopedia.  As stated in the rules, when in doubt consider if this should appear in a normal encyclopedia.  The answer is no.  Especially with the links included, this goes far beyond not censoring for minors. Goyanks193 21:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Whether you find something disgusting is completely irrelevant to whether or not it should stay, and if Wikipedia is not censored for minors, I fail to see how including the links makes a difference. Also, Wikipedia is not paper, and so can be more comprehensive than a general encyclopedia. I said delete above, but I'm also tempted to change that to keep in reaction to your logic. JoshuaZ 21:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. Some of the sites could go into Internet Phenomenon or Category: Shock sites. &rArr;   SWAT Jester  [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  Ready    Aim    Fire!  21:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redundant with Shock site and Category:Shock sites, and a magnet for utterly useless spam. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The main argument that people seem to make against it is that they don't like the sites and find them distasteful. That isn't valid criteria for deletion. I am no fan of shock sites myself and that is the point of keeping something like this. An encyclopedia is supposed to educate...even about dark dirty things we don't like. IrishGuy 21:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Many of the delete votes argue that it is unencyclopedic, unverifiable, and non-notable. Our mission to educate is bounded by several content policies. Melchoir 21:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. However, I commend the nominator for making an excellent case for the deletion of the article. Shock sites are indeed a notable phenomena, in part because they permit the public exposition of those things which the public generally detests. Article could probably stand cleanup, but that's true of most articles. Mackensen (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "Keep" This page is invaluable in directing wiki users towards actual examples of shock sites. All in favor of deletion should instead try to shut down the shock sites themselves... wiki should not be censored. Reid Sullivan 22:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 22:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Highly notable. Repeatedly VFDing an article because you just don't like it ought to be grounds for a ban. (This is, what, time #4? C'mon, kids. It's not as if there's a shortage of articles that really merit deletion.) jdb &#x274b; (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Imagine a physical encyclopedia with this kind of information and you'll get the point. I think the page of shock site suffices here. Zwaardmeester 23:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep notable, verifiable, and I'm really tired of seeing people continually submitting this for AfD. Nortelrye 23:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue with everyone who says the sites are notable. But verifiable?! Melchoir 23:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable and not in violation of any Wikipedia principles. Specifically, WP:NOT mentions shock sites in the context of (such as inappropriate links to shock sites) therefore implying that appropriate links are allowable. One would be hard pressed to argue that a page entitled "List of shock sites" would be an inappropriate place for such links. Finally, there is the process issue. Even if the last nomination was "bungled" as argued above, the previous ones were not, nor has anyone really come through with new rationale for deletion since it survived the last ones. At the very, very least, wait a few months between renominations. Turnstep 00:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree. If the nominator has reason to believe community beliefs have changed significantly since the last nomination, then it would not be very improper, in my opinion, to nominate the article for deletion again. However, a week is not long enough for the Wikipedia community to change radically. These nominations could be considered a form of harassment; a way of holding a sword of Damocles over editors heads, always trying to keep them in fear of having their contributions deleted (i.e., threatening them). If the article is nominated again in the near future, we should either (1) remove the notice immediately, or (2) ban the nom.--Primetime 00:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that upon closing, the closing admin should state that a renomination for AfD should not occur for 2-3 months & enforce this by speedy keeping any afd's of this article done in that time frame. (assuming this is kept or a no concensus, which looks like it is going towards). VegaDark 01:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and stop nominating it every day for deletion. This is not a list of "advertisements", don't be rediculous. - Abscissa 01:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep If you continue trying to delete this and fail, this is too big a fish to fry. This list could be used by parents and people everywhere to keep their computers clean. I think meeting in the middle and removing the links is the most that should be done. If a person were to use google to find a list of shock sites, this page will come up first. I feel that this page is a good place to read in regards to shock prevention.Killerrobotdude 01:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pointless linkfarm. --Calton | Talk 01:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. Linuxerist  L/T  02:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, I'm really not seeing any policy changes or new arguments that have been introduced since the previous three AfDs which have all very clearly and overwhelmingly decided to keep the article. I'm very concerned that the original nomination was written in less than neutral manner to push a pov - I'm glad he corrected himself.  Let it go.  Kuru   talk  03:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If the actual links to each site were to be removed, wouldn't that end the linkfarm objections? A simple Google search would allow someone to find the sites, and the article would exist just to inform and educate. hobbie 04:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Consider it done. Melchoir 05:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a non-starter. I understand I'm a new visitor to the article, so I apologize for butting in all of a sudden. However, Google often directs visitors to mirrors and there is the possibility of not finding the site.--Primetime 06:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * See the talk page. Melchoir 06:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it rather defeat the purpose of a list of websites to not have any external links? Foolish Child 10:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

internet. It is too important not to be listed here. Also, the page enables people to inform themselves on the subject without acutally spoiling their day by having to look at the sites. gbrandt 15:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Ay Double Yoo 03:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * D Catherineyronwode 04:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It's encyclopedic  Funky Monkey   (talk)  04:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep this useful list. bbx 04:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please this list is helpful and informative Yuckfoo 04:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)'
 * strong keep for the last time Michaelritchie200 06:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - how many times do we have to go through this? This is really useless and inane, remove it and do something useful on wikipedia instead. Dyslexic agnostic 07:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - I'm usually a deletionist, but the nomination reads like the person clearly has never even visited the page in question, "Advertisement" my @$$. The site specifically lists a phenomenon connected with Internet Trolling and there is no reason to delete. It has saved a couple people embarassment. And besides, if Wikipedia is to be the "Sum of all human knowledge" it is rediculous to delete articles that are both useful and maintained. -- Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 07:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "Useful and maintained" are pointless descriptions of an article in these discussion. Anyone can maintain any type of article, and often does (Gundam-fancruft, anyone?) and "useful" can describe anything that isn't an outright lie. Neither have anything to do with being encyclopedic. / Peter Isotalo 10:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia is a work that deals with all fields of knowledge. The word comes from the Greek words enkyklios paideia meaning "general education". Wikipedia is the largest encyclopedia ever, so saying that something isn't "encyclopedic" because it isn't relevant is a contradiction in itself.--Primetime 19:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Any article related to your website can be used for advertising. This article can be used to warn possible victims of these websites and entertain others. You are being a facist and have no business nominating this article for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.0.74.209 (talk • contribs)
 * Note. Users first and only edit. The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 14:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Telling me what I have and don't have businees nominating for deletion sounds pretty fascist to me. - Conrad Devonshire 17:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - This just encourages the creation of more shocksites and this page is just used to publicise them even further. Also this page is likely to be used to distribute the images to other persons.--Andeee 13:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Create a new article about shock sites in general at Shock sites.--Urthogie 15:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just letting everyone know that the list of shock sites has increased since this nomination was started, which helps prove my point about it being just a linkfarm for shock sites. -  Conrad Devonshire 17:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, not it doesn't necessarily prove that it's a linkfarm, you have not shown that to follow for all (or any) cases. + +Lar: t/c 05:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - The excessive comments by the nominator, challenging every keep comment, inappropriately striking out comments questioning his approach or methodology, hectoring participants to think of the encyclopedia (I would reply that I always do, in every AfD I participate in, and I find it personally affronting to be so hectored), etc, suggest the nominator has more personally at stake than may be prudent. That may not be good. But what is more important is that despite my personal distaste for this topic, it is encyclopedic. The growth of the list during the debate is a factor in favour of keeping it, in my view, as it demonstrates notability of the topic. With considerable personal regret, I must now comment Keep. + +Lar: t/c 00:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have not crossed out any comments because they "questioned my approach or methodology". The only comments that I have crossed out were a criticism of my introduction which I thought I addressed, and a false and inflamatory accusation made by a user who has vandalised my talk page, tried twice to remove the AfD tag from this article even after being warned for it, and used sockpuppets to try to register multiple votes in this and previous nominations among other things. As for my personally addressing many comments, I admit that I probably have gone overboard on that and will try to refrain from doing it so frequently from now on. I have nothing "personal" at stake in this debate, but I believe that articles like this are detremental to the quality of Wikipedia and that the only reason that this article has been kept for as long as it has is because the argument for its deletion has been made to seem all about censorship, even though there are other strong reasons for its deletion. - Conrad Devonshire 18:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Repeating for emphasis: "I will thank you not to cross out my comments, please, even if you feel you have addressed all of them." I withdraw any speculation about why you actually chose to strike my comment, with apologies, while choosing to nevertheless point out that you give the appearance of having stricken my entire comment (not just the part about previous noms) because I questioned your approach, which I for the record still do. I'll reiterate in case it is not clear: Unless you're the closing admin, (and nowadays not even then) it is my view that it is terrifically bad form to strike anyone else's comment or substantially change by refactoring or other means what they say. If you want established wikipedians to take you seriously, it is my view that you should strongly consider forthrightly apologising for it, and not doing it ever again. + +Lar: t/c 05:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Then I formally apologise. - Conrad Devonshire 00:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I accept your apology with thanks (and note that you very thoughtfully left it on my talk page as well...) It does not change my opinion of the article but I do appreciate it. + +Lar: t/c 02:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete We can only have a list of shock sites if a criteria is drawn up for them first or if the list comes from a recognized body.--God Ω War 06:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this article should be kept, but any sites that aren't notable should be removed. Wikipedia should not become a directory. --J a son (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Informative and useful, not only to the trolls, but to their victims who would use such a list to prevent attacks. Jesustrashcan 10:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep There is no other way to find out what exactly is on one of these sites. Like many of the other Keep voters, I've actually gotten some use out of this article. It's information on a notable internet phenomenon. --Breathstealer 16:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Four nominations, and it is up for a vote AGAIN. I will say what I said at the last vote... Wikipedia is not something that bends to the will of the squeamish. Sure, you don't like shock sites, understandable. BUT that doesn't mean that shock sites don't exist. Nominator mentioned the Wikipedia policy, and it says delete shock sites immediately EXCEPT FOR PAGES WHICH DEAL WITH IT SPECIFICALLY. I believe that "List of shock sites" deal SPECIFICALLY with it, so obviously the nominator's "Wiki guideline" argument flies right out the window. Nominator also villifies anyone who votes for keep. Surely, this is abuse? "You vote delete FOR THE GOOD OF WIKIPEDIA. IF YOU VOTE KEEP YOU ARE TRASH WHO DOES NOTHING BUT CONTRIBUTE TO MORAL DECAY." This is an unacceptable attitude. I, and hopefully others, will not be pressured by this attitude of "My way or the highway". I will say this again. You may not like it, but this article does serve its purpose (warning others of shock sites, giving example of what a shock site is, a chronicle of internet history). Despite whatever your pretensions are, this article should, nay, needs to stay. Hobbeslover 19:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - weather you like it or not this is a part of internet culture/history. And stop trying to delete this page! --Joe dude 20:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The coverage of shock sites is not what is objectionable, it's the notability of such sites being listed here. There is no problem with having an article on shock sites in general, or certain well-known shock sites getting articles. However, what is not needed is a list containing every random shock site people can think of and throw up onto a list. Also, Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links or Internet directories. WarpstarRider 20:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * speedy keep I don't see why this article needs to be deleted -- it's a useful article, and it kept me from going to lemonparty.org (thank you!).  I get a strong feeling that most of the deletion suggestions are based on users finding the content objectionable, which should have no relevance as per wikipedia policy.  Assuming this article is not deleted, it should also be protected against deletion -- it seems like it's constantly being put into deletion, and constantly pulled out.24.250.119.145 23:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - It has useful information about a topic that is definitly important on the internet. Its not a nice topic, but it sure is relevant. Jamesinclair 23:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge. I see no reason that this article cannot simply be merged into shock site. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. The few sites on the that are either notable or best illsutrate the genre shoulde be covered at shock site.  The list itself needs to go.  -- DS1953 <sup style="color:green;">talk  00:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per most others. It's also not cricket to renominate an article for deletion only 6 days after the previous discussion closed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks to me like Conrad has an agenda here. Note the extremely lengthy intro, and of course, his stupid idea that the people voting to keep are doing so only for moral decay. In a time when our crime rate is down, when same-sex marriage has REDUCED sexual promiscuity, and basically people are beginning to realize that true morals (don't kill, don't steal, don't harm others) are more important than stupid shit like laughing at shock sites, it's sad that people like Conrad just don't get it. Nice way to try to be a hero, Conrad - point at some minor "sin" and attach yourself to it to hide from your own personal problems (yes, I checked out your user page). (yes, I did delete Conrad's lengthy intro, but it got restored. That was probably not a good idea on my part, but this page does not belong to him) --69.248.236.62 04:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - you make a very interesting point here, and I would strongly reccomend that those who have not done so yet read Conrad's user page to conclude for themselves whether he has "an agenda." - Abscissa 06:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is it the fact that he plays the piano, or that he plays computer games such as Rise of Nations which gives him away? Lets not sling mud here, and more so, lets not sling mud on the basis of stereotypes. WP:AGF and WP:NPA and all that. The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 07:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Addressing User:69.248.236.62, I would appreciate it if you would not attack me simply because you disagree with my belefs and stop trying to infer my reasons for nominating this article for deletion. You claim that same-sex marriage has reduced sexual promiscuity based on the fact that same-sex couples have been shown to last longer on average than married couples, however this does not take into account the number of additional partners that the two members each have during their relationship. And also what morals are "true" and what morals are "stupid shit" are entirely your opinions. It is my belief that things that we tend to deem "smaller", such as pornography lead to the "greater" wrongs, such as murder, and therefore if the "smaller" wrongs were done away with, the greater wrongs would consequently disappear. As for my introduction, I wrote it to try to point out the problems that the article had and avoid making the nomination seem strictly about explicit content. Just because you disagree with it does not give you the right to remove it. - Conrad Devonshire 00:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am not making a personal attack. I also don't care that he's Christian, or 17 -- nor do I think most people. However, many other comments have made reference to his user page. I do believe it's relevant. -Abscissa 23:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I learned something from this article. KWH 04:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep an established article that has survived three previous nominations. Worse an editor with an agenda nominated this for this fourth AfD and is making heavy handed edits that will not be helpful fir the closing admin. David D. (Talk) 05:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Conrad was kind enough to remove several comments which I found offensive. I for one, am thankful he did. The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 07:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That diff seems to show that I have removed keep votes Again, I apologise if any keep votes have been deleted in any of my edits due to edit conflict or what. I have not intentionally deleted any keep votes other than those which submitted under the accounts Skinmeister and . - Conrad Devonshire 00:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speddy Delete I cannot believe that this list of links to troll porn has been even been given serious consideration by Wikipedia, when other, better articles have been deleted. Here is a list to links that, not only will get Wikipedians fired from their respective places of employment, but in at least one case will infect the computer with dangerous code.  This list of links has no scholarly merit, nor any redeeming value whatsoever. Tyr shadowblade 09:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment User's second edit, both on AfD pages. Also, the content of the linked sites is not the topic of discussion here. Just because the sites are disgusting or dangerous to a user's computer does not mean that it should not be on Wikipedia. --Breathstealer 12:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Attempted vote stacking Note that User:Skinmeister (talk • contribs) solicited votes from 20 people (see his contribs). Not all have voted here but more than half have, and all of them voted keep.  I don't think any of the voters were acting in bad faith, it's just worth notifying the closing admin about this.  Mangojuice 13:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That was an unfortunately necessary answer to attempted vote-stacking by the nominator Conrad Devonshire, who contacted everybody who had voted "delete" in previous nominations. Many of them came here and voted "delete". I think the playing field was levelled again by Skinmeister's action, although two wrongs don't make a right. Kusma (討論) 13:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not know that there was a rule against this, and I expected that keep voters would likely inform other users about this nomination, so I don't consider this the same as trying to stack votes. If I had created the nomination, had not mentioned it on its page or the "articles for deletion" page, and had then informed previous delete voters of the nomination, that would have been different, however. - Conrad Devonshire 00:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Conrad's arguments are almost completely spurious. This is no more advertisement for shock sites than List of fast-food restaurants is an advertisement for fast food restaurants.  This is notable information because shock sites are, like it or not, a notable internet sociological phenomenon.  WP:NOT says that "obviously inappropriate content" is forbidden except from an article directly concerning the content.  If links to shock sites are inappropriate on a list of links to shock sites, what exactly *is* appropriate?  Furthermore, bringing up users' motivations in voting is a total red-herring.  But the ridiculousness of this claim is all the more vindicated by the fact that Conrad solicited votes from previous AfD nominations for this page, as well as his numerous lamentations of society's "corruption" on his user page.  If this doesn't make the existence of a personal agenda blatantly obvious, I don't know what does. Avertist 14:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The phenomenon of shock sites / picture collections has been around even before the
 * Pint of skull-splitter with a triple whisky depth-charge Strong Keep. This article was last saved (SPEEDILY!) a few days ago and I see nothing in the nomination describing what has changed since then. I also have some issues with the bizarre formatting of the nom- can't the emboldened (vote) text be removed or at least stricken to avoid confusion? Badgerpatrol 16:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ta. Badgerpatrol 22:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and protect from further renominations. This list is perfectly acceptable, no valid reason for deletion has been provided by the nominator.  Silensor 22:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP - I think that this list might actually be a good resource for someone studying these kinds of things (probably university/college students). I don't think it should be deleted. --User:Matt0401 19:12, 18 April 2006 (EST)
 * Keep with serious grooming much as I dislike unpleasant content, that's not a good reason to remove it in itself. However, unverified content should be removed, and that means that the bulk of the page (all the links that aren't able to be an article themselves) should be removed. I count three items on the list that can be included, which will make a very short (but verifiable) article. Ziggurat 23:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP First of all, I sent a goatse link to my friend, Karl, under the guise of "your dad," and his reaction was really funny. Second, this is important encyclopedic knowledge and very notable. Third, deleting something just because it's unpleasant is like then saying why not delete gangrene, anencephaly (that image really ****ed me up!), Nazism, the Holocaust, Bill Cosby, or Michael Jackson just because they're unpleasant. Bill Sayre 23:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I ask users to stop personally attacking me and claiming that I have an "agenda" for nominating this article simply because I am a Christian or because I believe that the world is corrupt in many ways. If you do not agree with my nomination, then that is your preference, but simply state it and refrain from personal attacks. I thank User:The Minister of War for defending me in this matter. I know that some users have felt that I have done this by posting remarks from previous keep voters in my introduction and using them as examples of a lack of concern on part of the keep voters, however that was not the same, and nevertheless I have removed it to avoid confict. - Conrad Devonshire 00:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Response I don't want to stir up a hornet's nest here, but there is an element of stones and glass houses involved with this. Some may interpret your opening comments to be attacking past (and potential) 'Keep' voters- you do seem to imply that the preponderance are a) selfish, and b) do not have the encyclopaedia's best interests at heart. It would have been a better idea to simply state your opinion of the article, why YOU think it shouldn't be in the encyclopaedia, and particularly, what has changed since the previous 'Keep' vote on the 9th of April?. Speculating as to voter's intent or cherrypicking previous votes (for or against) is unnecessary. I have to say, it is not hard to detect POV in the wording of your nomination (rather than a frank assessment of the article's quality), which editors may pick up and comment upon. Of course however, the only points to be considered here are a) does the article conform to policy; b) has good process been followed in making the nomination. All else is irrelevant. Personal or ad hominem attacks of ANY form are always unacceptable. Badgerpatrol 01:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - When the votes are counted on this article I hope they are done carefully. I feel many of the keep votes are from smurfs accounts. If Jimbo came along I bet he'd agree on deleting this page.--Andeee 01:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd bet he'd buy me a pony. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 04:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe- but more importantly, What would Brian Boitano do? ;-) Badgerpatrol 01:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * He'd make a plan and follow through! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP No good arguement for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.10.36.47 (talk • contribs)
 * They're trying to blank the article. Hi everyone. It looks like Aaron Brenneman blanked most of the List of shock sites article because he says the statements need sources. However, the sites are linked to and anyone can see plainly that they're shocking. Consensus is to keep the article and this appears to me to be a underhanded way of trying to delete it. Another user is trying to do the same now, as well.--Primetime 05:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Whether or not they're "shocking" (an opinion) is not the point. The links to the articles have discriptions next to them describing their content, but most make no attempt at verification, and therefore there is no way of determining their accuracy.
 * Keep, but clean-up. It's survived several nominations so why is it being relisted again? And anyone who votes delete just because they find it offensive should not have their vote counted as far as I'm concerned, wikipedia is not censored, nor should it be. The Ungovernable Force 06:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, last AfD closed 6 days after this one began. 3 clear consensus AfD's in the past to keep article.  The reference to shock site links in WP:NOT is taken completely out of context.  I don't know Conrad at all, but given this and the opening commentary, I really question the good faith of this nomination.  -- <font color="black" face="Arial">Samir [[Image:Canadian maple leaf 2.jpg|20px]]<font face="Arial Narrow" color="#000000"> (the scope) 06:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom (which I have read and yes I have looked at the article; simply the nominator makes my points for me). --kingboyk 02:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep useful information about an important internet fad. The nomination seems to imply that if you want to keep, you are working against wikipedia, not cool. It is also interesting that an admin has protected a nearly blanked version of the article. Lapinmies 06:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • [ b] • [ p] • [ d] • [ m]) 06:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. — Apr. 19, '06 <span class="plainlinks" style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">[07:07] <[ freakofnurxture]|[ talk]>  (user's 21,533rd edit) 
 * Keep These sites exist and there is no reason not to document them. If you vote delete, you're on the long wavelength. YahoKa 16:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom who does an excellent and thorough job of explaining why this article should be deleted. I had noticed the previous noms but was unsure of which way to vote, this nom clearly explains a valid reason for deletion. --Hetar 07:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The page is completely redundant. There is already an article on the subject, which if properly expanded in accordance with the content policies and associated guidelines WP:V, WP:RS, & WP:CITE will more than adequately cover whichever few sites have the supportive literature necessary for encyclopedic treatment. There is also the category, to link to the small number of articles on those shocksites which have enough reliable source material to justify individual article pages. The page as it appeared before Brenneman's clean up was in a very poor state. Aside from the redundancy issue, there was an arbitrary division of the sites into "Major shock sites" and "Other shock sites"; this is an inherently non-neutral construct, as is the idea that some of the entries are indeed "shocking" in the first place. The keep arguments are not convincing, to my mind. "Useful" is not synonymous with "deserving an encyclopedia entry". My telephone directory is useful too; like this list, however, that does not mean it is appropriate for its contents to be listed in a Wikipedia entry. The test of encyclopediability has never changed: has the subject been sufficiently studied and reported on in multiple, independent, reliable publications? Are there books, theses, monographs, journal articles, government or repliable third-party reports, newspaper articles, and/or magazine articles that are focused on the subject? If these are plentiful and of very high quality, and the subject meets notability guidelines, then the acceptability of having a page on the subject is a given (for example, Bertrand Russell). At the other end, if there are a few stray sentences on the subject in a newspaper article that is devoted to something else, the subject probably does not deserve an dedicated entry, especially if there is no sound reason to adopt an eventualist view (the John Bambanek entry was a good example). And if the subject has no source whatsoever (in independent reputable publications), the question of including it in the encyclopedia in any form simply does not arise: we can't include it, whether as a statement in a broader article, an item on a list, or (obviously) a dedicated entry. I suspect the items on this list fall in several different places on this spectrum. A small number may have source material; many, however, are likely entirely bereft of good sources. This posits a further difficulty for this list, in addition to the redundancy and non-neutral arguments I have already alluded to above. The best outcome IMHO would be to expand the main article on shock sites (in accordance with WP:V, WP:RS, & WP:CITE). I would ask for a redirect, but the phrase "List of shock sites" isn't a good one. Hence, delete. — Encephalon  07:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The difference between your telephone directory and a list of internet shock sites is that your telephone directory is only useful on a local level. If there was a wiki for the city of Burlington, North Carolina, an article listing public telephone numbers for Burlington, North Carolina might be appropriate after all.  There are a number of cultural phenomena that have articles on wikipedia (such as Culture jamming, Internet troll, and virtually every article discussed in Internet meme) that receive (compared to Bertrand Russell) little attention from mainstream publications and academia.  I think this is a pretty poor measure of worthiness on wikipedia.   A comprehensive list of shock sites is no less legitimate an article topic than a comprehensive list of famous children of Orthodox clergy (which I'd wager a list of shock sites is both more useful than and more encyclopediable than).  However, if it is going to remain in its present, heavily edited form, the article may as well be merged with Shock sites. Avertist 16:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Avertist here, this person clearly has some knowledge of Internet trolling and understands the worthiness of such a list. I also believe that we should revert to the previous version of the article before Aaron Brenneman decided, in my opinion incorrectly, to delete most of the article in order to illustrate a point. - Abscissa 18:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * SNOW. Cant somebody WP:SNOW this? I'm kinda tired of adding comments to disruptive posts and socks. We all know its not doing to get deleted anytime soon. The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 08:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Unfortunately, this stuff is notable. Cyde Weys  19:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd just like to point out, to all of you who say "There's already a Shock Site article" that on the Talk:Shock Site page, they agreed to spin off this list to help keep their article manageable. -- Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 20:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. Notable as per all the other "keep" votes.  Deleting the article won't make them go away.  Frankly, I hope this article keeps more internet n00bs from being duped.  People who don't understand the notability are blissfully insulated from the interweb that many of us see every day.  Finally, for a moment of humor (and I promise this isn't a shock site), please see these funny "remake" of a comics --again, I repeat it has nothing offensive in it as of this time stamp:  Bobak 21:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yet another unmanagable inherently POV list.  WP:NOT. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I should also have added that the list violates, and seems unlikely ever to cease violating, WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:NOR and WP:RS. Notability is not a reason to ignore policy. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Shocks sites are a notable phenomenan in the internet. -- S iva1979 <sup style="background:yellow;">Talk to me  01:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Shock sites are an Internet phenomenon with a notable history. Also, this page warns people of shock sites they may be passed.  The reason I say it's a "speedy" keep is that after three unsuccesful attempts to censor Wikipedia, it should be kept as a lesson to all those who seek to inundate Wikipedia with attempts at deletion and re-hash deletion requests.
 * Keep or merge into main shock sites article. -Objectivist-C 05:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. -ryan-d 09:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.