Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shock sites (third 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 speedy keep. — FireFox • T [15:02, 09 April 2006]

List of shock sites
Moved from MfD, where it was mistakenly added by Yevon69. His reasoning was:

"inapropriate article. see deletion policy: "articles that are wholly inapropriate for wikipedia." I abstain for the moment. (see below) --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 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. --Blackeye 12:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * delete: wikipedia is not a link depository or archive." --205.188.117.73 09:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)" moved from the MfD
 * Keep a little gross, yes, but nothing wrong with it in essence. it has every right to be here. Michaelritchie200 11:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to vote speedy keep, as two previous nominations have resulted in keep, here and here, and no new arguments have been presented. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * delete - notable shock sites like Goatse already have their own articles. the links on this page are mostly NN filler. --Philo 11:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep This has already been voted on multiple times, and after this vote, it will likely be renominated in the future. Personal offense to a subject is not reason for deletion - see GNAA -- 130.160.151.14 11:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm tired of explaining why articles like this are bad. Just delete it. -Barry- 12:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - shock sites are notable, we need a shock site article, and we need a corresponding list of shock sites. Original submitter can't read - policy says "inappropriate links to shock sites"; this article is the one place that links to shock sites are appropriate. They should also read the title of the policy section: Wikipedia is not censored. Kyz 12:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per previous AfD nominations. Wikipedia is not censored.  (aeropagitica)    (talk)   13:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as per the entirely correct Samuel Blanning.Skinmeister 14:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - You can't argue that these aren't noteable, and just because most people find them offensive is not a reason to delete it. Would you support somebody deleting an aricle on sex because they found the subject offensive? Anything noteable should be in Wikipedia, good or bad. You wouldn't delete an article on the holocaust because it was a bad thing. Foolish Child 14:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Notable and well-defined. Wikipedia is not censored. Grand  master  ka  14:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, as no valid grounds for deletion have been presented, but merge with/redirect to Shock_sites, since the two articles are so interdependent. Monicasdude 14:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, no reason for delete. --Wizardman 15:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Mr. Sam. There have been no new reasons presented for removing the article.   Kuru   talk  15:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This page lets you find out what the shock sites entail before actually seeing it for yourself. I say strong keep for informational purposes. brabblebrex 16:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong, speedy keep per established precedent. Smerdis of Tlön 16:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete A collection of adverts. Hawkestone 16:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment These aren't adverts, they are more likely to detter visitors to these sites than attract them. Foolish Child 16:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, I don't see any reason why we should delete this. Wikipedia is not censorship. --Ter e nce Ong [[Image:Flag of Singapore.svg|30px]] 17:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. This is exactly the kind of disgusting shit that Wikipedia is famous for not censoring. To delete would be out of line with established precedent.  Since this is obviously not going to be deleted (after the third nomination), any future AfD's should be speedy-deleted unless they present some novel reason due to changed circumstances.  Shock sites are an important Internet phenomenon, and this article serves the valuable purpose of a central listing that can prevent individual stubs for each of these sites from being created.  NTK 20:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per all. Moreover, a page with a foreseeable use: any link one gets forwarded can be cross-referenced here. I&#39;m a Lover, Not a Fighter 23:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per NTK. --J a son (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, barring my personal opinions. Wikipedia is not censored.--Adam [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px| ]] [[Image:Flag of Brazil.svg|25px|  ]](talk) 02:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, maybe merge with the main Shock site article, though it is kind of long. -156.34.75.213 03:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep works well with the main shock sites article to have a list article to chronicle them. Pegasus1138 Talk 06:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per NTK.--Primetime 06:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep as per Sam Blanning. MCB 06:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is a useful resource to help avoid the trolls! --Takayuki 11:38, 9 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.