Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shock site

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Shock site.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to keep the article.

This article is very long, but it seem to be just a long, badly-formatted elaborate troll.


 * Trolling for what? The content may be offensive, yes, but it's not trying to trick you into anything.  Keep. --Starx 22:44, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Unless a powerful reason is given, I'd say keep. It's a longstanding article, for one.  And also it serves as a repository to dump some of the junk people put up on Wikipedia about their sites.  It could perhaps use some editing, to be sure. -- VV 22:57, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not a troll. Factual. Reasonably dignified textual descriptions of the site contents. Not only is the offensive material not shown, but the URL's are carefully not presented as links, so the chances of encountering anything by accident are minimal. The only possible objections I can see are content-based: is a) that it facilitates access to material which some people think should not be accessible and therefore implicitly supports or encourages viewing of same, or b) that it is "not encyclopedic." a) is not a reason for deletion. As for b) IMHO is it more encyclopedic than many articles we have on popular culture, role-playing games, etc. Dpbsmith 23:02, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Informative article on a real phenomenon.  These sort of articles are one thing that sets Wikipedia apart from other works -- part of the charm, so to speak.  UninvitedCompany 23:06, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep.ElBenevolente 23:31, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
 * keep. My feelings on this should be obvious given my history of GNAAGoat-see 23:33, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Same reasons as UninvitedCompany, no point in repeating. :) Etaoin 23:35, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. No way should this be deleted, this is the only reason I ever come to wikipedia.
 * God help me, I say keep. Though I find the subject matter to be patently offensive, it's very real and, as previously stated, is presented in an encyclopedic form and with as much dignity as can be mustered.  Even the POV comes off as neutral as can be.  Very well done. - Lucky 6.9 00:03, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but organize information (TOC is very intimidating) and crop unnecessary information.--Beelzebubs 01:12, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article is critical to Wikipedia. WhisperToMe 01:17, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Like everything else of Wikipedia, it needs work. :) -- Seth Ilys 03:58, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. As someone who's been stung a couple of times by a sly link to a shock site, I found this article quite fascinating. --Stormie 04:22, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, definitely. The value is the informative history of a genuine item of internet culture, however unpleasant or childish it may be. These are the kind of articles that make Wikipedia more relevant and up-to-date than any other resource. --A1r 15:41, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * keep - not trolling. it's factual theresa knott 18:43, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. However, it is the most poorly organized article in all of wikipedia. Someone needs to give it a major face lift. Kingturtle 05:49, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, though maybe it needs to be pared back a little. Dysprosia 05:52, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, for many reasons already listed Bryan 04:57, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's not porno......
 * Keep. I agree with the above users. Kairos 07:13, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep! I just saw the boilerplate on this, and can't see the reason why anyone would want it gone. I agree it could use a facelift, though. -- Jao 13:49, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Holly hell, this was far more than I ever wanted to know about the content of that stuff (which I hope to God I never actually see). Nicely written, though, and certainly informative.  Keep!  Ensiform 03:29, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate up to the point of deletion and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the new method of assessing voting, should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.