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. Even discounting the votes Jtkiefer suggests discounting, I still count 21 keep votes vs. 5 deletes. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 03:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of shock sites[edit]

A big messy menu of mostly NN websites (with external links as entrees) and a spam and vandalism magnet [1]. -- Perfecto  02:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Please sign your comment by typing four tildes (~~~~).

• Keep * I say we keep it. 69.29.214.61 20:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote discounted by closing admin (ip vote) Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The only way I can clean this up is to split it into individual articles, then nominate them to AfD based on WP:WEB. If there is indeed interest in this article, it could be maintained to be as presentable as List of recurring characters from The Simpsons, but I don't see it. -- Perfecto  02:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also precedent Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_websites_using_Ajax -- Perfecto  06:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If it's a vandalism magnet then we should have more people watching it. This is a useful article documenting internet culture. This has been nominated for deletion before. See Talk:List of shock sites/delete for the previous VfD discussion. Rhobite 04:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare it to how it was during this VfD discussion, one year ago. Now it's 37kb long. -- Perfecto  06:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't delete articles because they have deteriorated.. the solution is to improve the article. Rhobite 06:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. as above. Swamp Ig 05:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with cleanup. Gazpacho 05:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep YUCK! And shock sites are apparently a pheonomena. Why are there two sections- Shock sites and Other shock sites Sethie 06:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As someone else pointed out, this list is about the only place (other than gradually hearing the stories over time) where people can find out about these sites without having to visit them. I've seen a couple of these pictures, and they're disgusting to say the least. But no one is being forced to click on them here, and as I said, this list serves an important purpose. --69.249.85.234 03:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote discounted by closing admin (ip vote) Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep How many times have we got to go through this? 86.142.10.224 13:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote discounted by closing admin (ip vote) Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've yet to see a single valid argument for deleting this, other than that someone disagrees with its moral content. I for one find it interesting, and I don't appreciate being told what I can and can't learn about. --194.200.167.69 12:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Did you read my nomination? Did I even mention morality? It's a list of non-notable websites with spammy external links. It has gone worse since the last VfD nom. It receives a dozen anon edits a day. If everyone here wants to keep it, then can someone here clean it up?! You guys want a pet dog but you don't want to clean up after it. -- Perfecto  17:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry for inferring that your problem was more with the content than the presentation - that's what most people object to. If you care enough about this, though, why not clean it up yourself? It really does seem to be affecting your peace of mind.

Vote discounted by closing admin (ip vote) Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unmaintainable listcruft. WP:NOT a webdir KillerChihuahua 15:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails the standards specific to list articles by 1) being inherently POV and 2) inherently incomplete. There is no way to be complete with such an article, and the judgments are always going to be personal. Finally, aside from the criteria that apply to lists, Wikipedia is not a web guide. It is not the function of this encyclopedia to make one's browsing easier. Geogre 17:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. I'd never heard of these before visiting Nevada-tan, and I'd much prefer to be able to understand without actually having to go to the sites. This list does have a purpose, I agree. Jacqui^★ 16:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge notable examples into Shock site, creating a comprehensive descriptive article. That will be far more useful to people who want to learn about these sites and understand the phenomenon than the present unmaintainable list is. — Haeleth Talk 16:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all notable examples, or Merge into Shock site. -- 142.205.241.145 18:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote discounted by closing admin (ip vote) Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article is so useful in helping us to understand internet culture. It might need to be cleaned up in some areas, but so do many others. --80.3.43.10 14:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote discounted by closing admin (ip vote) Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is a very useful place to find out about shock sites, so that i do not get caught out- admittedly i have used one to catch out a friend, but only to return the favour.- It should possibly be cleaned up though --80.44.230.33 14:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote discounted by closing admin (ip vote) Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge into Shock site. 217.41.49.196 19:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote discounted by closing admin (ip vote) Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, very relevant to Wikipedia and also a place to check sites that one is referred to for SFW-ness. --Stifle 16:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, we don't delete articles for being a vandal magnet or being in a deteriorated state unless it fits speedy criteria. Most of these sites get a lot of attention on the net and are well-known. I don't see any valid reason to call them non-notable, although some individual entries may be removed on those charges. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't want to actually see these sites, but I'd like to understand the reference. It's better than googling on a phrase mentioned by a friend to actually find the real page. Please, as a public service. --69.241.232.35 22:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote discounted by closing admin (ip vote) Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Bwithh 02:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this useful page about a widespread phenomenon: Wikipedia is nearly the only place where these sorts of sites are described in a clear impassive manner. This was one of the first Wikipedia articles I ever read, and I appreciated its existence then as I do now. - squibix 04:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as above Adamn 12:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a lot better to read a textual description of a shock site than have to view it in person. This is an informative article which provides useful information for internet surfers. --Timecop 12:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Mgm. Sam Hocevar 12:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into shock site, as this list by itself isn't informative or useful. Ekevu (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (the listed motive is not sufficient: George W. Bush and Jacques Chirac are also major vandal magnets) David.Monniaux 19:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I remember finding it interesting. CanadianCaesar 19:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As do I. Hosterweis (talk)

• Keep This is a useful page and fits well into the internet phenomenon category.--68.51.153.135 02:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(contribs) 00:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote discounted by closing admin (ip vote) Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup; there are more important issues than a single (useful) list. --Merovingian 16:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and do something with it... merge or protect or whatever. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable goatse. Klonimus 01:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Fuck morality, fuck notability, and fuck cleanup. --Phroziac

• Keep - This page taugh me a lot about some of these pages, alternate aliases, how to prevent some issues, and how to identify any that I've been tricked into seeing. Eclipsed Moon 20:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This page categorizes a particular type of website that however profane must be documented. The purpose of Wikipedia is to compile knowledge, censorship hinders this. Kip 04:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote discounted by closing admin (only a handful of edits) Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

_. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 20:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Geogre. This is not a censorship issue; I have no problem with the nature of the content, but the list is inherently POV (there is no accepted definition of "shock site") and inherently incomplete. MCB 05:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, or Merge notable listings into shock site. I have found this list rather useful and educational, although it is incomplete. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 13:08, 29 November 2005 (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.