Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shock sites (0th nomination)

List of shock sites was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was CONSENSUS NOT REACHED

10:23, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC) A quick count performed by siroχo. I did not count anything marked as a sockpuppet or left without a wikisig.

Delete: 17, Keep 17, "Keep and/or Merge": 4, Keep, remove Ext links: 2 or 3

---

• DELETE The article on Shock sites in 'information', but the list of shock sites is definitely not! Its advertisement... Is must go!!! Prashmail 19:19, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that this material is highly offensive to no real purpose, this is nothing but a web index and advertisement. Delete and certainly DO NOT redirect to the main site listed at top. Indrian 06:44, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

• Neutral This content was previously on shock site. I moved it here so that readers of shock site could read about shock sites without having to read about the gory details of individual sites. I just want to note that the content previously existed with only mild protest on shock site, and if this page is deleted, some or all of the content may be restored to that page by those who have an interest in proliferating the details of these sites. I personally would rather these sites didn't have as much publicity as they do on Wikipedia, but I don't see that it's within the bounds of our policies to exclude the information. Further, I fear that this listing on VFD is going to lead to another long and acrimonous debate about coping with trolls on Wikipedia. Nohat 06:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I think we do have a right to delete it and make it stay dead because wikipedia is not just a repository of links or web addresses. This page is nothing more than advertising. If it were moved back to the other page, it would also be advertising. Shock sites are a viable phenomenon and deserve to be noted, even perhaps with a few "gory details," no matter how heinous and disgusing they are, but wikipedia should not be a directroy for these sites. As to your second point, does this mean you oppose moving against questionable content simply because a long debate might result? Indrian 06:55, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • I sort of agree, Indrian, but on the other hand, Wikipedia is a directory of metro stations in Hong Kong, has a huge list of the candidates in Alberta's local election for this year, and lists "ethnic groups", "self-confessed paedophiles" and what have you. I don't think personal disapproval of the contents of a page should necessarily guide one's judgement. I think this page should be deleted but the commentary on the various sites, although of relatively little value, could be folded into the main article. It's then a question of its being edited into something that represents its interest to the wider world rather than just to young men who have too much time on their hands.Dr Zen 07:05, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • In that case, just edit the page. Delete the vast majority of the "advertising" and retain just the "important" shock sites and description of each. There's no need to delete the whole page. Nohat 06:58, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • That still leaves us with the same problem. Whether it serves as a comprehensive web directory or a limited web directory it is still a web directory. It is enough in my view to describe what a shock site is. I am sure there are plenty of other resources out there for people who are interested in finding one. Indrian 07:02, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • The reality is that Shock site was listed for deletion in May and it failed. It is likely that this go-round will also fail. You are welcome to advocate deleting it, but you are unlikely to find consensus. In fact, it is likely that the result of this listing will be a re-merge back into shock site, a situation that I think we would both agree is worse than having this information in a separate page. Nohat 07:06, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • If I felt that the parent page should be deleted I would have already marked it. As a stated above, the main site has value as recognizing an internet phenomonon; this site is just a list of sites with descriptions. I think your purpose in separating this content from the main site was a noble one; I just think that the information contained on this site should not be on wikipedia at all, and not just because of personal distaste. I honestly feel I am correctly interpreting the policy here; it was probably a mistake to mention personal distaste at all, since it seems some people (not you, Nohat) seem unable to read beyond my first clause). Indrian 14:32, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
      • Well the only reason that shock site failed vfd the first time was cause it actually had some actual encyclopeadic content. Now all the shit not worthy of being on wikipedia has been moved to this page, which should be deleted as it is only a collection of links. Even if wikipedia was a web directory (which it isn't) we wouldn't want shock sites as one of the list, as wiki is an encyclopedia and shock sites shock some viewers. Iamalegend 07:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• DELETE Please. Uggh! If encyclopedias were like these, they'ed be used for toilet paper! --Jondel 06:54, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. What Jondel said. Ambi 07:04, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. If the parent article "shock site" was found to be acceptable, this is too. crazyeddie 07:39, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Reluctantly, delete. This really is not encyclopaedic. Sjc 07:44, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. A summary of a fairly significant bit of Internet folk culture. Hardwick 08:35, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Note: User has 4 edits, some of them on VfD --Improv 17:29, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: personal disapproval of the content is not grounds for deletion. Shane King 09:14, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • If you had actually bothered to read my arguements past the very first clause, you would note that personal distaste is not my reason for submitting this. For example, I am a huge baseball fan, but I would quickly mark a page that did nothing but list and describe baseball-related sites if I discovered it on the same grounds of being nothing but a web directory. Indrian 14:32, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It's part of internet culture, it's quite obvious from the article the links can and will cause offense, and you're not made to click them, so the article itself isn't really offensive. A quick check on this list might be helpful before you go chatting on DALnet, to help you avoid the moosters that post links to these sites. Darksun 09:15, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep but remove all the non notable shock sites. I'd say that there is enough people (including me) who link to these "sites", but we don't need a gory index of all of them. Famous ones like goatse.cx should stay, but stuff like "rate my poo" should go. Norman Rogers 09:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopedic. I realize that the Shock site page is better with this List removed--and likely those with interest will reinsert this list back into Shock site. This list is still non-encyclopedic whether it is a separate page or appended to Shock site. ---Rednblu | Talk 11:47, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Advertising. It's an ad and a list of links. That is one of the things that Wikipedia Is Not. No consideration of the nature of the content needs to be made. Geogre 12:36, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Its not a list of links, please read or scan the article to see. —siroχo 00:05, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire -- Censorship of unpopular speech is the first step toward censorship of any speech. What happens when your view is no longer popular? Will you allow others to "Delete" it without a fight?
  • Delete. Not a web directory. Dude, remember that there's a difference being allowed to say things, and being allowed to, say, put posters advertising your saying the things all over your neighbor's house. Also, unsigned votes are not counted. --Improv 17:25, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

'Keep' don't make the links live, keep the descriptions of the shock site. This is an important cultural formation, possibly one of the first practical jokes on the world wide web.

• Keep. Valid information and encyclopedic, even if distasteful. And no need to make the links dead--people will know what they're getting into, as the only thing that links there is shock site itself. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:45, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Irrespective of the content of the sites, it's a web directory. If it were a list of sites about dog breeding or the American Constitution, there'd be no argument, it would be deleted. — Bill 15:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Its not a web directory, its an encyclopedic description of several prominent shock sites. —siroχo 00:05, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. As others have said, wikipedia is not a web directory. Perhaps some of the information could be merged back to the shock sites page, if it's not there already. A list of links, alive or dead, are not an encyclopedia article. Pages like this open wikipedia up to being a host for advertisers. -R. fiend
  • The nominated page is not a web directory, please read or at least scan it to see. —siroχo 00:05, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete please! We're not a web directory. JFW | T@lk 19:19, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • The nominated page is not a web directory, please read or at least scan it to see. —siroχo 00:05, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting list. Intrigue 19:33, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a web directory. Notable shock sites already have their own article, so no salvage needed. -Vina 19:34, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a web directory. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:37, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • The nominated page is not a web directory, please read or at least scan it to see. —siroχo 00:05, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. If you don't like looking at a list of shocksites then DON'T search for them. It is a very interesting article. --ShaunMacPherson 20:51, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - agree with Geogre, Wile E. and most of the other deletion votes - this is a webdirectory/list; unencyclopedic. Ian Pugh 22:12, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - not encyclopaedic, web-directory etc. --Lospalmas7 23:04, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete This list is really unneeded. The information page describes them. If you're so messed up that you know what a shcok site is, and you still want to see them, then you can go find them yourselves. --Phoenixmofo 27 Oct 2004

• Phoenixmofo has only made 3 edits all to this discussion. —siroχo 00:07, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep - not "just a list of links" - has descriptions of each. Whosyourjudas (talk) 23:51, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Very strong keep. This list is most certainly very encyclopedic. Its excellent short articles about some notable and several less notable sites. I see absolutely no reason to delete other than content, and the mere content should never be judged. I'd strongly suggest that everyone read this "list" before voting to delete it, becuase it is not just a web directory. —siroχo 00:01, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep if the "external links" section is removed. Otherwise, delete. -Sean Curtin 01:02, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
• K These sites have become notable for the fact that they were shock sites. Then there are the sick puppies (like myself :-) that actually go and click on the links deliberately. Chris 03:07, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - The question whether this list should be kept can be answered with a question: Should we create lists of XXX sites for the "Pornography" article? The existence of such extensive lists with links to this type of content makes me think there are people at Wikipedia who actually find pleasure in this material (contribution to the encyclopedia becomes just an excuse). The encyclopedia should never become a referral place for 'trolls' or disturbed individuals to find shock sites. That's what search engines are for, after all. If someone is interested in finding this type of links, it should be suggested that he/she use a search engine instead. Nevertheless, I do believe the main article should be kept, as it describes a (IMO relatively small) part of the current Internet 'culture'. --Logariasmo 06:18, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Yeah, we should have a list of major pornography sites. Just like we have lists of major newspapers and television channels. Pornography has been a driving force behind the commercial development of the Internet, so there should be many notable sites out there. — David Remahl 06:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Suggested title: List of pornographic web sites, linked from Internet pornography. Entries could for example look like this: "This site contains the largest collection of.. pioneered in online purchasing, and was the subject to legal issues in the late 90s.." Very encyclopaedic, just like List of shock sites could/should be. — David Remahl 08:47, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree completely. I objected to this list even when included in the shock sites article. It simply isn't encyclopedia information, but just an illustration of the freak-show type fascination with such sites. Laura Scudder 05:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• This list was moved from Shock site just one day ago. Would anyone want to wager a guess at how many people read that article last month? The answer is 11,868. That places it as the 27th most popular article entry in Wikipedia last month, ahead of 99.9929% of the article entries. It was loaded more times than the Village Pump! There is an obvious interest in shock sites (the 2nd and 3rd positions on the list of most popular articles are held by Goatse and Goatse.cx, amazingly. 70000 page loads, combined. They were beaten by the hurricane Ivan.). This "list" is not simply a collection of links. Geogre often makes the argument that articles in Wikipedia must be about things that people want to learn about — People want to learn about this! I bet that this list will beat out 99% of the articles in Wikipedia in popularity for November and possibly be the most popular list. Keep. — David Remahl 06:31, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep or merge back into Shock site. Definitely don't delete; this is probably the only place on the web where one can learn what is on the shock site without actually going there, and no search engine will ever provide this information. Also strong keep on the grounds of popularity. Sam Hocevar 07:46, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• What Sam said. Johnleemk | Talk 10:25, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep There is nothing offensive in the article, and it is an excellent resource for avoiding the listed sites as well as finding them. The Steve 19:34, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete this nonsense. — Dan | Talk 22:38, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Merge, and partially keep the content (e.g. Deleting Tubgirl, BAD IDEA) - And this is a link repository of sites that should be avoided... WhisperToMe 22:53, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. But they could be merged back into shock site. bbx 00:40, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Kill the huge list of external links, but keep the rest. Rho 04:30, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree completely. But there should still be links to the sites discussed. (Already voted) — David Remahl 04:34, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - blah blah blah Internet culture. Wikipedia is in a unique position to be a single repository for all sorts of internet culture, because there's simply no other site on the web which can do it better. Having strong lists like this helps out tremendously. No reason not to become a one-stop-researching-station for things like this. Lifefeed 16:33, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - Free speech is a good thing!
• Delete Please. Disgusting!
  • Unsigned votes don't count. Nohat 21:42, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Overall, this doesn't cause offense, but helps avoiding it. However, I hope some of the authors feel a responsibility to keep this article from becoming a tool for promotion of new, not yet well known shock sites. regards, High on a tree 19:32, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 12:31, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• keep! - cbraga 18:17, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - at the very least, it's a reference to know what links to avoid if you're easily offended. And some of these are important sites. -SPUI
• Keep. Valuable information. Would rather view this page at work than hear "hey everybody i'm looking at gay porno" coming out of my speakers. --Timecop 00:35, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep I agree it works well as a preventative measure against being directed to a shock site. Ich 04:23, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Merge back to Shock site - Mike Rosoft 13:55, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Very strongly. They're an interesting, if odd, component of the Internet culture. It is right to give links to them if people want to know better about them. To people who think this is not "encyclopedic", well, I think the strength of Wikipedia is also in organizing new and evolving content like the Internet culture in an encyclopedia (Imagine how valuable will such information be to the historicians of our times' culture). To people who think it's a mere "web directory", well, it isn't. Sites are chosen for their relevance and/or peculiar features, and are well reviewed. There's nothing trolling in the page. Moreover, it's helpful: I learned to avoid a bunch of links I wasn't aware (like Last Measure!). Keep. Cyclopia 01:00, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep This is about the only safe way to learn about these sites while guaranteeing you don't get bombarded with the images. It's informative, and a bizarre but very real part of the internet - Wikipedia exists to hold information on things like this - what other place can? Perhaps disable the links, or put the list in the main "shock site" listing- but the list itself is important, as it identifies and discusses these common images that have found their way into internet history.
• Keep This is a great page, it is INDISPENSABLE as a guide for newbies to the web... I would have fell for way more tricks like "hey go check out tubgirl.com" if not for this page.
• Keep (Late entry) Sadly enough, it's valuable cultural reference. And, given that you can't explain Internet culture without making reference, it's better to list them here instead of people wondering what happens when you go to the URL of one of them. Especially at work. Wirehead 00:13, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep AND Merge back to Shock Sites (Late Entry) This list, and descriptions are important. --Bestrest 14:59, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, of course. Rhobite 05:16, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. This list, unfortunately, is a very important part of Wikipedia's coverage on the subject. -- Kizor 22:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep This page is a valuable resource on the Internet. I have actually quoted in a paper I wrote. When one googles the name of a link they are sent, and this page comes up, one knows not to click. --Snafuu 04:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.