Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shock site (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 was keep. Krimpet (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shock site

Shock site (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I know that wikipedia is NOT censored. Please don't take this as an attack on shock sites themselves. I'm merely talking about wikipedia's article on shock sites. This article has not gotten anywhere in the way of reliable sources since its previous AfD and VfD. Andjam 23:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep it's a relevant term and it can't be too difficult to acquire sources. JuJube 23:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think I understand the rationale for deletion, but it's not sufficient. This term is a known entity and deserves its page within the pantheon of human knowledge. YechielMan 23:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, per JuJube and YechielMan, who both make persuasive arguments on this discussion. Good work, my friends! :) --164.107.223.217 00:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Close until the article is unprotected. While protected, the AfD notice cannot be placed, nor can the nominator's concerns be addressed if possible. Maxamegalon2000 05:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: the article is now only semi-protected, b/c of the AfD. Mangojuicetalk 19:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as much of a pain in the ass as this article can be given the fact that it draws quite a few editors who want to spam their own favorite unattributed shock site into the article, it is a real concept and I think it has been fairly well established that at least some of the entries can be sourced. It is making headway... but if there was any site that should be exempted from WP:3RR when it comes to aggressively expunging non-notable additions like "Meatspin" and "Hai2u"... this is it. Still that isn't a reason to delete.--Isotope23 01:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per JuJube and Isotope23. This article had actually warned me about those disturbing things, especially when I came across that image of a man opening his anus. Maybe tag it with {{Unreferenced}}, or something similar. --AAA! (AAAA) 01:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - well referenced, encyclopedic topic. I see no problem here, --Haemo 01:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The citations are not of reliable sources. Andjam 02:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Yes lets all stick our heads in the sand. — MichaelLinnear 01:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, Wikipedia is not censored for articles about unprofessional and immature things, shock sites are en extremely important part of the internet, so enough of the pointless afds. If the article sucks, clean it up. It's not too hard. Milto LOL pia 02:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I know that wikipedia is not censored. I mentioned that in the nomitation for deletion. Andjam 02:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Then the only issue is sourcing, good. And that can be fixed. I'll bet you two dollars I can have this article at an acceptable level before this AFD closes, barring I don't commit suicide after finals week. Milto LOL pia 02:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you're all taking the problems with the article a little lightly. I've looked for sources on this a LOT in the last year plus when I've been watching the article. Reliable sources on shock sites just don't exist. Even the use of the term "shock site" barely ever appears in anything remotely reliable. The OR tag has been on this article since October '06, but the top part of the text (which is really the only meat of the article) has been in that state for much longer than that. This is a notable phenomenon, I think... but notability does not imply inclusion without good sourcing, and the article has been like this for a long, long time without improvement. Mangojuicetalk 03:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • There are reliable sources out there, they're just not taken seriously by Wikipedians, who unfortunately don't realize that something doesn't have to be serious to be right. I wonder if I could find any dried up old mothers complaining about these sites, do you think those would be good sources for their existence? Milto LOL pia 03:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • See Wikipedia:Neologisms, that'll give you an idea of the kind of sourcing we need; we need much more than someone confirming that these things exist. But no, I really don't think that a blog or personal web site (even of someone unlikely to lie) can be thought of as "reliable", even if we're trying to stretch. Many, many independent ones, sure, but then you're doing ambiguous original research. Mangojuicetalk 11:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It's mainly a list of "examples" that have no reliable sources calling them "shock sites". Without these sources, wikipedia could be called a "shock site" depending on the random definition of the day. This is more of a definition than and encylcopedia article. calling something a "shock site" is like calling something "gay". It's highly subjective, has no reliable sources and is potentially pejorative. Delete as unsalvagebale, unreferenced work that is non-encyclopedic. Send it to Wiktionary as a definition and let them deal with it. --Tbeatty 08:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep An article about shock sites, their history, the censorship they face and how they circumvent it has clearly it’s place on Wikipedia. However I feel like only the first part of the current version is relevant (before the ToC), it should not be a mere list of example (and because of SPAM problems, I think example shouldn’t include a link). Elimerl 09:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Notice: I think I haven’t the required number of edit in order to be able to vote
  • Delete I changed my mind after reading Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Let’s wait more before having such an article. Elimerl 19:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Tbeatty and others. None of the support arguments are particularly convincing - the article currently lacks reliable sources, violating a couple of rather important "Double-yew-pee-colon" thingos. "It may have sources!" isn't convincing — someone needs to turn up with the goods (after a long time of sourcing stagnation, as Mangojuice says above), as it doesn't cut it at the moment-K@ngiemeep! 14:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless someone can turn up some reliable sources. I think if they were out there, Mangojuice would have found them by now, he's worked pretty hard in researching this topic. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs a bit of expansion but not deletion --UNKNOWNFILE 20:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'd also like you to see this section, where this page has been cited on an external website, saying "Lazy Guide to Net Culture: NSFW" (Scotsman.com, Internet, June 9, 2004) "There are many such unpleasant places on the web and you can find comprehensive details of them on the online encyclopaedia Wikipedia." This is another reason why I vote keep, because deleting it could ruin other articles. --AAA! (AAAA) 23:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, that's a red flag that this article (or rather, a long-gone past version of it) was the most reliable source on the subject at the time. Mangojuicetalk 23:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Here is the version of the Shock site article on the date the Scotsman article was published: [1]. Surely we should not be going back to that. Mangojuicetalk 23:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, that was in 2004, which was about 3 years ago. I'm sure there would be more sources now than there was before. --AAA! (AAAA) 00:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Find them. I've looked as hard as I can. Have you? Mangojuicetalk 15:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per AAA! --Efitu (Tlk Unc) 12:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per 164.107.223.217. Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 15:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No reliable sources. SakotGrimshine 17:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Sites that aim to shock exist. Shock site is as good a description of the phenomena as any other. Concern that the article title may be a neologism are misplaced. Suggest a better title for the article? --Shoka 21:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I think "shock site" is the best recognized title for this phenomenon, moving it somewhere else would be using a term even less well established. Mangojuicetalk 13:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, "goatse" turns up 10 google news hits, indicating this is a topic of coverage. The term shows up in wired news, identifying Stile Project as one, and even in a court decision, over a shock site that had its domain pulled. The article needs to be refined to material that can be cited to sources, but the basic term and concept are not original. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Noteworthy and I'm pretty sure everyone have witnessed or heard of a shock site. -ScotchMB 02:30, 4 May 2007 (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.