Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shock site (4th 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 was keep. Deor (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shock site

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP is not censored, but this article seems to be little more than a list of these kinds of web sites with all, but one of the examples having its own article. There is also a category that covers the same topic. Even after some minor cleanup, I have a hard time understanding the encyclopedic value of this article. SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - More than enough coverage in reliable secondary sources to satisfy notability, but it sounds like the nomination is based on this article being too much like a list, which is not a reason for deletion but may be cause to rename it (I don't agree, but that would be the more appropriate course of action). Per WP:NOTDUP categories don't make lists/articles unnecessary. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Shock site as a concept is a topic worthy of coverage at our encyclopedia, and the available sources can substantiate. The list concern can be dealt with through the regular editing process. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think many are confusing the coverage of the examples rather than the subject itself. It appears that few care about the phenomenon except when something pervasive comes to light. The sources substantiate the examples, but not the topic itself. Even then, many of the sources are tacit at best. If we ran many of them through the Reliable Source Noticeboard, I doubt many would pass scrutiny. --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article could certainly do with some better sources, but Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL shows that there are indeed plenty of books and scholarly academic journal articles to utilize. Also helpful searches at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 03:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt, would you mind posting links to a few of books and scholarly sources you referring to? 3 of the first 4 books I looked at are sourced from Wikipedia. Many of the rest are forums, blogs, and definitely not Reliable Sources. --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Explicit by Helen Hester, Anonymity as Culture by David Auerbach, and "'Fandom is full of pearl clutching old ladies': Nonnies in the online slash closet" in the International Journal of Cultural Studies by Joseph Brennan http://ics.sagepub.com/content/17/4/363.short. Those are a few specific ones, among the multiple results. — Cirt (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Shock sites are a quite notable aspect of internet culture. There are a few stories on Google News right now, including this one from The Washington Post. Also, from a Google Scholar search, I found this academic study. There are many more where that came from. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this subject is as notable as so many claim and there are sufficient sources, why is it not better developed and sourced? After 2 previous deletion requests, why has no one championed this article? --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good question. Maybe people don't want their usernames associated with things like "goatse"? Don't know. Ultimately, however, if we're talking about notability, sources are the only thing that matters -- not what sources are presently cited in the article. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can't make people edit articles that don't interest them. Maybe I can find some sources to add. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Rhododendrites and NinjaRobotPirate, those are excellent points. So it would appear that we have an article that "addresses a need that no one has expressed or is actually interested in". Perhaps WP:USERFYing this article or actually deleting it until there is enough interest to bring it up in quality would be good for it. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Scalhotrod: My point is that Ultimately, however, if we're talking about notability, sources are the only thing that matters -- not what sources are presently cited in the article. Hence, whether someone has improved the article and whether editors have taken it upon themselves to work on it are completely irrelevant to this discussion and not a valid argument for deletion alone. I think Wikipedia history has shown editors' priorities don't always line up with what's actually important, so while it's good to mobilize editors to work on certain things, what editors are interested in is not used to gauge what should exist here. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I get that, but it doesn't address the the problem that this article is of poor quality, few seem to care, and no one is stepping up to improve it. And if this article falls under the purview of the Porn Project, I'm the only member that has commented. What does that tell you? Is anyone commenting a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet culture for that matter? --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the bunch of reliable sources with in-depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - A notable part of internet... "culture". Denying its existence isn't doing anyone any good. 74.248.59.178 (talk)~ — Preceding undated comment added 21:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A request for Admin review has been made, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FShock_site_.283rd_nomination.29. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:33, 6 November 2014 (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.