Deletion of Shock site (2nd nomination)

Comment: this is regularly pruned of |vanispamcruftisement and there are sources for these being described as shock sites
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:VSCA)

Comment: While I understand the nominator's point of view, |Wikipedia is not censored. I wouldn't be upset if there were more content dealing with the concept of shock sites and less simply detailing examples, however
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: I agree, Wikipedia should not be not |censored
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: going through the critera for deletion, especially the core policies ,  and, I fail to see how this page meets any of them. The subject matter is offensive, but that isn't a reason for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:V||WP:NPOV)

Comment: Okay, I gave two sets of arguments above, but I'm rather surprised how easily everyone seems to be willing to dismiss our longstanding |no original research policy in favor of weak arguments like "Wikipedia is not censored."  Yes, Wikipedia is not censored, but that doesn't mean that offensive things should be kept regardless of other policies, just because they're offensive.  I want to endorse this side of the argument, because I want to see some discussion of this issue, not just blanket endorsements of Wikipedia not being censored, which is all we've had so far
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)