Deletion of List of shock sites (fourth nomination)

Comment: While I am willing to |assume good faith in the nomination, I think that these issues have been discussed and settled several times in the past, including a very recent AfD, and that nothing new has really been brought up. (I'm also somewhat uncomfortable with the nominator "cherry-picking" some votes from the previous AfD as examples.) As a substantive matter, I believe the content to have encyclopedic value in showing examples of a notable Internet phenomenon that is followed by a large audience. As with any article, specific items of content that are inappropriate can (and will be) removed, and/or replaced by better content. I think this should be speedily closed as '''keep''' and further time, energy, and emotion be spared the participants in AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: Is it the fact that he plays the piano, or that he plays computer games such as Rise of Nations which gives him away? Lets not sling mud here, and more so, lets not sling mud on the basis of stereotypes.  and  and all that
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:NPA)

Comment: But clean-up as per George. The argument about this page being specifically prohibited by , it '''specifically''' says '''inappropriate''' links to shock sites. I can't see anywhere else where they would be more appropriate. Also, the interpretation of the voting is highly biased. There were plenty of votes for deletion that were primarily selfish (e.g. "This site is disgusting; there is enough crap on the web and wikipedia is meant to break away from that.") and plenty of selfless keep votes. This article is '''not''' an advertisment, if anything it deters people from visiting these sites. For every troll that uses this page as a reference there are about 50 innocent users who now avoid visiting any of these sites. There is also fact that every time this article is nominated for deletion the number of keep votes heavily outnumber those for delete. As for none of these sites meriting an article, Goatse.cx, Last Measure and HAI2U all already have their own articles. So in conclusion I think that this article should be kept, but cleaned up.  —The preceding Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned comment was added by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Yet another unmanagable inherently POV list.  #Wikipedia is not a random collection of information
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per .  The few sites on the that are either notable or best illsutrate the genre shoulde be covered at shock site.  The list itself needs to go
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: last AfD closed 6 days after this one began.  3 clear consensus AfD's in the past to keep article.  The reference to shock site links in  is taken completely out of context.  I don't know Conrad at all, but given this and the opening commentary, I really question the good faith of this nomination
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:RULES)

Comment: per being an explicit example in 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: The coverage of shock sites is not what is objectionable, it's the notability of such sites being listed here. There is no problem with having an article on shock sites in general, or certain well-known shock sites getting articles. However, what is not needed is a list containing every random shock site people can think of and throw up onto a list. Also, #Wikipedia_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_repository_of_links.2C_images.2C_or_media_files|Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links or Internet directories
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Oh man, I'd nearly forgotten about this article. I'd like to think our seriousness about  has improved beyond this level. There is exactly one item in this entire list that makes even an attempt at verification, and that's the main article of Goatse.cx, which has exactly http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=759&id=651492004 one |reliable source, and it's already linked from Shock site. I will understand if List of shock sites is kept on pure inertia, but I will then remove the unverifiable items from it, one by one, until there is just the one item left, and it can be merged to Shock site and this whole mess forgotten for good
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: Whether or not they're "shocking" (an opinion) is not the point. The links to the articles have discriptions next to them describing their content, but most make no attempt at |verification, and therefore there is no way of determining their accuracy
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)