| Revision as of 23:33, 29 April 2007 editShalom Yechiel (talk | contribs)26,380 edits →[]: keep← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:14, 30 April 2007 edit undo164.107.223.217 (talk) →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| *'''Keep''' it's a relevant term and it can't be too difficult to acquire sources. ] 23:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' it's a relevant term and it can't be too difficult to acquire sources. ] 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. ] 23:33, 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. ] 23:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''', per ] and ], who both make persuasive arguments on this discussion. Good work, my friends! :) --] 00:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:14, 30 April 2007
Shock site
I know that[REDACTED] 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)