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. (non-admin closure) →TSU ^tp* 06:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bestgore.com[edit]

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

Although the page title is Bestgore.com, It needs to be decided whether the article is about the store or its named owner who falls under WP:BLP. In either case, the guidelines at WP:1E and WP:N(E) should be taken into consideration when voting. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am the creator of the article. The bestgore.com website and the owner Mark Marek are notable, please see the citations. A general google search provides the following: Google search: "bestgore.com" About 137,000 results (0.18 seconds) It is public knowledge and the citations support that the website Bestgore.com is under criminal investigation by the Montreal Police. There are several similar shock sites in Wikipedia: Ogrish.com, Rotten.com, Stile Project. The article was just created today, it is a +stub and has the potential to expand over time. JunoBeach (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm trying to find sources now and there's enough evidence to make me think that this site is notable outside of the now infamous Luka Magnotta video. To be honest, I don't really think that the owner is notable outside of the website. Most of what I'm seeing in the article mentions him within the scope of the website, although if I find enough to show that the owner has individual notability I might change that opinion. In any case, the Magnotta video has brought the website into the public eye and now there's articles that are focusing on the website itself. It's not as focused on as the murder for obvious reasons, but there's enough to suggest that it has notability. Anywho, I also wanted to state that the presence of other shock site articles on Wikipedia does not mean that an article on Best Gore should be kept if it doesn't meet notability guidelines. It just means that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there seems to be an awful lot of reliable news coverage about the recent controversy and, while a lot consists of brief mentions of the website, there may be just about enough to scrape together a meaningful article. However, the current article reads like it is trying to redress a legal argument. It needs to provide more basic description and history of the website but, if this can't be done using reliable secondary sources I'll probably change my 'vote' to 'delete'. Sionk (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The site is sufficiently notable for its identification of Luka Magnotta alone, and for the obscenity prosecution alone; there is at least twice as much notability as needed per WP:GNG. The person maintaining the site might be a WP:BLP1E (I haven't looked into it); in any case it's clear that BLP will favor speaking about what was done on the site, the more directly verifiable data, rather than taking everything the extra step to the more specialized topic of considering one person's role in running the site. Wnt (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Just about enough sourcing for a standalone article, but the current version of the article is more about the Luka Magnotta controversy than the site itself. Needs greater breadth and depth, eg in what year was the site founded?.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Owner was interviewed and quoted at a notable news source. [1] His official site list three news interviews he did. [2] Dream Focus 11:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it can/will be expanded to include more than just the icepick-related stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Notability can be established as long as the article is changed from being just a one event thing. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 14:15, 15 June 2012 (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.