On 1/25/06, SPUI <drspui(a)gmail.com> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VFU#R.40ygold_etc. -
these articles were
speedy deleted with the reason "Delete as gives info useful to child
pornographers". Thanks to VFU being intended as an appeals court, meant
to deal with process, only a majority is needed to keep deleted. Goodbye.
I saw these on Deletion Review (or Votes for Undeletion as it used to
be known). If you have citations to verify *any* of these terms
(criminal case reports, court transcripts, newspaper or magazine
articles, etc) I will happily undelete the relevant articles with a
view to discussing possible keep or perhaps merging to other
appropriate articles.
For now I see that ther terms were not verified in the text of the
original articles (sample below) and so much for the same reason that
I say "fuck process" whenever I see Deletion Review obstructing
undeletion of a potentially good article, here I say "fuck process"
because Wikipedia is better off without unverifiable articles. I can
certainly verify that the keywords named in the articles show up a
remarkable amount of "lolita" come-ons, but this isn't really enough
for an article.
Sample of one of the deleted articles:
"Hussyfan" is a keyword commonly used to search for or identify child
pornography on file sharing networks.
The keyword has become sufficiently well-known that it is rarely used
to identify actual child porn; most files with the keyword show legal
but young looking performers in an attempt to attract individuals
looking for child porn.
The Kazaa file-sharing software does not allow searches for the
keyword, but it is allowed by eDonkey/eMule, Shareaza, Limewire,
Bearshare, and WinMX.