Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child pornography search terms

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 of the debate was Delete with a recommendation to point the redirects at the Child pornography article. Thryduulf 13:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Child pornography search terms

Aside from the moral implications of an article like this, a list of search terms is not encyclopedic. goatasaur 23:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. This is not and has never been a list of search terms. I have added some sources for many of the claims. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Question. If it's not a list of search terms, then why does the title say that it is? I'm not going to read the article for obvious reasons. I don't think my filter will allow me to anyway. Logophile 10:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Wikipedia is not censored so "moral implications" shouldn't be a factor. Anyway, SPUI makes a point that this is not a list of search terms. Cyde Weys 23:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Then put it in the child pornography article, with links to external sites. This doesn't deserve its own article. -- goatasaur 23:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article: Merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article and redirect. You apparently want this merged; why did you list it for deletion? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  I wasn't aware there was a policy for this specific issue. I am fine with the sources being put into the relevant article. -- goatasaur 23:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. This appears to really be a way of writing a page about the word r@ygold, from which it is redirected. Can someone establish the notability of this term, and why it doesn't have its own article? Otherwise, the article has little to say. bikeable (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  The cabal took the first shot. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Ok, sounds like WP:POINT to me. No doubt I will be accused of being a member of some cabal, but Delete. bikeable (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'm sure this page is being disruptive. You're not part of the cabal; you just don't think about what you say. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Please see WP:NPA. I understand that as the creator of the article you want to see it stay, but be civil. -- goatasaur 23:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Um... I was not the creator. I also did not make a personal attack, any more than "you are violating WP:POINT" is one. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  My mistake, you are a major contributor to the article. POINT is not policy, NPA is. My apologies also for misunderstanding what you were saying re: NPA etc. -- goatasaur 23:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Good work finding references, I wasn't having much luck (and I'm not sure I want my computer filled up with records of me googling "r@ygold"). // paroxysm (n) 23:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge into child pornography. I see nothing worthy of an independent article here. --Golbez 23:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic and linked to only by redirect pages.--ThreeAnswers 23:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that tends to happen with new articles. It takes times for things to become integrated into the web. And anyway, I wasn't aware "not linked to ... yet" was a deletion criteria. --Cyde Weys 05:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per ThreeAnswers abakharev 23:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• This can easily be unorphaned (as I've just done), and, anyway, that isn't even a valid reason to contest for deletion. Also, here's an example of one of the old articles being used (and not by "child pornographers"): http://www.loveshack.org/forums/t72936/ // paroxysm (n) 00:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • So if it's used by child pornographers and some other people that's fine is it then? Would this still apply if one of the child pornographers was abusing a child you know? Golfcam 04:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That is some obscene rhetoric from you. So basically you think this article should be censored because you think it causes child pornography? Do you have any proof of that? I like how you use the old standby argument, "think of the children", except your twist is that it's a child I know. I'm sorry, I don't find your arguments convincing. Wikipedia is not censored, period. --Cyde Weys 05:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge per User:Golbez, not notable enough for its own article. --BadSeed 00:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge per User:Golbez. --Andy 00:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to a straight merge per Tony Sidaway. --Andy Saunders 04:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • After viewing diff, I feel that I need to change my vote to strong delete. --Andy Saunders 06:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, DUH. Radiant_>|< 01:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete more than any other article ever added to wikipedia Just because Wikipedia's not set up for kids, that doesn't make facilitating serious crime for no good reason right. Golfcam 04:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • How in the hell does this facilitate serious crime?! That's a very strong accusation and I'd need to see some, even any evidence, that this isn't something you're just making up. --Cyde Weys 05:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Just having child pornography in your home (including on your computer) is illegal in most countries. You don't even have to watch it. This article, as per its title, is good for only one thing: finding child pornography. If it does what it says it does, this is illegal content since its ONLY use is leading people where they are not allowed to go. One consequence of having this article (unlike an article e.g. *describing* child pornography) will be that in Europe (where ISPs are/will be required to log and archive all Internet traffic that passes through their network) law enforcement officers will be able to access IP numbers and personal details of anyone visiting this specific article. And Wikipedia will have to report all the IP numbers visiting that page on first (official/legal) request in the US. Also, it's just a matter of time until this reaches the media and creates another media debacle. (I am not discounting the possibility that the article does NOT do what it says, in which case it would be completely useless.) AvB ÷ talk 10:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Well done whoever found the references for r@ygold. This makes the subject encyclopedic. I would't object to a merge with Child pornography. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The Child pornography article already gives several search terms. It is the stand-alone list I'm objecting to. Just enter "child pornography" "search terms" in Google and see what you get. AvB ÷ talk 18:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge as per Golbez. --*drew 05:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Tony Sidaway and others. "facilitating serious crime"?!? Should we remove all articles about safecracking as well? You give WP way too much credit. Turnstep 06:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic. Stifle 09:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Its only use is illegal in most countries (unless you're a law enforcement officer or so). If it's easy to see why possible/probable libel has to be removed from WP bios, it's exceedingly easy to see why helping people find definitely illegal child pornography (in most countries meaning photos and videos of children engaging in sexual acts) is illegal in itself and has to be removed from Wikipedia. The point is that the ONLY use is illegal, unlike, for example, information about how to build weapons. AvB ÷ talk 09:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This is not something to vote about. Speedy delete per current practice re possible libel, WP:NOR, etc. AvB ÷ talk 09:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopaedic information. David | Talk 10:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not libel as no individual or identifiable group of individuals is named. Saying that some people are intersted in child-porn and try to find it online, and here is how they sometimes look is not an accusation of anyone, and so not libel. It is not OR, as sources are cited. In fact there is no good reasson to delete this. DES ^(talk) 16:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying it is libel. I am saying it is *worse* than libel, in legal terms, as argued above. AvB ÷ talk 18:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• My instinct is merge, although I think this may be something that should be taken to a higher level and queried - Wikipedia may be the sum of all knowledge, but is this something we really should have? Proto t c 11:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If by "taking to a higher level" you mean asking Jimbo, I would expect his response to be roughly this: "We are not going to allow people to use Wikipedia for illegal purposes." (Yes, I know his views on pornography, but I also know his views on libel. What this article does is worse. I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of its editors when the shit hits the fan. AvB ÷ talk 12:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a feeling that when Jimbo or anyone else potentially cuplable for this kind of info sees this, it will be deleted, blocked from recreation, and the people responsible may want to hide. Proto t c 12:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep There is absolutely no legal liability is discussing how people do or do not search for illegal or possibly illegal content online. Any law attemptign to make this a crime in the US would be clearly unconstitutional. I frankly doubt that this is of serious help to peopole activly looking for such content, while it may be of some help to people trying to understand the child-porn sub-culture. It may be that it should be merged, if a sutable target is suggested, it should NOT IMO be deleted. DES ^(talk) 16:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you are referring to the Child pornography article. This is, however, about the Child pornography search terms article whose only conceivable use is to lead people to child pornography (and the police to those who have looked for it, and possibly found it). AvB ÷ talk 18:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No I am refering quite specifically to this article. A discussion of how people look for and find child porn is not illegal, nor for that matter is simply posting "Find lots of good kiddy-porn by using search term XXX". It does have other uses, for one thing file sharing networks can use such info to design filters, if they so choose. Whether it is encyclopedic and notable enough for a spearate article might reasoanbly be debated, and I wouldn't oppose a merge into Child pornography or some other suitable article, but if this is verifiable I see no reason not to keep it soemwhere. DES ^(talk) 18:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — inconsequential trivia; non-notable. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Thanks. :) — RJH 16:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge (probably with Child pornography). I, for one, did not know such search terms exist. Obviously, WP can't reasonably maintain an exhaustive (or even, I believe, representative) list, but mentioning their presence (and perhaps one or two of the most well-known) on the Child pornography page is definitely called for. Powers 16:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge per DESiegel. Useful information for a niche audience. Most of the arguments for deleting it are redundant with our disclaimers. There is no way that hosting this information could be construed as illegal. We have a list of street names of drugs, and this list is functionally analogous to it. We aren't liable for how any of it is used, and drawing a conclusion otherwise would set an unfortunate precedent. Come on, people. When did child pornography cease being "contraband material" and become upgraded to "shit we're afraid to talk about". — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:02, Jan. 26, 2006
  • Delete voters want the Child pornography search terms article deleted. You are incorrectly implying that they are commenting on the Child pornography article. Insofar as you may be commenting on something I wrote, please note that I am arguing legal points, not moral ones. I am not afraid of discussing the phenomenon. I am not even saying it is wrong. I'm only warning that the only use of the Child pornography search terms article is an illegal one. AvB ÷ talk 18:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I would have to disagree that the only use of the article is illegal. A person who suspects another of indulging in child pornography could use the article to know what keywords to look for as a way of verifying interest. Powers 18:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm aware that the list could, and probably will, be used illegally, which isn't our problem. It could also be argued that half of our street names for drugs are only useful in buying drugs on the street, which is also quite illegal, but again, not our problem. We don't host the contraband, thus it's not a crime. We don't advocate it, thus it's not POV. We just describe it. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 19:08, Jan. 26, 2006
• Delete. Seems too trivial and webcrufty for its own article. Not encyclopedic. I guess it could be a topic of interest if it addressed stuff like, what pct. of searchengine terms are child-porn terms, how does a non-obvious term like "r@ygold" get spread around, origin of terms like that, other stuff that might be of research interest. If and when someone gets that info, the article can be re-created then. Until then, it seems too contentious to keep given the very minimal encyclopedic value it has. Herostratus 21:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, should we have a list of the search terms google.cn is blocking? These things are ephemeral, this is listcruft. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic. I have to admit I was tempted to do a knee-jerk "keep" based upon some of the slightly hysterical delete reasons presented. The ironic bit about the idea that this article will facilitate looking for child porn is that by virtue of them being well-known, the terms become useless. - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review#R.40ygold_etc. --JWSchmidt 01:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

How is this "internet slang" -- it's verifiable and encyclopedic. --Andy Saunders 02:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge anything useful (i.e. anything which might help lawyers or sociologists, and anything which is relevant to the internet pheonomenon), leave a redirect, but Delete the article because it's not very encyclopedic. I emphatically oppose deletion on the grounds of censorship, howeve, and like brenneman I was tempted to vote Keep for that very reason. --kingboyk 03:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - just look what redirects here: as I understand this is a list of search keywords for child pornography suites. One of them St Petersburg2 (before it was deleted and later ressurrected as a redirect) had a complete list of file sharing services there the word is not blocked. It was as good as providing the exact address for download the files. If the kewords would be added as redirects to the article, they would not help sociologists etc., but would certainly be a resourse for the users of Child Pornography abakharev 03:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Ask yourselves where the knowledge/information in this article together with the list displayed under what links here came from and how it was verified. It's wrong, or it's derived from criminal behavior. If it's wrong, delete it. If it's right, prepare for a visit from the police. AvB ÷ talk 04:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The last one, but it's IMPORTANT. I made a mistake. I came here from a deletion review page for a list of terms that redirect here and are, therefore, listed under what links here. Somehow I didn't realize that most of those voting here are not aware of the redirects and the automatically generated list. The redirecting articles themselves are harmless (you can only find the terms if you know them already). The article per se is not a problem either. It's the combination that's problematic. OK, I've done my best - now it's up to y'all... AvB ÷ talk 04:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  1. Guy googles for adult porn on Limewire, gets long strings of "ebony teen rape r@ygold pthc etc."
  2. Guy is curious what the enigmatic "r@ygold" means and why it's in so many titles.
  3. Guy comes to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and is enlightened.

  The redirects are useful. // paroxysm (n) 16:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Zen611 04:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete or merge anything useful; this is a needless subarticle of ephemera. I don't think we're "promoting" kiddie porn by having the information, but by having a separate article, we're setting ourselves up for a PR nightmare. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and delete into Child pornography, hardly an encyclopedic topic. Ashibaka tock 17:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Too ephemeral to be encyclopedic. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 17:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Anything with this many people saying that it's going to inform people about bad things must be informative. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Child pornography, also re-redirect the said terms.--Ghazer 00:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - ephemeral listcruft. What happens in a month when none of these terms are used, and some other set of weird terms are used? Do we just keep adding anything anyone's ever tried to find child porn with? FCYTravis 00:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • These are hardly ephemeral, some of these terms (like r@ygold) were used for years until the FBI started investigating and handing out warrants and subpoenas. Hardly non-notable! The article is about child porn keywords, not generalized search terms. Maybe it should be renamed to better reflect that. --Cyde Weys 01:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

*Keep or Merge per DESiegel. Very interesting information that I think would be a shame to delete. Could prove to be useful too. Changing vote to Delete or Merge. While I think it is a good idea to merge with a relevant article, I no longer feel it would make a suitable stand alone article. --Jelligraze 06:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge not a stand alone article --Addie 15:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge the list of references is impressive and interesting. As per other users I think the entry could be encyclopedic if it gave more background on the term and how it was created, possible origins, usages, etc. However, I think that a list of internet search terms for child pornography with no backing information is not a stand alone article. Hdstubbs 18:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, informative and referenced. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

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.