[WikiEN-l] It now only takes a simple majority to delete

[Tony Sidaway]

On 1/25/06, SPUI <drspui at 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.