Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symbols and Logos Used by Pedophiles

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 delete. Seems like a solid delete consensus has developed after the relist, due to concerns that there is fundamentally only one source available and that this kind of topic requires particular care with regards to its sourcing due to e.g WP:CHILDPRO. A merge was considered as well, but the counterarguments based on outdatedness - which also apply to arguments that it is important for this topic to be documented - and that this content was already once on Pedophilia and Hebephilia and was later removed carry weight - plus, if this article is a verbatim copy of a primary source, one could simply recreate the content from the source if the need were to arise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols and Logos Used by Pedophiles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Sourced only to a Wikileaks page; this seems to fall afoul of WP:NOT. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A WP:BEFORE search would have revealed that it's also sourceable to the Huffington Post, the New York Times and the Daily Mirror. It's massively verifiable. For me the question is whether it belongs as a separate article or whether it would be better merged elsewhere (and if so, where). On general child protection grounds I think it would be good if Wikipedia published this information in some form.—S Marshall T/C 00:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• . Keep This is important encyclopedic information. However I can understand how pedophiles would be adverse to publication of this information.Oldperson (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - passes WP:GNG with the additional sourcing provided by S Marshall. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If kept, it should obviously be moved to Symbols and logos used by pedophiles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIR. This entry is effectively a carbon-copy of a one page FBI bulletin from over a decade ago. It has received some renewed coverage because of Pizzagate and related debunked nonsense, but none of that adds anything of note to the topic. WP:GNG requires multiple independent sources, but the sources S Marshall provided above are both just rehashing what the 2007 bulletin says. Nblund ^talk 21:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• We're not disagreeing. My position is that this information is verifiable and useful, i.e. the information should be retained somewhere (but could be merged or moved) and this is a good idea on child protection grounds. Your position is that it's not notable so shouldn't appear as a separate article. These two positions are not mutually exclusive, actually, but the outcome would need to be "merge" or "redirect" to preserve attribution. For the avoidance of doubt I would prefer not to keep this content where it is because nobody will see it. It doesn't protect children as well as it could unless we put it somewhere visible, in a higher profile article with a title someone might search for. —S Marshall T/C 23:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm dubious on whether offering this stuff without context is all that helpful for protecting children: the bulletin is over a decade old, the information was mostly only relevant to investigators, and misreadings of it contributed to nonsense, like Pizzagate, which have done actual quantifiable harm to innocent children and adults while offering an inaccurate picture of how most real-world child sexual abuse happens. Maybe it is has enough historical value to warrant a mention at Pedophilia#Pedophile_advocacy_groups, but it is probably out of date and potentially misleading, and I think it would be pretty irresponsible to present it as a useful tool for anyone when the FBI itself never intended it to be used that way. In any case, I agree that a standalone article is the worst of all options. Nblund ^talk 02:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that you wouldn't offer this information without context or in a misleading way. When you call it "historical", I agree that these symbols are less likely to be used nowadays, but they're still immensely relevant to the present day when we're shining more of a light on paedophilia. Someone who browses Wikipedia, and recalls seeing one of these symbols at some time in the past, worn by someone they know, might very well start to ask questions they wouldn't otherwise have asked. This kind of thing is how we catch them.—S Marshall T/C 19:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This information is a service to our readers. I am sure the Federal Bureau of Investigation has done their due diligence. And our encyclopedia can be updated as new symbols and logos emerge. This passes GNG with RSs. Lightburst (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The assumption that it is a "service" is not supported by the sources, which indicate two prominent instances of misuse (snopes1, snopes2). Even if true, "it's useful" isn't really a reason to keep, and we have exactly one source and no updates since 2007. Why would we have a standalone article based on a 12 year old memo? Nblund ^talk 00:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Seems previous RfCs have not agreed on the reliability of Snopes. Lightburst (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Snopes. Snopes is considered generally reliable, and you haven't really provided anything to support your views. Nblund ^talk 01:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I read through the actual RfCs. Was not as clear as the link you provided. My rationale is in my !vote. This passes GNG with RSs. If your argument is that this is not updated, that in another matter. Reasonable editors can disagree, that's why we are here. Perhaps a name change to Symbols and Logos which have been used by Pedophiles Lightburst (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would prefer to give this information higher visibility than that. I feel that if was kept at that title, it would be seen by relatively few people.—S Marshall T/C 12:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't put a word in bold in this debate yet, so I'll go with selective merge to both Pedophilia and Hebephilia. Redirect to be kept in order to preserve attribution in compliance with the TOU.—S Marshall T/C 12:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Flyer22 Reborn and Legitimus: as they might have useful input here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Don't even merge with the Pedophilia and Hebephilia articles. The symbols aspect was briefly covered in the Pedophilia article before, but without images. It was later removed at some point. With decent sourcing, the material could be briefly covered in the Pedophilia article again. Either way, this article is not necessary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As seen at Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 19#Etmology, material on symbols was removed from the Pedophilia article in 2015. Read that discussion for why. And at some point in 2013, someone did add a symbol that was eventually deleted: Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 17#Girllove symbol. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hm. So we need a different merge target. The symbol was deleted under CSD F8, so there's no obstacle to reuploading it.—S Marshall T/C 01:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The most suitable merge target is a section within the Pedophilia article. But I do not see that the material in question should be merged there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This information has no place on an encyclopedic website. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sufficient for WP:GNG with RSs. Sourced good, and is of use for the project.BabbaQ (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, and per Nblund and Flyer22 Reborn. I am sympathetic to S Marshall wanting to get the word out on how these people operate, but as pointed out, this "article" isn't really helping with that. The vast majority of child sexual abuse is by people who outwardly blend in, with no identifiable symbols. And this isn't an encyclopedia article nor could it be, as it is really just a gallery of images. Having a gallery like this of symbols most abusers do not use on any of our articles would be WP:UNDUE and misleading. Note that we do have this FBI document as an external link at List of pedophile and pederast advocacy organizations, which is itself linked in a hatnote in the "Pedophile advocacy groups" section of Pedophilia. I don't really see any other way to cover this information, without it being a misleading one-sentence side point that implies that pedophiles/child sexual abusers often use these symbols, but again, most don't. A few do, which makes them easy for law enforcement to find and track, and that is the purpose of the document. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all RS lead back to the same FBI release. All other arguments in favor of keeping are just WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without merging. We have an FBI report, and a snopes article about the FBI report. That does not meet WP:GNG. The sources themselves are fairly routine coverage as well. The arguments to keep are not convincing, if this actually had lasting importance then there would be little trouble finding significant coverage about it. Oldperson's keep in particular is problematic per WP:ASPERSIONS. ST47 (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ST47 You have misread WP:ASPERSIONS. I did not accuse any editor(s) of being a pedophile.Oldperson (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ST47When I wrote my comment. I was thinking of the pedophiles who would be reading the article. Not the editors. I took it for granted that the editors were astute enough to understand that, and that there was no guilty conscience who would assume that I was addressing any possible editors.In future I will try to be more precise, however I have learned that doing so will net me a WP:FORUM or SOAPBOX tag. Considering my at length explanation I stand by my vote and reason.Oldperson (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Well that's unfortunate. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I was upset at the comments of Oldperson because "the short answer" did make it appear that anyone with an oppose !vote to inclusion might be supportive of some kind of Pedophilia. I didn't even know Pedophiles Have Their Own Secret Code And They're Using It Right In Front Of You - On Your Children. As a grandfather of 10 "my personal opinion" on these sick people probably should be kept to myself, so I am glad a longer answer for clarification was provided.

As presented (lacking content per Nblund) there are very valid concerns for not allowing a stand-alone article. However, I think there "is important encyclopedic information" but it has to be presented in more than some symbols in a list. "Trust" in anything related to the FBI (due diligence) has historically not been very high. The site does use Wikipedia (page 6) in reference.

Merging to Pedophilia (or even Pedophilia#Pedophile_advocacy_groups) might be an issue as it is a B-class article, and a reason some editors do not think AFD is the proper place for merge discussions, even though it is an option. Hebephilia is a c-class so that could be an option.

Concerns over the supposedly debunked pizzagate are real. There has been news coverage (News5 Cleveland) in 2018 concerning "April 25" (Alice Day) and the use of an innocent looking "teddy bear symbol" that is not on the outdated list. A 2017 New York Post article states "The FBI says it’s epidemic, and that at any given moment, 750,000 child predators are online.". This is disturbing and shows Wikipedia needs to cover this area as there is more recent coverage than 10 years old. There has to be better sourcing than an FBI report or Snopes which might be alright for fringe theory content but does not advance notability. I do not know the extent S Marshall is willing to be involved but efforts here are commendable. I would be willing to join in further efforts to explore possible inclusion. If the article is deleted maybe userfying would be agreeable in the interim. Otr500 (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If the consensus is to merge, then I'll help with that, although I'm wavering a bit in the light of what Flyer22's said to me. I feel that Wikipedia has very high visibility and this gives us a role to play in child protection, provided we can do that within the overarching constraints we face on source quality and reliability. I also feel that although Wikipedia isn't Snopes, we do have a role to play in fighting disinformation. If we don't cover it, people will still find this kind of content but they'll find it on blogs. But I do see and respect the arguments in the other direction as well. It's a tough one and it raises issues that are better suited to RfC than to AfD.—S Marshall T/C 16:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete mostly per Flyer22 and Nblund. In a less important topic the sourcing might get it over the line, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary verification. Additionally my gut feeling is keeping this is far likely to encourage another pizzagate-esque conspiracy theory than to advance child protection. --RaiderAspect (talk) 12:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don’t see enough sourcing to make this notable, and it’s very important for us to be extremely careful with anything which may come off as pro-pedophile activism, as per WP:CHILDPRO Samboy (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The discussion is mostly about whether we should be essentially reproducing a purported FBI file identifying certain symbols as being used by pedophiles. I think that in this sensitive topic area we should not do so based on a single, primary source that originates with Wikileaks, an organization with a murky agenda of its own. Anything they host can't really be considered reliable. Sandstein 09:59, 30 November 2019 (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.