Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LS Studio


 * 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 Keep Marskell 09:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

LS Studio
Article on Ukranian "photography studio that created hundreds of thousands of photographic images (and hundreds of videos) of young teen and prepubescent girls, and sold them via the Internet from 2000 to 2004 in the form of approximately 80 issues or collections.While early collections often featured nude girls in natural poses, later collections also contained many images of girls in sexually suggestive poses." Prior to my edit, it contained a full explanation of each collection and links to the wayback Machine of the images." It was advertising with no explanation of why it was notable. Delete.Capitalistroadster 04:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with LS Magazine (after which merge we should consider whether to delete the entire thing, about the proper disposition of which question I will reserve judgment). Joe 05:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with LS Magazine as per Joe. At the least, these articles should be one entity, the merit of which can be discussed in a future AfD, I'm sure.  (However, if someone else were to broach the topic and add an AfD for LS Magazine in a similar vein, I might jump in on the ensuing discussion.) --Kinu 05:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Capitalistroadster: Thank you for your attention to this article. Can you please answer two questions:
 * 1. Why is it being considered for deletion?
 * 2. Why do you consider the following sample of the previous content (that you removed) to "contain a full explanation of each collection" ...
 * During its operation, LS Studio maintained a talk forum, LS-Forum. The following sites were linked from that forum, as well as from their LS-Models index site:


 * Keep I've restored the non-contested content, added many external sources, and Merged the content of LS Magazine into LS Studio, as agreed upon by the original authors. Zebruh 23:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable operation, and definitely not an "advertisement" since it doesn't even exist anymore. A few weeks ago I heard "ls magazine" mentioned on 4chan and then a pedophilia forum, and wanted to know what it was and whether it was legal without accessing it, so I came to Wikipedia and was enlightened. Useful.  23:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the content for two reasons. Firstly, we had complaints on the links giving access to child pornography. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a catalogue for child porn which the previous content was. Capitalistroadster 23:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have removed the catalogue from the article as discussed on the talk page. Wikipedia is not a catalogue for child porn. Capitalistroadster 23:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * News to me.  00:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * More broadly WP:NOT a collection of external links or a web directory. But while WP is not censored for the protection of minors, we cannot be in the business of child pornography, period, from a legal standpoint even if you deny the ethical one. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? We define the operation, who made it, and how they got arrested, and then we list their productions. No different then having a list of movies produced by a defunct film company.
 * I wasn't talking about the external links to alleged child pornography, which I would agree should be removed.  00:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I also agree that such links are not a good idea here. I had originally included the LS Forum and LS Models links to provide verifiability to the listed productions. Perhaps simply mentioning them without links in the intro paragraph (as has been the case) is sufficient.Zebruh 00:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * My objections are that outlining the productions would allow people to track down the material through mechanisms such as the Wayback Machine. It is particularly troublesome if links are provided so that people can track it down from the article. Unlike productions from a defunct moviehouse, this material is illegal and Wikipedia should not be seen to be promoting it in any way at all. Capitalistroadster 02:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How would naming names allow people to track it down through the Wayback Machine? We document information -- that's not promoting it -- and that's that. Morals concerns are irrelevant to whether or not we should censor Wikipedia.
 * By the way, if we list the productions of a movie house, people could potentially use that information to find the movies. Maybe I have moral concerns about that. Should I use that as justification to delete information from the article?  02:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It was in the news, it's notable, it's difficult to find the information anywhere else. A fine subject for an article. Ashibaka tock 05:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. per Paroxysm and Ashibaka. Informative article about a well-known CP organization. --timecop 23:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. per Ashibaka Jmax- 23:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I cannot morally support the inclusion of filth of this nature in Wikipedia. Freedom of speech is not a carte blanche. --Agamemnon2 12:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Information is information. Wikipedia has a page on Nazi Germany, doesn't it? jax0m 12:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Since when is "filth" a reason for deletion? Promotion and links to the wayback machine are not tolerable, but the article itself should stay. Sam Hocevar 12:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay. We have more keep votes so I'm going to remove the "This article is being considered for deletion" notice unless someone objects. Zebruh 18:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not how deletion process works. Just wait - in a few days a closing admin will count votes on this afd and remove the notice. for more information, see WP:AFD. --timecop 00:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh ok. Thanks timecop :) Zebruh 01:41, 10 February 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.