Deletion of Symbols and Logos Used by Pedophiles

Comment: per . This entry is effectively a carbon-copy of a https://file.wikileaks.org/file/FBI-pedophile-symbols.pdf one page FBI bulletin from over a decade ago. It has received some renewed coverage because of https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/01/18/cbs-affiliates-big-question-why-no-law-enforcement-investigation-of-pizzagate-allegations/ Pizzagate and https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/code-for-pedophiles-on-toys/ related debunked nonsense, but none of that adds anything of note to the topic.  requires multiple independent sources, but the sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR||WP:GNG)

Comment: passes  with the additional sourcing provided by {{u|S Marshall
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per , 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  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: without merging. We have an FBI report, and a snopes article about the FBI report. That does not meet . 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. {{u|Oldperson}}'s keep in particular is problematic per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ASPERSIONS)

Comment: all RS lead back to the same FBI release.  All other arguments in favor of keeping are just 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ITSIMPORTANT)