The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. See my TL:DR rationale below.

This is a particularly difficult discussion to close. The problem is that administrators are meant to close such discussions based on the consensus of the community, where consensus is a decision-making model which prizes rational arguments based on objective standards above subjective arguments with emotional weight behind them. In situations like this, the issue arises that policies and guidelines provide no such objective bar. The standard is instead subjective, with contributors arguing based on how they personally feel about the content and surrounding ethics. An administrator is expected to step in and interpret these arguments based on such a standard, without including his or her own opinion, under a system which explicitly rejects subjectivity.

It's worth noting that Wikipe-tan is not the official WP mascot. She has never been the official WP mascot. She has never even been the unofficial mascot. Those users who feel that Wikipe-tan somehow represents the community, and have spent their time badgering the opposition over this and making WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, should thoroughly review both the history of the character and the way the community makes decisions.

The page under discussion opens with "After years of neglect, Wikipe-tan is (according to experts) suffering from a number of issues including, loneliness, pyromania and hearing voices inside her head just to name a few". Those promoting deletion as an option argue that the page is mysogonistic, in poor taste, detracts from the nature of the project, has no purpose and has the potential to actively drive female editors away from the project at a time when we are concerned about the number and proportion of female editors. Those promoting keep suggest that it is funny, it is not explicitly offensive, and that "lacking purpose" is not a reason to delete.

Simply detracting from the project is not, per se, a reason for deletion. This is the name-space; it can contain humourous content. Neither, on the other hand, is the argument that "lacking purpose is not a reason for deletion" valid. On its own, this is true, but there is a distinction between something which lacks a positive purpose and something which not only lacks a positive purpose but clearly posesses a negative one. Consensus here is that such a negative purpose exists; that the page and its contents contain the real and theoretical potential to harm the project in the eyes of its users and the public, and drive people away from contributing. Ironholds (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan![edit]

This page contains materials that are superficially misogynistic, representations of abuse, and generally in extremely poor taste. It detracts from the serious aspects of the project and, I believe, is apt to drive good faith contributors away. I myself considered whether I wanted to be associated with a project that entertained such inclinations when I found this page. That some consider it "humorous" does not mean the page should be kept. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A humour page should still have a point or a message to deserve existence in WP. It's not enough to just be "funny" in the view of some editors. Otherwise we would have a million such pages. This page doesn't have a point, therefore it should go. Nanobear (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its a page asking to donate to wikipedia, how is that not a valid point? It also has the be aware of child abuse message there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously contending that this page is raising the level of awareness of child abuse? As though this section make it somehow a responsible piece of dreck? IvoryMeerkat (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not an anime article. Cunard (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have just been asked if I intended to link to Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan. Yes, I did, as that is the article about our mascot. I think the simple use of our mascot is fine. I was however questioning some of the images in the gallery in Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan. I suggest that some judgement should be used there as to which images are included, rather than listing what may be all that have been created. That however is an issue different from this MfD. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been improved, but I have not changed my view above. In fact my view is stronger. Everything to do with Wikipe-tan should be removed from wikipedia. The ratio of male editors to female editors is massive. We are discouraging women editors and we need to change that. Wikipe-tan discourages them. Do any of you blokes supporting this article really understand why women are discouraged from wikipedia and computing in general or just how bad the situation is? I attended my local linux users group the other day and not a single women was present. The situation is not getting better. It is getting worse. The number of women active in my wikimedia chapter is declining. We must do everything we can to encourage women to edit. If you want a policy, ignore all rules will do. The health of the project is in danger. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? I mean, you seriously think a few pictures of a cute anime girl is somehow related to the reason women don't edit Wikipedia? What world do you live in? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want some proof here about women editors that "Wikipe-tan discourages them" I can easily say that women find wikipe-tan cute, this is a pure opinion and nothing else. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do think this has something to do with WP discouraging women to edit, although only part of the reasons. However, we should do everything we can to stop that discrimination. I live in a world where for several decades I have taken equality for women in education and elsewhere seriously. I do not see either of you, and others here, taking it seriously. This has to go. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your broad characterization of people who are offended by this page ("Also, while I think only humorless people would be offended by this page, if the page isn't serving any good purpose there is no reason to offend those people."), is disparaging and unnecessarily personalizes the discussion. Cunard (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is also not censored WP:NOTCENSORED while I can agree if some of the things on the page are offending just replace the text with something else its that easy, no need to take away a humor page here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page as a whole is inappropriate for Wikipedia space (or userspace); see the description above by Kaguya-chan (talk · contribs). Furthermore, as SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) mentioned below, the page is not sufficiently related to Wikipedia to merit retaining it.

    WP:NOTCENSORED was designed to preserve verifiable but potentially offensive content in articles—not Wikipedia space. Cunard (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict) I don't know if it was clear from my comment, but I was actually offended by some of the comments in this discussion, particularly IvoryMeerkat's initial comment to start the discussion. Though I had never read the page before seeing this discussion, upon reading the page I found it humorous (and furthermore it seemed to be the typical sort of humor you would find on American TV, not something that pushed the bounds of humor that I am familiar with). However, some of the comments seem to treat this page as an abomination, with the implication that only awful people would like this sort of thing (e.g. IvoryMeerkat's suggestion that he wouldn't want to be associated with a group that finds this funny). While I agree that using this for an official Wikipedia fundraiser would be in bad taste (and the suggestion to donate on the page is probably inappropriate), I don't think the type of humor on this page goes beyond the bounds of good taste when not used for a commercial purpose. Anyway, I'm sorry if you found my comments "disparaging", but I myself felt insulted by other comments on this page. I know calling people who are offended by this page "humorless" was an exaggeration, but I only meant to stress that I believe this page really isn't all that offensive, that many people do find this sort of thing humorous, and that those people are not all misogynistic or the type of people you would be ashamed to be associated with. Calathan (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification that your "humorless" comment is an exaggeration.

    I can see how some people might find it funny and don't believe they are misogynists. To call this page "misogynistic" is a stretch. IMO, I don't consider it misogynistic as substituting a shota onto the page would have a similar effect.

    However, I can also see how some female (and male) editors might feel demeaned if they viewed the suggestive commentary on the page and might not want to interact with the editors who created it or are amused by it. I view the page as being inherently offensive: It uses the theme of child prostitution (where much money is involved) to implore people to donate money to Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because this page has little relevance to the project, and because it is highly offensive, I oppose userfication or a move to a subpage of WikiProject Anime and manga. Cunard (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for attacking wikipedia's mascot and those who support it, I find what you type offensive and by your reasoning it sounds like you are against having wikipe-tan on wikipedia nevermind just this page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, this sexualized, pre-pubescent anime tartlet is most certainly not the Wikipedia mascot, despite what some may have tried many years ago. And yes, I oppose the usage of this...thing anywhere. Tarc (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not you accept it, she's still an unoffiical mascot and has been acknowledged as such.陣内Jinnai 17:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that's the key here; unofficial. The point is that this thing is recognized/utilized by, at best, a tiny subset of Wikipdia users. You act like it is some universally-recognized Mickey Mouse-like character, worldly synonymous with the Wikipedia. Trust me bro, it ain't. About the only non-Wikipedia mention I have ever seen of this thing is the Encyclopedia Dramatica satirization. And if you have never been there or seen it, trust me; you Wikipe-tan otaku are not being portrayed in a favorable light. Tarc (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan lists a few more places than you know. I'm sure there are more. Just because you haven't personally seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. 陣内Jinnai 18:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed wikipe-tan is featured in templates, official guideline pages, and other areas of wiki, she has become part of wikipedia over the years. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You two can keep the red herrings flying away and missing the point if you wish. Keep your little Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan page and WikiProject figureheads for now...those can be the subject of another discussion if someone wishes; but THIS particular Think of... article is just over the top and does not belong in the main Wikipedia: space. It's a dumb in-joke for a select few fanboys, a riff of the old think of the children line. Tarc (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see why she needs to be kept. Though if we used her more as a way to add free-content images for places where they could be done, then by all means. But it's not. She has no real purpose and contribution to wikipedia.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey look this is an AfD for this page and not a discussion on why or why not wikipe-tan should be kept, I would make a topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga if you really think we should get rid of her a as an un-official mascot as this is our portal's mascot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the page should be deleted including all other pagse that are related to Wikipe-tan.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you think of Wikipe-Tan as a whole has no bearing on THIS discussion, which is for this specific page which simply uses her. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes promoting friendship on wikipedia now and asking you to donate are both very bad and show no purpose. There are alot of people on Wikiproject that support wikipe-tan, there is a way to gear this so it is more friendly (as I have shown) and this is simply a humor page, it never will be taken seriouslly so I do not know why you are saying it has no purpose like it is a pure vandalism page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good Faith Whaddya say we all stop the sarcasm, the attacks, and the "let's all insult each other"? Especially if we're going to evoke Wikipetan and friendship as an excuse for sarcasm? How about assuming good faith instead? Timothy Perper (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Melodia: Just every article related to Wikipe-tan. Wikipe-tan herself could be in question, but i think we could use her for free content where it is needed. But overall, pages that don't contribute at all or help the wikiproject in improving is another thing. Overall, this serves no real purpose and this page doesn't guarantee no friendship promotion nor asking to donate (well doesn't ask to donate some contribution to where it truly matters). In fact, Wikipedia isn't here promote friendship (I've said this quite a while ago). A lot of wikiprojects don't have stuff like wikipe-tan and yet they get along just fine. If you guys want this to stay i suggest you use something in the Wikipedia guidelines and policy. It's pretty clear, there are hidden motives for keeping this page.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If what you are saying is true though and these types of pages served projects no good then there would be no Category:Wikipedia humor as each if not most articles there link somewhere or is in some project. I think you shoudl read WP:Humor Humor articles lighten the mood and serve as a place to get a laugh after a hard edit day more than anything else: "This is no clear consensus as to when and how humor should be included in articles", "The primary purpose of project namespace and similar pages is to coordinate the mission – the building of the encyclopedia – but being a human community, humor often appears as well." Now it also goes on to say the humor should be civil with no personal attacks that issue I addressed above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a policy. therefore i cannot really consider it valid. Regardless, i think humor is useless on wikipedia. And alot of the ones you shown in that category were afD too. So you realize how controversial humor in wikipedia can be. Either way, we don't need something useless...And this IS useless. If we could, we could probably propose removal of these pages. And i'm almsot positive this proposal would become reality. This isn't really strong keep either. It's a weak keep, not much is helping this.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to the WP:Department of Fun talkpage then if you have an issue. I have added that as a second wikiproject on this article's talkpage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's miscellaneous humor, which in turn isn't focused at all...i could propose that. but i'm more talking about humor within wikiprojects that aren't about it. Either way, this serves no real purpose at all.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again there is a whole wikiproject on wikipedia devoted to humor pages and such I would take your issues up there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a fine line between harmless fun, which comprises much of the WP:Department of Fun and this, which is for all intents and purposes just Wiki-lolicon. Tarc (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, where did that comment come from? Nothing in those images even comes remotely close to lolicon. The only semi-sexual one there has her as an adult, and I do mean semi.陣内Jinnai 17:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously this needs to stop these are just opinions of yours and it is clear that you do not like wikipe-tan in any way shape or form. I see no lolicon reference whatsoever in the images presented on this page - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's just Tarc trolling and violating WP:NPA by tarring all of us who like Wikipe-tan as pedophiles living in our Mom's basement. Agreed the ad hominem needs to stop.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact there are the seeds of an AfD for all Wikipe-tan stuff on Tarc's talkpage-which by the way will be fruitless, waste a lot of valuable time and create more rancor we don't need on Wikipedia.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use words when you don't actually know what they mean; "trolling" implies I am posting here just to get a rise out of the discussion participants. But what I am actually here for is simply to weigh in against the usage of images of sexualized prepubescent anime girls in project-space. You have your main Wikipe-tan page. Whatever. That's not within the scope of this discussion. what this discussion is about is this specific "Think of..." article, which IMO is talking this lolicon (yes, I said it again) shtick a bit too far.
In regards to the "stuff on my talkpage", the MfD nominator asked me for advice on how to proceed with getting rid of the rest of the Wikipe-tan stuff, and I gave him an answer. Whether it is "fruitless" and a "waste of valuable time" is a matter of conjecture, despite your boastful confidence on the matter. Tarc (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how the title "Think of.." can imply lolicon. If you want to get rid of all the wikipe-tan stuff on wikipedia then I wish you luck, the image is even being used for admin coaching and as an admin icon and doing so would take alot of effort with roadblocks a-plenty hence the fruitless efffort comment going it about the way you want too. Now if you start a discussion over at our project in the talkpage then maybe you can get a consensus first on this. Can we please get back to the subject of this article now? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried several times to redirect the discussion back to just this article (note the "That's not within the scope of this discussion" part of my last entry), but people keep crying about their cherished girl being attacked. Tarc (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see alot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT comments here and as Chzz pointed out nothing against policy, the page has been cleaned up alot and there is room for improvement if work is put into a page as wikipedia is a work in progress. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Look, folks -- people have strong feelings about anything that even resembles lolicon. It does NOT matter what you think about Wikipetan -- whether you tolerate or like or even dislike her. Everyone here, and on Wikipedia in general, has to listen to a variety of voices and opinions, and citing wikipolicy, like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, won't stop these voices or opinions. If some people seem close to violating WP:IDONTLIKEIT, other people seem equally close to violating WP:OWN. If ad hominem has to stop, then so does ad feminam. This argument has gone on pointlessly now (IMO) for too long -- especially if it goes on further like this. A decision has to be reached, and nothing more useful is going to emerge here. If this were a real meeting among real people, I'd move to "call the question," which means stop the palaver and decide. What do we do about the present incarnation of Wikipetan? Timothy Perper (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LIke i said, wikipe-tan has potential to help out in other articles where free content is needed. Anyways...WP:IDONTLIKEIT, can also be ounterattacked with PILIKEIT> thats all it is. i'm just saying this page serves no real purpose in helping wikipedia articles.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does free content have to do with this? Perhaps I am missing some early comment/thread. Tarc (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Free content referrs to the pages that have possibly non-free images in the anime/manga scope that can be replaced with images of wikipe-tan. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say to that is "no fucking way". Tarc (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because they can be, doesn't mean they will be; it also doesn't mean more cannot be. If an image is made to comply with NFCC to replace a copyrighted image and it contains wikipe-tan, then it will stay, unless something better than that is free can replace it and even then it likely will stay in many cases as image limit does not apply to free images (otherwise we wouldn't have galleries of free images on some pages).陣内Jinnai 00:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1)that's not even related to this wikiproject. 2)not even a guideline nor a policy. And consensus can change. in these cases it's more of not enough consensus to go against it. If everyone was well informed, and knew of its existence, it could be deleted. Regardless, the "this article serves no purpose and is kept so why not this one" is a bad reasoning.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERCRAP is never a valid reason to keep or delete something in an XfD. Tarc (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Youre missing the point, because this page is intended for humor (And can be improved upon in my opinion) there really is no reason in deleting it. So far I have seen as a reason to delete that it is "Not needed" other than that I cleaned up the page to make it more user friendly something alot of the editors were content with above. This is a humor page you are either going to like it or you arent and there are people who DO like it and people who DONT. This page does serve a purpose though as some people do find it funny. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
don't think that's a good reason to keep. you're basically saying "We should keep this because it's not meant to help us in anyway in wikipedia. Its just meant to be funny." If this serves no real purpose than it should be deleted. Just because people find it funny, doesn't mean it has a purpose. SO does that mean we can keep anything that isn't meant to help us and only lets us laugh or entertained?Bread Ninja (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, reasoning is quite bad...it serves no real purpose. and this is more of a case of whether this wikiproject should contain useless comedy for the sake of fun. I say no. my vote is Strong delete. It's not even good joke.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thats your opinion though, who is saying that meaningful content cant be put into the article? An AfD should be for an article that is fully useless or can not be improved upon and this is my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
this is both....i think it's really sad to defend a not-so-good joke. when we could be out there fixing real articles. this is a distraction, it's purpose bring nothing positive.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • well i don't. the problem is this page is too subjective to keep or delete. No harm? it distracts members, and worth keeping without backing it up? what damage, what loss, what affect will happen if this page was deleted?Bread Ninja (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What would happen if it were kept? Are you telling me that members who do not like the page are going to continue to view this page, nobody is forced to view content on wikipedia. I would understand if this were a major project page or a talk page but a humor page that you need to look for to find does not strike me as a distraction and there are no policies that I can see that this violates. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to do that and plan to gather some ideas on the project's talk page and throw some of my own in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
if it were kept it would continue to distract people. For a wikiproject meant for something else, it isn't helping at all by adding distracting jokes. And really, wikipedia isn't meant for funny distractions. in general, a little humor page on your own than it's not in question, because it's on your page. But if you want it in the main wikiproject. than that's something else. TO me, it doesn't matter if it's funny or not (even though i think it's not). And promoting wikipedia is pretty hard too. Just getting people interested and making an account isn't always helpful.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might turn off some, but so to might any number of things, far too many for me to list here. The argument still comes down to you not liking it and thinking others won't who don't post here (a sound assumption), but that reason isn't enough to simply delete a page, especially one in which Knowledgekid has said, after editing the most contriversial items, he said plans to actively use for the purpose of helping get donations.陣内Jinnai 18:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can be kept if it was userfied.....other than, in a wikiproject, it's not that hard to believe for me.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just take it out of the anime/manga wikiproject then... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay well doing that does not mean deleting the article the page can still fall under the humor project and be more of a part of wikipedia than anything else. I am still seeing comments made against Wikipe-tan here I just want to say this to all of those who disprove of Wikipe-tan THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO BRING IT UP' This AfD should be focused on this page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And who are you to tell us, by shouting at us, what we may or may not raise here? This MfD raises wider issues. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
then by that, we should move all comedy in that page instead of a wikiproject that isn't about humor. Another thing, anything related to wikpe-tan is related to this page, just action against wikipe-tan as a whole isn't meant for that.I just dont think the wikiproject itself should have any huor, but user special page or the humor wikiproject should have stuff like this.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done anime/manga project from talkpage removed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you don't seem to understand, despite for instance Cunard's and especially Fluffernutter's comments, is that there is a HUGE difference between having ONE of these characters and an ENTIRE GALLERY (caps for emphasis!) of them, in various costumes and poses. No one of the deleters here, I think, is against humor--but many of us just don't think that this is funny. Now, editors may come up and try to tell us to not give a fuck, and I find that asinine: we are here because we do give a fuck, because this is important. It is important that Wikipedia is a place where women, for instance, are not so easily turned away. I think we're pretty LGBT friendly, and that's a good start, but galleries like the one on the page under discussion, they don't help. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is stopping this article from having the scope changed and it going into another direction then it is now? Is it really alot easier to delete an article rather than improve it? Again the women dont edit here because of stuff does not cut it, it all falls under a person's opinion on if a page is funny or not. If you have issue with wikipe-tan then you should comment on the admin board as there is a main wikipe-tan article FULL of images of wikipe-tan that are used in valid places in wikipedia - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this creates a hostile environment anymore than WP:Lamest edit wars which can denigrate editors specifically because they participated in them. That to me seems far more hostile environment that this page.陣内Jinnai 04:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing I removed the anime/manga project I assume you mean the humor project? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this context, it appears Guerillero is referring to the English Wikipedia project. Reach Out to the Truth 04:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well now that it isn't part of something related to the anime project, i can't really say much anymore. It could still be cleaned up, or change the joke. i could see some sexism in it.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see here is that you look at the article the way it currently is, do you really think that there is no room for improvement with user feedback on a new direction? Isnt wikipedia a work in progress? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this needs to be scrapped and if someone wants to develop an idea along those lines, that person should start entirely afresh. LadyofShalott 05:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That actually is sufficient reason to delete. Since the item serves no value - it brings nothing to the project. If it has even a remote chance of offence, bringing the project into disrepute, or "annoying" some even contributors, then its contribution is negative, even if only marginally. Something which hinders and cannot help ought to be removed - even if only on balance.--Scott Mac 09:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Scott MacDonald - No, it's no reason to delete at all. How did you get to be a sysop without knowing anything about Wikipedia's policies?
@Drmies - Yes, I find that billboard about a "cult with better KoolAid" hilarious. Sexualization of children? That's quite a wild (and weird) imagination you have there. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
although i dont care so much now that it's not part of the animanga wikiproject. i will say this is highly subjective, and of course is more of how many people it offends more than how many people they think its ok. which quite a few on here.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"and of course is more of how many people it offends more than how many people they think its ok. which quite a few on here."
I'm not sure what you are trying to say, do you mean this?
"It's more about how many people if offends than how many people think it's ok, which is quite few."AerobicFox (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, while I still think it needs to be deleted (as I've stated above), looking through the history, previous versions have had some really disturbing material; it is appalling some of that was ever on Wikipedia. If that makes me a "humorless prude", so be it.LadyofShalott 17:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone made a similar page featuring a male character being forced to sweep floors, or study long hours, or wear a tree costume, would that be considered sexist? Of course it wouldn't. Reyk YO! 21:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it included similar content of making fun of those with mental health issues and child abuse.... then Yes. the sexism is just the icing on top of it all The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That really doesn't answer my question. Mental health issues and child abuse (and describing this page in those terms is a bit overdramatic) don't have anything to do with sexism. Really, you seem to be exaggerating everything you personally find wrong with this page, lumping it all together in one big grab-bag of odiousness, and claiming that one kind of nastiness automatically implies all the others. I ask again, if this were a male character being made to dress up as a tree or sweep floors would that be considered sexist? Or to put it another way, is Wikipe-tan being made to those things because she is female? The answer to both is "no". Reyk YO! 00:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not to get all feminista up in this piece—okay fine, I am about to get all feminista up in this piece—but your question about "what if it was a male" is quite the canard. Our societies are generally male dominated and patriarchal, which is a huge part of why more men than women contribute to en.wikipedia. Men (i.e. those with power in most societies) have been objectifying women (and sexualizing women who are too young to be sexualized by older men) for a very long time. Certain images/portrayals that are problematic when the person in question is a woman are less so when the person is a man simply because of the history of gender relations (for an obvious parallel in the realm of race, think about how much worse a cartoon portraying a man as an ape would be if the man was African American, as opposed to if he were white. Black man=ape has a long, awful history, and there are many similar examples for women in male-dominated societies). Stereotypical portrayals of women and what "roles" they are supposed to play, or what unique pathologies they have, are very common and problematic. Lots of us commenting here were aghast at this original version of this page wherein we see a young girl: jocularly portrayed as a victim of some rather horrid abuse, acting throughout as a maid/servant, described as being "pimped" out, described as being made to pose in a sexy fashion, and described as anorexic because she was deemed to fat. The overall sense communicated (in a page almost certainly written by a man) is of a completely powerless pre-adult female abused and treated as a sex object. Because of this AfD most of this stuff was removed, but it was the basis for the entire page and I think some of us are deeply bothered by that fact and don't see how anything can be salvaged from the bizarre bits that remain. Thus gender is an operative concern for this AfD even now and your question is, I'm sorry to say, a typical one from those who haven't thought a great deal about gender/power dynamics in general. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • No. Just no. The idea that some things are sexist if it concerns a woman but are not if it concerns a man is a ridiculous double standard. Attempting to rationalize it as you have (on the spectacularly weak justifaction that fifty years ago men had it good at the expense of women) simply perpetuates that inconsistency. I reject the double standard, I reject the rationalization for it, and I reject your condescending tone when you imply that this means I just haven't thought about it properly. You say it's sexist because Wikipe-tan is dressed as a maid, which is a stereotypical submissive female outfit. Well, my original point still stands. If we had a male character dressed as a butler or a janitor (stereotypical submissive male outfit) being made to do heavy manual labour outside (stereotypical "men's work"), getting kicked in the goolies or being portrayed as a leering pervert, violent oaf or bumbling idiot- hardly anyone would consider that sexist (or even the least bit offensive) despite playing on the equivalent male stereotypes that you claim make "Think of Wikipe-tan!" such an abomination. Don't believe me? Try watching any sit-com some time and observing how the male characters are portrayed and treated. Reyk YO! 02:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy is probably the best choice as it has issues and still has issues and it doesn't seem like they'll go away.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You dont know what will happen to this artcie in the future though, it does have the potential to be funny but that is just my opinion. I myself can not tell the future of this article in my mind its been sliding back and forth the consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i think the joke in general isn't funny, not even the idea. WIkipe-tan suffering from neglect and other mental problems, along with some random pictures at the bottom that don't even seem to relate to the joke. userfy i think is the best choiceBread Ninja (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i think you posted in the wrong page. regardless, if it's seen as shotacon, then you can understand why she would need to change appearance.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Not sure how to indent here, forgive me) What I'm saying is that I understand people have become offended by this, but I don't understand why this page is seen as offensive. I don't see why any of the 14 pictures on the page are objectionable, so I don't see a reason to remove it from Wikipedia. I generally try to respect other people's views, but I can't for the life of me see how this qualifies as "inappropriate content" or is on par with a picture of a young boy "offering sex for money in a public restroom". Qrsdogg (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

offended to some = offensive. if you understand why it offended some, you could also see why it could offend even more. I'm saying it could be userfied. if you can't see it, yet understand. that's all it takes.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you misunderstand me: I understand that it offended some, but I don't understand why people see this as offensive. Until I can find a clear reason why, I won't support a change from the status quo. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, I'm sure there's plenty of people offended by such pages as WP:SPIDERMAN or hell, Meta:GAY. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to the five new moe mascots that Microsoft has invented for their Japan demographic. They are all more revealing than our moe mascot here.AerobicFox (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
we're not microsoft. we're wikipedia. this is a site, they're just a PC. they can represent themselves no matter what. we aren't the same. though. WP:Spiderman seems fine, but WP:gay isnt. and apply understanding the offended, to the offensive.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree that "better than Microsoft" is a pretty low bar. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"and apply understanding the offended, to the offensive."
What are you trying to say?!?!? Please check your posts for grammar before posting them!AerobicFox (talk) 07:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

there nothing grmatically wrong. also please refrain from making this personal. your comments aren't helping, and comparing things outside of wiki isn't going to help your side of the argument. Qrsdogg understands why it offends some people, but doesn't understand why it's offensive, which i said to apply it to the same reasoning.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"there nothing grmatically wrong."
zomg. Stop leaving out verbs like "is", I cannot follow some of your posts like the above one because you just ignore grammar and assume others know what you mean.
"Qrsdogg understands why it offends some people"
He has made it clear that he doesn't understand why it offends people.AerobicFox (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No he has made it clear that he does. well he keeps insisting he does. And i really don't care about grammar. as long as the point gets across. Either way, please talk a little more formal. you're making this argument much heavier than it should be.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I have said all that I'm going to in this discussion but for the record: I do not for the life of me see anything bad (offensive) about the page being discussed. Other people say it is a bad page (that I understand), but I do not understand what makes them think this about it. And I am quite surprised that others see this as "offensive filth"--but it looks like I'm in the minority here. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and others. Perhaps merge it in to the main page about Wikipe-tan?Jasper Deng (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

most definitely not merge with the main wikipe-tan page. WP:TROUT and WP:VIllage stocks doesn't support your case here directly. If you are new, please provide WP: that helps you directly. the best choice is to userfy it.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:It seems to me a number of people are voting delete as some kind of crusade against Wikipe-tan and are using this page an excuse to further that goal. Its hard for me to assume good faith with many of the editors here are voting delete based on the merits of the page, rather than the character depicted on it when they have gone on record as being anti-Wikipe-tan. As for the opposite, those who may like her and voting keep because of that, it seems to be far fewer and most of those are simple one-liner drive by votings, though some have gone to more efforts. I feel at this point any vote of keep or delete is tainted because of the pro- and anti-Wikipe-tan crowds using this MfD as a WP:BATTLEGROUND about her rather than the merits of the page itself.陣内Jinnai 21:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see many delete entries above that specifically address issues with this article, rather than the Wikipetan image in general. Are we reading the same MfD? Tarc (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say everyone who voted delete is anti-wikipe-tan just as I am not saying everyone who has voted keep is pro-wikipe-tan. However, as this drags on I've seen more and more people come and cast a delete or keep vote which mirrors their stance on Wikipe-tan since the clensed version has been done. Most of those happen to be delete votes. It's also been clear that there are some who really are anti-wikipe-tan and will go to any length to get rid of anything associated with her just as there are those who would not want anything associated with her touched, although the former seem to be more vocal. In this page their has even been a member who voted delete and started and edit war because of his dislike for her elsehwere. That's why I feel this MfD is tainted reguardless of who wins and instead a new one should be started and be based solely on what is said and depicted, not who the character is.陣内Jinnai 22:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the person who closes this MfD will take your arguments into account and not simply close the MfD based on a head count of Keep vs Delete votes. Generally the closing of contentious MfD's is left up to people who are good at analyzing complex points of view and minimizing the chance of someone wanting a re-vote immediately after the close. —Soap— 23:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen alot of people also complaing about how it used to be still even though the article was cleaned up, this is just nuts. If this article really cant go into another direction and you believe that 100% okay fine delete iut, but do not trash an idea just because it is not in it's best form and/or you dont like it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec with Knowledgekid) Jinnai, you might consider the possibility that your own viewpoint is coloring your reading of this MfD. After all you are hardly objective (I'm not saying I am). I don't see many (if any) comments that would cause me to lose good faith with respect to participants arguing either for deletion or keeping. Some folks are clearly fans of the Wikipe-tan character, others are not. Most of the !votes have spoken specifically to the particular page under discussion—some side chatter about the character in general is hardly surprising. For you to question delete comments on the assumption that a chunk of them stem from a larger vendetta against the Wikipe-tan character is indeed a failure of good faith, and the fact that it's only delete comments that you question in that regard is telling given that your logic could just as easily be applied to keep comments from folks who clearly value Wikipe-tan in general. My suggestion is that questioning the good faith of either "side" is not warranted and I'm guessing that's how the closing admin will read it as well. We all bring opinions to the table in any discussion, but so long as the comments we make speak to the issue at hand they should be taken in good faith. (Incidentally, it's really not a good idea to think of XfDs in terms of "winning" or "losing"—it's a discussion wherein we all "win" if consensus, or lack thereof, is accurately interpreted by the closing administrator. That may sound cheezy and overly idealistic, and I suppose in a sense it is, but I think it is the best way to think about these debates.) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And quickly to Knowledgekid's point, speaking just for myself I don't think there is anyhing "nuts" about referring to the original state of this page as part of a rationale for deletion—I tried to be quite clear about this above. To my mind the pre-AfD page was vaguely coherent but execrable, and now by removing most of the execrable material it simply makes no sense (the general idea was mocking the notion that Wikipe-tan had been abused and saying therefore (I guess) Wikimedia deserved money—that's still vaguely there but not exactly, and any attempt to make it more coherent would likely bring back the original problems). I have not seen anyone explain what the page is for now or what it would/could be for later, and thus by mentioning the original content (and its removal) one is speaking to the point that this page serves no remote purpose for the project, which is part of the larger deletion argument that many are making. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen the article's talk page at all? There is always room for discussion, deletion should be a final resort not a solution. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is exactly one comment on the talk page, from you, about what to do with this page in the future and it A) Doesn't fully make sense to me; B) Sounds like something totally unrelated to what we have now, meaning you could start from scratch before or after deleting this page. Again, no one has explained what the page is for now or what it would/could be for later, which is indeed cause for the "final resort" of deletion. If you want to make a Wikipe-tan themed page which somehow encourages Wiki-breaks then no one is stopping you, but that's obviously not what this page is about. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The main arguements I am seeing by those who want this gone is that it is tasteless humor (An opinion), does the wiki anime/manga project no good (the anime/manga template has been removed and a consensus can be reached later to reinclude it if the page improves) and does wikipedia no good (an opinion), the keep side is that it just a cartoon and does no harm (an opinion), violates no rules (a fact), and can always be improved as it is a humor page (a fact or an opinion) is there anything else I am missing here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are missing a great deal. It is the very concept of a page for some sort of "poor abused Wikipe-tan, don't pick on her!" gimmick that the great majority here oppose, for specific reasons that vary from unfunny to pointless to misogynistic. There are a few, such as myself, who not only think this article is pointless but also' feel that the character itself should be purged completely from the project. Obviously such a thing cannot happen as a result from anything decided in this MfD (and for the record, I have little desire to mount or initiate such a move, I'm just not that motivated), but holding that opinion does not invalidate or "taint" one's opinion on this page in question. Tarc (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec with Tarc, r to Knowledgekid) Those arguing delete are saying not just that it is tasteless humor, but that it is not humor at all (merely tasteless). They are also saying that it does the entire project no good, rather than just one WikiProject, and that it risks (if even in a minor fashion) bringing the overall project into disrepute because the content is perceived by many as sexist and/or generally offensive. The last point leads to another argument, namely that this is the kind of thing offensive to many women editors, who are already underrepresented on en.wikipedia. The keep comments are all opinions (that it can be improved is not remotely a fact) except for the point that this does not technically violate any written rules, which is true of much that we discuss for deletion. "There's no wiki-law against it" is not necessarily a winning argument.
I think the implication of your comment is that this discussion is based mainly on opinion rather than strict policies, but that's okay. The closing admin will attempt to determine the consensus of the opinions expressed, if possible. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:16, 26 February 2011 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


More