Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan!

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)

Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan!

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)

• Delete per IvoryMeerkat. Pointless, bad taste and not funny at all. Nanobear (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is ment to be funny and it is, by your logic we should just delete all of the pages marked "This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous." then as there is always going to be those users who do not think the content is funny. The humor page gives a cool down from the normal seriousnes and intense debates of the projects. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Keep Knowledgekid makes valid points. This is suppose to be a humerous page meant to get people to donate to Wikipedia. That's its purpose; its using satire to get across a point.陣内_Jinnai 04:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • ??? Do you seriously think people are donating to the foundation on the basis of this page? If so, are those the sort of sponsors we even want? IvoryMeerkat (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Userfy - Hmph, that's my third userfy for today it's extremely unfunny and I hate the Wikipe-tan, but that's my opinion. Anyways, it doesn't really encourage donations IMO, and doesn't say something funny about WP, just the wikipe-tan. It's better to move this to the userspace of someone who find it funny. Kayau Voting IS evil 04:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep No violation of policy. No adequate rationale for deletion provided by the submitter. One would point her to WP:BEFORE. At the very least keep it just to piss off those who lack a sense of humor. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • In other words, people who find this reprehensible are not welcome at this project, but people who find it humorous and don't mind the crude societal implications are the people we want associated with the project? IvoryMeerkat (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    • No, you're welcome to edit even if you lack a sense of humor. Trying to right those "crude societal implications" sure strikes me as being biased. Perhaps I should keep an eye on your edits just to make sure you follow WP:NPOV. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. This page is fuckin' awesome. Hell, I would love to "abuse" Wikipetan myself, if you know what I mean! Underween (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Sock of banned user Wiki brah (talk · contribs)}. –MuZemike 08:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete ^{The page has been rewritten, with the offensive content excised. Cunard (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)}_{Switch again. Back to delete. See below. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)} this tasteless, disgusting page. To use the analogy of raising funds to free a child sex slave to encourage people to donate to Wikipedia is in extremely poor taste. Humor on Wikipedia is good, if it does not bring the project into disrepute. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein#User pages ruled that "While not explicitly stated on Wikipedia:User page, it is implicit there that users should refrain from creating user pages likely to bring the project into disrepute." The spirit of this ruling applies to Wikipedia namespace pages as well.

  This page contains numerous images of Wikipe-tan, the mascot of Wikipedia. While most of those pictures are not inherently sexualized, the graphic commentary on the page is. Captions range from Wikipe-tan made to pose in sexy positions for camera! and "Wikipe-tan being pimped out and accepting money from strangers!!" to Wikipe-tan lost and unsupervised in the library!.

  Those advocating "keep" are advancing poor rationales for retention:

  1. Knowledgekid87 (talk · contribs)'s argument that all pages marked as humorous should be deleted by the nom's reasoning is flawed. When the humor does not bring the project into disrepute, it can be kept. But when such humor depicts sexualized images of a child mascot, it can have very damaging effects on Wikipedia.

  2. Jinnai (talk · contribs) states that the page will get people to donate. After viewing such a tasteless sexualization of a Wikipedia child mascot to raise funds for Wikipedia, potential donors to Wikipedia will be shocked and disgusted. I strongly doubt they would donate to the Wikipedia Foundation.

  3. Kayau (talk · contribs)'s argument that Wikipe-tan is "extremely unfunny" and "doesn't really encourage donations" is a position I strongly agree with. However, I disagree with his call for userfication because this page does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia.

  4. Kyaa the Catlord (talk · contribs)'s comment is noted.

  5. Underween (talk · contribs)'s comment, I hope, is a joke, though a very tasteless one.
  
  Because this page brings Wikipedia into disrepute, and because it contains extremely tasteless content, it must be deleted. Cunard (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

  • You keep on using the word "sexualized images of a child", would you care to point out which images that are in question here? If so then they should be deleted as well right? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I wrote above "While most of those pictures are not inherently sexualized, the graphic commentary on the page is." Cunard (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I revised my text above to "While those pictures are not inherently sexualized, the graphic commentary on the page is." Cunard (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I think that what generates most disrepute for Wikipedia is indecisiveness of its community, long editorial trenches attrition warfare, self-stilled wiki-savior good guys on crusade mode, systemic bias with ethnically & culturally centered editors... For those reasons i will not recommend joining Wikipedia to my friends and relatives. This joke is certainly poor & male gender oriented but to the point that would make a key reason not to contributing to wikipedia, i really don't think so. Last second thought if you wonder what's my opinion, well delete because it's gender oriented joke. We already have too few women editing here so please avoid joke which collateral effect is "Wikipedia is a club for boys" --KrebMarkt (talk) 07:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    • On that note, I'm off to make WP:NOT#A Club for Boys. ^_^ Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I DID chuckle on this page but after a reality check, this page is way more suitable in male oriented websites or forums like animesuki and the likes or in usepage not mainspace. I'm certain that more people would be chocked and vindicative had the little girl been replaced by a little shota boy but that just a girl... --KrebMarkt (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
        updated to Keep since sufficient editing have been made. It's more balance not overdoing it. --KrebMarkt (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• keep - unless folks are going to seriously consider doing away with all anime articles, notable and referenced or not. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 07:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• This is not an anime article. Cunard (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree with much that Cunard states. The simple use of Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan is OK, although I think the gallery of images in Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan contains some that are questionable. I am most convinced by arguments like those above from KrebMarkt. Wikipedia is too blokey and we are turning women away. We need to do everything we can to stop doing that and deleting this would be a start. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Delete. As a friend of someone who suffers from a mental illness, I'm appalled by the trivial mention of serious mental illnesses (bipolar disorder, anorexia, etc), and child abuse and prostitution as jokes. The captions make light of problems that women and children actually face in society (forced prostitution, abuse, eating disorders, etc) and the caption about blackface is culturally insensitive. While I think that the page was set up with the intention of being harmless fun, the jokes are tasteless. I also agree with much of what Cunard and Krebmarkt have written: Humor on Wikipedia is fine, insensitive humor is not. Kaguya-chan (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

  Oh my. You guys (and girls) are amazing! (I'm particularly happy to find the child prostitution and blackface captions removed.) While the new version needs a brief copy-edit, it's nothing like it was before. I'm a little wary of the auditory hallucinations and the phrase "going crazy", though. Still, the article has really changed for the better. Kaguya-chan (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment WP:IDONTLIKEIT should not be a factor here, neither should any other Personal point of view. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

  Comment To the contrary. "I don't like it" can be a serious flag for everyone that something is wrong. If you make anti-Semitic or anti-Black comments or worse, if you crack jokes in an article, it's just fine when someone says "I don't like it." The answer is NOT to say "Aw, c'mon, dude, lighten up!" Some things are not fine at all, whether they are intended in a jokey fashion or not. Nor is the answer to say "Hey, dude, drop that PC garbage," because Wikipedia is just so huge. If Wikipedia were a tiny little blog with 75 readers a week, and if you signed it personally, well, no one might care very much if you were a clumsy and offensive bigot. But Wikipedia all told got some 600,000,000 hits in my last Google check: that's a lot of people. There is no room for "rib-cracking jokes" at other people's expense on an encyclopedia. If you're OK with blackface, that's your lookout, but there are many people who think it's a racial slur. And the answer to that is not to say "Cite your sources, dude!" because all adults ought to know that it's a slur -- and you can do your own Googling if you don't believe me. What we all are hearing in this discussion is that a good many people, not all, but many, do not appreciate or admire the attempt at humor in these Wikipetan cartoons. Take those opinions very seriously. Timothy Perper (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

  Comment, continued One can certainly also question the inclusion in Wikipedia of the sort of personalized art and humor represented by the Wikipetan cartoons. The cartoons would be acceptable, I suggest, on a personal blog or webspace, but humor that touches the nerves that these cartoons touch makes them a dubious contribution to an encyclopedia. There may be a place for a "chuckles of the month" column in the Signpost, although that idea would have its critics. So we need to take seriously the effort to link these cartoons to fund-raising efforts and ask if the cartoons are counterproductive, particularly when recent fund-raising efforts have made every attempt to portray Wikipedia as a widely welcoming and serious endeavor, and especially when that outreach attempts to invite more women to join Wikipedia as editors. Timothy Perper (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - while I think some of the other people seeking deletion here are taking this a bit too seriously - it's a humour page, after all - I agree with them that it doesn't belong here. It's just a pointless gallery of images with stupid captions. (All of which are already on WP:Wikipe-tan anyway.) This page doesn't serve any useful purpose - I can't honestly believe that it's actually convinced someone to donate who otherwise wouldn't - and it is apparently offending people, so we're better off without it. Robofish (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

  As an aside, if anyone wants to userfy this, I wouldn't object; I'd say it comes within the scope of what people can host on their user pages if they so want. Robofish (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

  You're not on the receiving end of the humor. Timothy Perper (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

  That's a fair point. I'll scratch my userfy comment; this shouldn't be acceptable there either. As I said, I find it more stupid than offensive, but if others are offended by it, that's reason enough to get rid of it. Robofish (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Essentially per Kaguya-chan. It's okay, it's supposed to be a joke, but it's going way too far with its "humour", and it's offensive. Diego Grez (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per IvoryMeerkat. This is bad humor. (edit conflict) – Allen4names 19:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

  There has been some improvement (see below) but I do not think this page belongs on Wikipedia. – Allen4names 03:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

  This page is ment to be for humor it will never have any serious use nor will the other pages that are deemed funny here on wikipedia. Readers do not normally see humor pages unless they look for them or find them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

  A delete vote based solely on one's personal opinion is a "weak delete" just as mine is. – Allen4names 04:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Every time I said to myself "Keep," because "It's just humor," I remembered the comments above from people it offended, and I changed my mind. We can't have stuff on Wikipedia that offends people for ethnic, racial, or gender reasons. We just can't. Timothy Perper (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral/Comment - First, I don't find any of the images on this page to be at all sexualized, not even the image with the caption suggesting it is "sexy". In fact, I think one of the main ways the page tries to derive its humor is by having completely innocuous images coupled with captions that suggest they represent abuse. I also totally disagree with the claims that the page is misogynistic. I just don't see anything on this page that is specifically offensive against women. If the page actually contained sexualized images of the character, that would certainly by misogynistic, but it does not. Most problems and abuses on the page apply equally to boys and girls, and the fact that there are a few that are more common among girls is only because Wikipe-tan happens to be female. Quite frankly, I think the people complaining of misogyny on this page are themselves being unsensitive in not recognizing that most of the problems and abuses on this page often effect boys as well as girls. On the other hand, I could see how people could be offended by a page making light of child abuse and other problems that affect real people. Despite this, I personally don't find this page at all offensive. One reason for this is the obvious irony of the page, both in how Wikipe-tan is a fictional mascot who clearly can't suffer abuse, and in how captions suggesting abuse are pared with innocent seeming images. I also don't find this page offensive because making light of serious problems in this way is extremely common in humor (at least in American humor), and generally is seen as a way to address issues that people are hesitant to speak about. I feel that anyone who finds this page offensive would be horrified by watching something like an episode of Family Guy. All that being said, I'm still not sure the page should remain, as it seems to serve no valid purpose on Wikipedia. I certainly don't think it will prompt people to donate money. While I found it somewhat humorous, in my opinion it isn't really all that funny, at least compared to some of the other pages that are kept around for humor. 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. If someone wants it usefied to their user space, then in my opinion that would be fine, as I don't think it is so offensive as to bring "disrepute" to Wikipedia (and certainly not once it is in an individual user's user space). Calathan (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• (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)

• 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)

• Delete. Not sufficiently related to the project generally. Perhaps could be moved to a subpage WikiProject Anime and manga, or userfiable to a member of that WikiProject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

• Comment There I took out some of the crude humor and reference to child labor to make the article more POV, I feel that this really should have been discussed on the talk page first before this AfD was made. If anyone else wants to help the article feel free. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Even more I'd have to agree. Someone somewhere is always going to be offended when satire is used. By its very definition satire mocks a subject which means it has to have someone or something associated with a person or group to mock. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have satire. Nothing on the page is truely degrading.陣内_Jinnai 01:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    • What bothers me is that rather than discussing it this had to go straight to AfD without anyone thinking to improve or change the article, wikipedia is a work in progress and yes there are always going to be those people who are offended by things, thats just the way the world works though sadly. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Satire ridicules "ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement". I don't see how this page accomplishes that. Cunard (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
      • And that's what it is as far as I can tell. I cannot read the mind of the person who created this page, so yes, they could have been mocking them out of spite or malice, but the same can be said for many things out there others label as satire. To me it looks like that because its saying Wikipedia is being attacked by people who have political motivations and want things in Wikipedia to not beWP:UNCENSORED and are asking people to help donate to that cause. If anything the removal of the child labor part goes against the spirit of the page imo, but that maybe crossed the line too much I guess. Could it have been done better? Probably. Could it have been done in a more proactive way to solicit donations?Definatly. That doesn't make the point moot though.陣内_Jinnai 02:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Based on the first and later revisions of the page, I don't think criticism of editors' ignoring WP:NOTCENSORED was the intention of the author. But I could be wrong. Cunard (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • A major improvement. Most of the offensive material has been excised, though the mental illness mentions in both the body of the article and in the image captions raised by Kaguya-chan (talk · contribs) still remain. That is the meat of Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan!, so if that content is removed, the page will be a shell. Second, SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs)'s concerns that the page is "not sufficiently related to the project generally" are still relevant to the page. Cunard (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Okay how about turning the content around saying that even if you do suffer from neglect and such you can always find a friend here on wikipedia? There are ways to improve this article and I see potential in it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
      • That is another improvement but how would the mental illness mentions and image captions be dealt with? Cunard (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
        • The punch line here I see is that wikipe-tan has gone crazy from such and such and needs your help here is what you can do, which are the captions that you want changed and what words do you suggest moving? Yes this article is being stripped but there is always room for improvement down the line. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
          • I revised two image captions that I thought were overly suggestive when referring to a child mascot. The phrase "suffering from a number of issues including, depression, anorexia, and pyromania" has three mental disorders which should be removed. Perhaps it could be replaced by "loneliness, motion sickness, [etc]"? Cunard (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
            • neglect can lead to depression and depression can and can not be a mental disorder (This article does not state which) and have taken out pyromania. I feel pyromania should at least stay it goes along with the image of wikipe-tan playing with fire and does not pose a huge harm. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
              • I have left a message at User talk:Kaguya-chan to see what her thoughts are about the revised page. Because the offensive content has been removed, I am inclined to support keeping the page. Thank you for your efforts in rescuing this page from deletion. Cunard (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
                • Yorue welcome, hey wikipedia is a work in progress why delete a page if it can be improved? ^-^ - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
                  • I didn't think that a page of this nature could be saved, but you've proven me wrong through a major rewrite. ;) Best, Cunard (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Close this discussion without prejudice as the page has been significantly edited, addressing criticism, since being nominated of deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Nah, stick with my original !vote, after reading Tarc below and Bduke above. Not only is it unrelated, it is unhelpful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - The Wikipe-tan concept itself is just a product of undersexed basement-dwellers. Whether the page version is the slutty one or the sanitized one, it just has no relevance or purpose in regards to the project. I like smut as much as the next guy, or girl, but this whole thing is just retarded. Tarc (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Delete this serves absolutely no project purpose. It may offend, and does have the potential to bring the project into disrepute. That's not a strong reason for deletion but, given that it serves no purpose, there is more to gained by removing it than retaining it. Oh, and before someone says this is an IDONTLIKEIT vote, yes it is - in part. But when something serves no purpose, deleting it because a consensus of Wikipedians don't like it would be perfectly reasonable. However my main reason is - no benefit vs possible (albeit minor) potential to bring us into disrepute = better off without it (if only a little).--Scott Mac 22:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• delete As humor, this does not have much lulz potential, nor does it have any producwtive value. It is not making any useful point, nor is it based on a kernel of truth. This content would be more appropriate for Encyclopedia Dramatica. In a broader sense, I dislke our Wikepi-tan character because she is helping perpetuate sexism, and could be viewed as offensive by many people. We have enough problems recruiting women to edit. Why invite offense with this regressive mascot character? Ugh. Jehochman ^Talk 12:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep I think the concerns have been addressed. I don't find it especially funny, either, but we all have different tastes. I no longer see anything particularly offensive about it, and I don't hear any convincing policy-based rationale for deletion; it all sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. So, WP:HEY.  Chzz  ►  12:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delete-found this page roundabout, and frankly it turned my stomach, even sanitized. The poor attempt at humor brings the project into disrepute, and robs a bit of joy from the cute character, who is not at all meant to be as Tarc mischaracterized her and her creator. At some point we need to consider that this is an encyclopedia and not a jokebook, and shelve the stupid joke pages, to be dusted off only April 1.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

All I can say to that is "no fucking way". Tarc (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

• Keep If we are not going to delete Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not/Outtakes, which survived two MfDs and has absolutely no propose other than to collect spam, I cannot see how you can use "no purpose" as a reason to delete any page tagged as humor. —Farix (t | c) 21:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• 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)
• WP:OTHERCRAP is never a valid reason to keep or delete something in an XfD. Tarc (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Keep it already Enough endless disjointed conversation. Unless it's harmful, keep it, will ya? Timothy Perper (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Keep - There's nothing wrong with this page- it's funny, does no harm, and is worth keeping. Nutiketaiel (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• Keep - I think it should be kept since it's funny. However it should be made more clear that it's fiction and it's intent is to act as a ad of somesort for Wikipedia fund rising. It would be great if somebody could also improve its humorous content to be more funny. --Mikitei (talk) 06:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Delete as it does not significantly add anything to the main Wikipetan page. However I want everyone to know that I'm not in favor of any deletions of the images themselves, as they are top quality artwork. Nor do I endorse the campaign to remove Wikipetan from project space. —Soap— 17:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. I think I'm with Soap, at least to some extent. I don't like to think of myself as a prude, but I do believe that these images are essentially misogynistic (that's not a vote to delete the images themselves). I'm sure there is an appropriate term for this kind of image (young girls given these innocent but intentionally enticing characteristics), and I don't like them. I am not suggesting that the page should be removed because I don't like it: I am suggesting it be removed because I am quite sure I'm not the only one. That's not censorship--it is my judgment that this does not benefit the project. I can live with one Wikipetan, I guess, but a gallery full of it (despited Knowledgekid's useful pruning and Cunard's edits), that's difficult to stomach for me.

  In response to some of the comments above, about WP's image toward women and possible women editors: a page full of sexy little girls, many in French maid style, how would that not turn off at least some women (and men as well) from working to improve WP? Drmies (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

• Keep. It's clearly humourous, and the rest of the bunch should learn to DGAF. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Eh, that is a pretty rude and unfruitful comment, and I'm biting my tongue to keep my own four-letter acronym to myself. Drmies (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Hi, I'm a real, live female, and I find the attitude on this page, even in its cleaned version, misogynistic. Just, you know, for those of you who were saying that you wouldn't believe it until a woman said it. My vote is essentially for the same reasons as Soap and Drmies. Wikipe-tan herself is iffy enough; a page portraying her as a helpless object being abused is in extremely poor taste and does more harm than many people can apparently imagine to our ability to welcome women. As a second choice, I could live with the page being userified. Just get it out of space where it's implied to belong to the encyclopedia as a whole. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • You said it better than I did, esp. in your fourth sentence. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    • "who were saying that you wouldn't believe it until a woman said it"
    • I haven't seen anybody state that. Some "poor, helpless girl" who gets turned away by the "misogynist men's room" of Wikipedia after seeing this is a bad female stereotype.AerobicFox (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Judging from your words, I don't think you know a lot about stereotyping, and no one said anything about the real world containing "poor, helpless girl[s]"--you are probably confusing the icon with real women. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per Tarc and Fluffernutter. More generally this Wikipe-tan stuff is creepy and weird. The idea that she is the WP mascot (from what I can tell she is not) is unfortunate. Lovetinkle (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• More comments. Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT is mentioned several times above. If you read the lead of that page, it is pretty clear that it refers to articles and such things as images, templates and categories that are part of articles. This is in WP space, and the only criteria should be whether it helps or hinders the project. It clearly does not help. I am disturbed by several people talking about these images being used for fundraising. I have been a bit involved in the WMF fundraiser through my chapter and I attended the fundraising conference in the UK last year. I do not think that the WMF and anyone else involved with the WMF fundraiser would go even near to using these images, and it would be bad form indeed for anyone to use them for a smaller national fundraiser outside the main fundraising period. I am delighted that a woman editor has joined in to support my view that this page does indeed put some women off. Do you realize that only 13% of contributers are women. Are we proud of that fact? Does it no distort what we are doing? Should we not be doing anything we can to alter that situation? --Bduke (Discussion) 23:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It sounds to me that you are angry about women not posting and are using this article as a scapegoat example, some women is not ALL women. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete (switched from "delete" to "keep" back to "delete") The potential for this page to alienate and offend editors far outweighs the possible humor reaped from it. I understand the arguments advanced by Jinnai (talk · contribs) and Knowledgekid87 (talk · contribs). However, with the testimony by Fluffernutter (talk · contribs) and the astute comments of Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs), Tarc (talk · contribs), Drmies (talk · contribs), Bduke (talk · contribs), et al, coupled by the inherent connotations of a page that depicts an abused female child mascot in a helpless manner, I am compelled to support the deletion of this page. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I guess another humor page involving wikipe-tan can always be made that does not involve crude humor. I just cant believe the tides on this page though and how much opinions are shifting to teh extreme. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

Why not just take it out of the anime/manga wikiproject then... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Done anime/manga project from talkpage removed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Delete I can't see how this adds anything to the project even in the sanitized state. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Seeing I removed the anime/manga project I assume you mean the humor project? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In this context, it appears Guerillero is referring to the English Wikipedia project. Reach Out to the Truth 04:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Seeing this does involve the content of wikipe-tan the issue has reached The admin incidents board - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

• Delete I appreciate the efforts to clean up the page, but I don't think it's enough. This page has no value. It's a gallery of images that are available elsewhere, with humorous captions that a number of people find offensive. We don't need it. Reach Out to the Truth 04:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Although I realize this page isn't meant to be taken seriously, it's not funny whatsoever, it's gallery of images is unnecessary, and as many other have noted, a good deal of the image captions are rather eyebrow raising at best and considerably rude at worst. Captain panda 05:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - if it's supposed to be humorous, it seems to fail (at least I don't find it funny at all). It does not benefit the project in any way that I can tell. This much had me on the fence as to whether or not it should be deleted; what pushed me well into the delete category is the suggestion that this might actually be intended for actual fundraising. I think that a supremely bad idea. (Incidentally, someone said something about women finding Wikipe-tan cute; this woman finds her not very cute and rather stupid-looking. Partially, I admit that I have no love for manga; additionally, I've always found those giant puzzle pieces in her hair really stupid-looking.) LadyofShalott 05:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Keep It annoys humorless prudes. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

• • Yes, Steven J. Anderson, what a friendly and cooperative remark. I don't find the sexualization of children humorous in the least, and that we would use, as advertising, an image that so many people find offensive is incomprehensible. Do you find this funny? And even if you do, can you try to understand why it would be bad for business? This is not about your personal opinion of the image or the prudes who don't want it used in this way: you are asked to look a little bit at the world outside your cave, if you can, and consider how possible contributors and benefactors would see us. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  You hold him to a standard where he cannot call others a "humorless prude" while you let Tarq and others on your side call users here "undersexed basement dwellers" and pedophiles. Holding those your opposed to to a higher standard and then attacking them exemplifies shallow pov pushing. Do you believe anybody takes a suggestion for civility coming from you seriously? AerobicFox (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  Huh? Yes, I do. I've been here for 60 times more edits than you have, and some people still take me seriously, yes. Calling people who are concerned with the image we are portraying "humorless prudes" is just dumb, besides rude. I didn't call anyone a pedophile or anything else. However, I will gladly go ahead and call some people here ignorant, even willfully ignorant, and sexist to boot, and I will say that they are allowing the benefit of Wikipedia to be outweighed by their personal sense of humor (or "attempt" at humor). There's plenty of justification here (and right below, in a comment from someone who doesn't deserve a response) to call people juvenile--and that those people would like underage girls portrayed as sex kittens is not very surprising ("oh no! it's not sexual at all!" right). Maybe you didn't see the hooker in the earlier version, accepting money from strangers? Drmies (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  "I've been here for 60 times more edits than you have"

  I'm sure editors take seriously your holding people you disagree with to a higher standard after a quick glance at all the DYKs you have.

  "Calling people who are concerned with the image we are portraying discussing "humorless prudes" is just dumb, besides rude."

  "is just dumb".

  ^^Write like a grown up if you want to sound like you know what constitutes the sexualization of children

  Do you think you act less rude when you lecture others on how to behave? No, you sound like an annoying child.

  A hooker? You mean harmless, innocent, and adorable image?

  "sex kittens"

  I recommend you consider "Sasuke's paw Encyclopedia", a filler episode in Naruto where Sasuke, Naruto, and Sakura all put on kitten ears and act like kittens. Do you believe they were portraying Naruto as a "sex kitten"?AerobicFox (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

@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)

• Keep: zero violation of policy as it currently is. There is nothing I see sexual at all in the current article, and the Guren reference I find humorous. Agreed that the sexy pose and blackface were extremely tasteless; removed though as they are I see no problems with this article.AerobicFox (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

"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)

• Userfy: Move it to userspace where it won't be considered as an agreeable consensus-driven essay, because it's not. As it is now, it is just one person's bad humour that's being imposed onto the Wikipedia commmunity by being on Wikispace. Neither the reputation of Wikipedia nor that of Wikipe-tan are being benefited by having this page here. _dk (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete There is a time and place for humor Child abuse is not one of those topics. Also a prime example of why Wikipedia fails women editors The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)

• Keep It may well be absolutely horrid, but that is not a specific reason for deletion, and it seems to be the main reason advanced. If and when WP sees fit to establish stringent rules, then this may be revisited, but it does not appear to violate anything at this point. I likely would favor stronger rules, but that is not what we have now. Collect (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • But Collect, wouldn't this be the place to invoke WP:IAR, for instance? (I'm not asking to try and sway you--it's more out of curiosity.) Drmies (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  WP:IAR says to ignore a rule if it interferes with the encyclopedia. There are no rules forbidding this; you are looking for WP:Create a rule.AerobicFox (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep- The more questionable entries have been removed, and the thing is clearly marked as humorous. So there are no longer any grounds for calling it offensive (which were rather weak to begin with), or somehow mistaken for a serious attempt at fundraising. I think Wikipe-tan is stupid, myself, and about as funny as a calculus textbook, but that's just my opinion and not a reason to delete this essay. Reyk _YO! 21:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Keep This easily passes the "less offensive than the main page of de.wiki" test. While I understand that it does offend people, I honestly don't see what is so offensive about this page. I'm not completely opposed to userfying it--but I don't see any problem with the status quo ante bellum. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • But if you understand that it offends people, why would you want it as advertising? Actually, I just revisited this page to propose something else: all those who think that this kind of imagery is just so cute and funny, can we have a Shotacon mascot as well? (I learned something new, prude that I am.) Can we have him begging, or offering sex for money in a public restroom? In a French maid costume? Drmies (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Exactly what i was thinking. How can you understand people getting offended, yet still support it? And whats with that remark? are you supporting inappropriate content, or am i misunderstanding your point.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Well as wikipe-tan isn't a lolicon character its a moot point about a shotacon mascot. As for a male counterpart of similar visage, go right ahead.陣内_Jinnai 04:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I will agree that "better than Microsoft" is a pretty low bar. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

• Keep- I'm new to deletion discussions, but, if this page has to go, so does:
  • Wikipedia:Village stocks
  • WP:TROUT

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

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)

• Delete. There's really only one thing wrong with it: it's not funny. Since it's not funny, it's not of high enough quality to be in mainspace. Mainspace entities need to be of reasonable quality. They don't have to be Goethe, but you can't just reel some sub-quality stuff off the top of your head and expect it to live in mainspace - keep it in user space. Wikipedia is not paper and sub-quality mainspace entities don't really hurt anyone, but since someone brought it up and we have it here on the table and have to make a decision, I'd say: not good enough. (Additionally, Wikipe-tan generally is annoying to some, particularly some of the sisters, so why keep something that is annoying and is of poor quality?) Herostratus (talk) 07:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Humor is in the eye of the beholder.陣内_Jinnai 17:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • No shit. Problem is, not many outside of the anime/mange-sphere are finding it to be actually funny. Remember; this isn't about your Wikipe-tan itself, it is specifically about this "Think of..." page. Tarc (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
      • One of the purposes of a deletion is to delete a page that has 0% potential to improve, and seeing this is a humor page this is not one of those articles that lacks references or such and improves with the amount of effort people put into it I do not see why people are not putting ideas forward to improve this article. I understand if editors dont like it in it's current form but things do change. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Improvement is not an option on the table if the premise itself is completely defective. As I said many, many posts ago, what this is is like an in-joke for the Wikipe-tan fanboys, poking fun at it with a think of the children theme. It simply isn't funny to anyone who isn't "in" on the whole Wikipe-tan shtick to begin with. There's really no place for private in-jokes that essentially only one WikiProject gets in project space. Does this clear things up for you finally? Honestly, I am getting tired of the repetition. Tarc (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delete: I agree completely with Tarc: "Whether the page version is the slutty one or the sanitized one, it just has no relevance or purpose in regards to the project". Let's get rid of this offensive filth.--William S. Saturn (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Per Herostratus, Bduke, and Tarc. We need more women editing; let's not trivialize them. And even the "joking" about mental illness that remains on the page is just dumb. It'd be about as appropriate to joke about cancer or illnesses that cause paraplegia.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. The page as originally created--and as it read before the AfD--was deeply, deeply offensive on multiple levels relating to sexism, psychological difficulties, and abuse (among others). That fact is not irrelevant now that the page has been sanitized somewhat, because the sanitized version of the page is incoherent after most of the deeply messed up crap was removed. Reading the current version before reading the original I certainly found it creepy and weird, but it also made no damn sense. The original version at least clearly was purposed as a horribly ill-advised, sarcastic pushback against criticism of the Wikipe-tan character (I think). This current page is not humorous--and no I don't think that's a subjective conclusion--and the idea that this page could lead to donations is laughable and a bad idea if it were true (I mean really think about it: "our borderline lolicon female mascot is a lonely pyro who hears voices and needs a lawyer for custody of herself or something--please give money to the Wikimedia Foundation!" Very professional--wait I mean totally insane.) I agree with many of the delete arguments above. The page serves no project purpose whatsoever (even humor) and is offensive to many (this is undeniable) and has the possibility of making Wikipedia look bad, particularly since our "gender gap" issues are rightfully a topic of discussion of late. I'm quite convinced that pages like this (and indeed many comments from "keep" folks in this MFD) help contribute to this problem which is indeed very, very real. Finally, as an aside, I'd add that the ferocity with which some keep !voters support keeping this page (including repetitive comments that all "articles"--which this isn't--are works in progress and someday this will end up being awesome) only adds to the creepiness of this page and, yes I'll say it, the creepiness of our usage of the Wikipe-tan character in general. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

(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)

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.