Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan (2nd nomination)

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 Keep. The clear majority in the discussion favors keeping the page. To overcome this the delete position would need a strong argument that the page violates prior consensus, but the arguments offered did not achieve that. The fundamental argument for keeping is that the character is used by some as an "unofficial mascot", and even if those who use it are not the majority, project-space has numerous examples of pages based around specific sub-groups and minority positions. The deletion argument revolves around the content possibly bringing disrepute to the project, and the recent deletion of a related page is explicitly cited as precedent for deleting a page on that basis. However, unlike that earlier discussion, in this instance those opposing deletion have strongly challenged the claim of negative effect, and there are significant differences between the two pages. The other standing consensus most commonly appealed to for deletion is the WP:FAKEARTICLE guideline, but that guideline is focused on user pages, and there is no consensus that it provides a valid reason for deleting this page. A third position, favoring a move to a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga, was expressed in a number of comments, but did not gain enough support to form a consensus and was rebutted by comments that pointed to use of the character outside of that project.

A few final notes on items that this close does not address or incorporate: First, the behavior of the nominator (discovered to be a block-evading sockpuppet) is not significant given the comments of other good-faith contributors who supported similar views, so the SPI finding did not affect the result. Second, this is not WP:FFD, and the keep result for this page should not be taken as community endorsement of any particular image of this character, or as an inhibitor to any nominations for the deletion of images that some may consider offensive or otherwise inappropriate for the project. Finally, this result does not reflect a community endorsement of the character per se. Some of those supporting the keep position for the page expressed their dislike for the character. Arguments for and against the use of this character and images of "her" in particular situations may continue in other venues. --RL0919 (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan

There's a couple of problems with this page.

First, it is masquerading as an article, which has confused a number of people. See the WP:FAKEARTICLE rationale.

Secondly, the utility of this page is dubious and the contentiousness of this page is obvious to those who have been following the controversies surrounding this particular attempt to make a mascot for Wikipedia. As has been pointed out, this is not the mascot of Wikipedia, so it's a bit strange that we would have a part of project-space devoted to this.

One possible solution to this issue might be to simply reorganize this as subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga. This is a Wikiproject which has adopted this character as their mascot and, indeed, most of the instances of this character are associated with this group of fans.

Aside from the controversial nature of this page as it stands, the problem with keeping this page as a separate Wikipedia project is that it has historically encouraged problematic project content in the form of the recently deleted: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan!‎. The particular issues surround the culture of moe in anime circles. Please read this section of the article. Now, I'm not going to take an explicit side in whether these criticisms are justified or not, but it seems to me that is pretty clear that this criticism will necessarily continue to play themselves out if this page is kept as a part of Wikipedia Project space and users are encouraged to "work" on Wikipe-tan for continued inclusion of images of her in project space and articles. If individual Wikipedia projects want to deal with individual images, I think this is fine, but this centralization of the character is problematic from the perspective of inclusiveness and, for example, the situations where certain depictions in the gallery of images are likely to drive good-faith contributors away who will see misogynistic or even lolicon implications in them.

I'm not recommending here a wholesale deletion of every instance of this character. I'm simply arguing that, as a part of "project space", this image should not have a dedicated page as it is too problematic and a distraction from WP:ENC.

IvoryMeerkat (talk) 03:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- G.A.S^talk 04:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep As this user continues to show bad faith toward trying to purge Wikipe-tan off Wikipedia in general. There's absolutely ZERO reason to delete this page as it stands. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep I see no images in Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan#Gallery which could be considered lolicon, and or drive people away in any way. Also, in the section Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan#Use_outside_Wikipedia_and_Wikimedia_organizations it list how many times Wikipe-tan has been used in a major news source. Dream Focus 05:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. In reference to the specific points raised by the nominator:
  • WP:FAKEARTICLE is a guideline for user pages—based, in large part, on the general principle that Wikipedia is not a host for users' personal materials—and is not directly applicable to project-space pages. Even if the guideline were applicable here, however, the nominator presents no evidence that the page could reasonably be mistaken for an article by the average reader; an isolated instance of confusion is hardly sufficient reason to delete an established page.
  • The alleged "contentiousness" of the page appears to be, in large part, a product of the nominator's dedication to removing all mention of it from Wikipedia; see, for example, this discussion, or this one. The page, and the associated imagery, has existed since 2006; certainly, if there were indeed some great controversy over its existence, it should have become apparent before now.
  • There is a wide variety of project-space pages devoted to concepts that are also not official mascots (or official anything else, for that matter); Category:Wikipedia culture contains hundreds of similar pages, many of them well-established and widely known. The long-standing consensus of the community is clearly that a lack of official "status" is not in and of itself reason to remove material from project space.
  • The fact that another—now deleted!—page was found to be problematic is hardly a reason to delete this one; each page must be considered on its own merits.
  Overall, so long as the community's position is to allow pages related to Wikipedia culture in project space, I see no reason why this one should be singled out for deletion; it documents a well-established aspect of said culture, and there is no evidence that its existence causes any substantive disruption.

  If there are concerns regarding some particular image listed on the page, then those are best addressed by way of discussing the image itself; deletion of the page would do nothing to stop use of the images (which are hosted on Commons) in any case. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  I think the nitpicky argument that FAKEARTICLE is for "userspace" is ridiculous. There is more than just one isolated incident where this page is being treated as an article (see this and this. Your implied contention and the contention of others rudely commenting here that this is somehow only my problem is enough for me to cry foul on the WP:NPA front with your failure to comment on content rather than the contributor. There were enough people commenting that they disliked Wikipe-tan in general at the last MfD and even at Wikipedia talk:Wikipe-tan for this conversation to be considered something that should happen, I think. It would be nice to see someone in the echelons of Wikipedia power structure like yourself encouraging less personalization of the situation rather than more. Just to show I'm not the only one who finds problems with this character, Jimbo Wales according to the very page is not a fan, for example. You might ask him why. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  From WP:FAKEARTICLE: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used..." (emphasis mine). The assertion that the guideline applies to userspace is hardly "nitpicky" when the guideline explicitly states such!

  As for your other points, it is not at all a personal attack to point out that, prior to your concerted attempts to remove all references to this material—and this principle is quite relevant, given the spread, speed, and volume of your efforts—the page existed with for years with little or no controversy. It's hardly reasonable for you to create a controversy around the page and then argue that it is too "controversial" and must therefore be deleted.

  Jimmy's opinion, incidentally, is of limited relevance; but note that he did not suggest the page should be removed, merely that he personally was not a fan of it. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  The principles of FAKEARTICLE clearly apply to more than userspace... otherwise creating fake articles in Wikipedia space would be an obvious way for people to skirt the rules. And as to your continued personalizations: Maybe you'd like to explain how little-ol me "creates" a controversy? I thought a consensus model dictated that one person's opinion is supposed to be weighted less than a group's opinion. Either there is a controversy or there isn't. Shooting the messenger is not very heroic. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is, for better or worse, not a democracy; the fact that a greater number of editors supports X than Y does not necessarily mean that X will be chosen over Y in a "consensus" discussion. It is quite common (if somewhat unfortunate, in my view) for a small group of vocal users, or even a single vocal user, to dominate a discussion and exercise disproportionate influence on its progress and outcome—particularly when that user produces such a quantity of commentary that others find it difficult to respond to it all. (If you're looking for specific examples, a perusal of arbitration cases from the past few years might prove of interest.) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  Well, that's a certainly damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't proposition if I've ever seen one. Wikipedia is not a democracy so that a small group of thoughtful editors can establish consensus despite being outnumbered. However, if they do this, then they run the risk of being accused of "dominating" the discussion and "exercising disproportionate influence". It really reads as if you would prefer that Wikipedia really was run as a democracy. If that's the case, might I recommend instead of pointing out personalities in these discussions you work to change the rather hare-brained rules codified at WP:CON? Your implied endorsement of the "IvoryMeerkat made a bad-faith nom" party line runs counter to behavioral guidance such as WP:AGF. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  Well if you got to WP:ANI after removing images from articles regardless case by case consensus or the relevance of the images to the said articles, this can't help AGF. Adding the fact that you started a discussion here and another one on WT:ANIME both related to Wikipe-tan which could be perceived as a hostile attempt of two pronged attack aiming to over-run opposing editors which helps even less AGF. The finishing touch is how you managed to infer the argument "supporters of Wikipe-tan" = "lolicon" = maybe also "pedophile". Even if this not what you wrote, this is how your argument was perceived but opposing editors. So there is no surprise that they are tossing AGF to the sewers. --KrebMarkt (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  I suppose if your culture is that everyone who is accused of a crime is guilty, you'd have a point. It's really interesting that you think you've been able to determine my "aim" so poorly to be able to repeat false accusations that I made arguments that I did not make (some of which don't even make logical sense). What you are accusing me of is thoughtcrimes (even if you didn't actually say it, because other people think you have this or that motivation you are GUILTY!) If that's truly an acceptable cultural practice here, Wikipedia has no business being associated with the so-called "Free Culture" movement. Thankfully, it seems that the evidence is plain that the people who have opposed me, on the whole, have almost no real substance to their arguments and tend to resort to personal attacks almost immediately. It doesn't make their arguments any better. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

  The point is you have continually shown in your behavior (note: actions) things that make unable to assume good faith any more. You remove images for no reason to make a WP:POINT, you call us mysogenic pedophiles, and so on (Farix above displays the issues much better than I). I honestly can't see how anyone can count us as the 'bad guys' here, when when it's pretty clear what the truth is. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

  I don't think there's any particular doubt that IvoryMeerkat believes that Wikipedia would be better if all images of Wikipe-tan were removed. That's not a particularly controversial stance: I share it, but I don't do much about it because I don't care much about it. All WP:AGF requires of you is that you assume that IvoryMeerkat is editing in a way that he believes will improve the encyclopedia, and I don't see any real reason to doubt that. That you disagree about the effect of his changes is a completely separate issue.—Kww(talk) 03:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

  I don't think both side of this discussion will walk away with heightened trust and mutual respect. In the contrary, Some editors will only have ill feelings, grudges and distrusts toward others. IvoryMeerkat's actions regardless its reasons is making wikipedia community weaker, brittler and more divided. This is why i refuse to give him AGF. --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

  The reason why I stated a bad faith nom was mostly this discussion here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Wikipe-tan, other editors had told IvoryMeerkat that this should have been RFD'd and I saw that others were willing to help in getting this done so a consensus was forming before this AfD even took place but was cut short, that and his whole campaign against wikipe-tan on tarc's userpage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  Jesus h christ, in how many venues are you going to complain about that fucking talk page thread? The nominator asked me for my opinion on proceeding on this matter, and I gave it, simple as that. There was no "whole campaign", the Evil Anti-Loli Cabal of Doom did not hold their annual meeting there. Just...stop. Tarc (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per the reasoning at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan!. Apart from being pointless, the troll is a diversion that wastes the community's time and drives away potential contributers.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• The page definitely does seem to violate WP:FAKEARTICLE. Some sort of template or message should be added to the top (similar to many userpages) to indicate this is not the case, unless the page can be otherwise changed to indicate this. Also, a concerted effort does need to be made to keep "inside" references to Wikipe-tan out of the article mainspace. If this can be achieved and agreed upon, then I'd feel this justifies a weak keep. Changing to neutral, I'm not sure it should be in the wikipedia space.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind that even if the page were moved, it would remain in the "Wikipedia:" namespace (albeit perhaps nested under some other page), with everything that entails; and that, as mentioned on the page, the image is used by a number of groups other than the Anime and manga WikiProject (including, at last count, the CVU, the Admin Coaching program, the Military history WikiProject, and Wikimedia Hong Kong). The proposal to move the page is based on an incorrect marginalization of the subject as being only "an anime thing"; it's rather more wide-spread than that. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Come now, I'm sure those four projects can make-do with keeping their illustrations without this particular page. Just because this page gets shunted or deleted does not mean it will be impossible for those projects to use images that are on commons or in file space. The proposal to move this page is based on the fact that the text, arguments, and gallery of images are almost entirely the work of the anime and manga group. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Perhaps the current page is indeed largely the work of that particular WikiProject; but their role in creating it is not a convincing reason, in and of itself, for requiring it to reside on a subpage of the project. In any case, as you yourself point out, moving the page would do nothing at all to prevent the use of the images elsewhere; your allegations about the images' "misogynistic or even lolicon implications" are therefore quite irrelevant to the question of where the page should be located. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
        • The fact that one project has a major stake in this page suggests a natural way to shunt this page away from being an independent entity. I'm not taking your strawman zero-sum game approach here. An alternative option to outright deletion might be to consign this back to a nother project. I do not think it is a good idea for this page to be kept at all, but I offer the idea of subsuming it into another project as an option for those who might want to try out an intermediate step before deletion. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - If anyone's concerned about the WP:FAKEARTICLE argument, stick an essay or humour or custom-made box at the top of the article to make it status clear. In the mean time, keep as fostering community organisation and engagement. I realise there's a limit to how many such pages we can keep without causing confusion, but this particular one seems well known and well-liked among its segment of the Wikipedia community and wouldn't be one of the first to go.- DustFormsWords (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Move to someplace deep in the bowels of the anime Wikiproject and forget about her. She isn't Wikipedia's mascot, is very unlikely to ever become Wikipedia's mascot, and serves no useful purpose. That said, if the anime Wikiproject wants to keep her around for some reason, I can't see a policy-based reason to say that they can't.—Kww(talk) 06:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep This isn't in main namespace, so it won't show up in search while looking for other topic, unless you want to. Currently, there's no article in Main namespace link to this project either, so I don't see how one can mistaken it as normal article unless you're looking for it. Troll? Only trolls I known are people who hate this simply because it's anime-like character and want to get rid of it. L-Zwei (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Per Kirill's well reasoned statment. Also, I wish someone would remind the initiator of WP:POINT. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Note I added a template to the article that will hopefully help clear up at least some of the issues with WP:FAKEARTICLE.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Move to subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga per nominator. I think the nominators argument is well put and I do not see it as being in bad faith. Also per Kww. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Wikipe-tan. It is an anime thing, not a wikipedia thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Wikipe-tan per nominator and above. --Kleinzach 09:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as this is obviously a bad faith nomination given IvoryMeerkat's previous comments.[1] and attempts to remove images of Wikipe-tan from WP:ANIME's project banner and from the Anime and manga portal.[2][3][4][5] IvoryMeerkat's war on everything related to Wikipe-tan needs to stop now. The page does not violate any Wikipedia policy and none of the images violate Wikipedia policy. And unlike Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan!‎, there is nothing about the page that someone can misconstrue as insulting. IvoryMeerkat has also implied that other editors who defend Wikipe-tan are promoting pedophilia on Wikipeda, an offense that can result in an immediate and indefinite ban.[6][7][8] —Farix (t | c) 11:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Bad faith nom, I do not think a move is warrented as other projects use wikipe-tan as well (her image and through userboxes) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment looking at the article's history this is actully the Third AfD nomination, someone might want to fix this and link the past AfDs. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete or move to anime-space as suggested by others above, if they want to salvage it. According to Wikipedia:Project namespace, this section of the project is "...a namespace consisting of pages with information or discussion about Wikipedia." What exactly does this comic character have to to with the Wikipedia itself? Other than something that a tiny group has latched onto as some sort of very, very unofficial mascot, not much that I can see. As the nom noted, if people want to use these images in individual articles then that is an editorial decision to decide appropriateness or not. Apparently self-creation and such is covered by WP:OI. But this centralized, project-level recognition just has to go. Wikipe-tan has nothing to do with the rest of us. I will also note that all "speedy keep" calls are without merit and should be discarded when it comes time to close this. People can object to objectionable content in good faith. Farix's screed is particularly odious as it attempts to impose the proverbial "chilling effect" by suggesting the nom be blocked. Tarc (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, Farix is referring to the fact that those who promote pedophilia, as IvoryMeerkat has alleged some editors are doing, are banned—which is true enough—rather than suggesting that IvoryMeerkat himself would be banned for anything. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• I read that comment the same way Kirill did. It's not a suggestion that the nominator be blocked, but pointing out that those who promote pedophilia are. LadyofShalott 15:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps we're all reading something differently then. IvoryMeerkat has called out people for supporting lolicon like Wikpe-tan, he at no time said anything about pedos. Tarc (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Except that it's not lolicon, so there's nothing to be "called out". Yes it's true that there have been sexual versions of Wikipe-tan made, even loli ones, but Rule 34 and all that. You can't blame people for the actions of other people like that. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• I believe it is, as do others. Tarc (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Well then I guess File:Girlgenderrole3.jpg is child porn, as is File:PortraitGirl2005-1a.jpg. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Cute. Do you have any pictures of girls dressed as strawmen ? Tarc (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I will also note that there is a working draft at User:Jinnai/Wikipe-tan of what appears to be an attempt at an actual article on this Wikipe-tan nonsense. So if anything, this problem is spreading and getting worse, not better. Tarc (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Move to a sub-page of the anime and manga project. It is they, not the entire Wikipedia community, who generally have an interest in Wikipe-tan, and Wikipe-tan is not representative of Wikipedia as a whole. While IvoryMeerkat has expressed opinions on Wikipe-tan, it does not automatically follow that this is a bad faith nomination. Now that other opinions of move and delete have been expressed, any "speedy keep" is out of the question. LadyofShalott 14:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• But what if wikipe-tan is being used by multiple projects? I see images and use of wikipe-tan under Wikipedia:WikiProject Essays, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting, over at Wikipedia:Motto of the day, and is even an admin icon (Wikipe-tan sweeping) and over here Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. I did not look under all the images but I am sure that there are many other areas of wikipedia that also use wikipe-tan. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Moving this page to a subpage of the anime project doesn't in any way prevent the other projects from accessing files and images that have Wikipe-tan in them. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with a move as long as it remains in the wikipedia namespace then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep at current location, as the character is useful for mock-up screenshots that go beyond the Anime and Manga project. — PyTom (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Can you explain this and/or give an example? What makes this page particularly useful for screenshots as compared to any other page of the project? LadyofShalott 16:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipe-tan is a freely licensed human character, which is actually pretty rare. That makes her useful for creating screenshots such as the one that IO created to illustrate the Visual Novel article. What's more, since she's an original character, she doesn't bring in the baggage that a character from an established work might. As pointed out by Kirill above, she's used by multiple projects, which makes the Wikipedia namespace more appropriate than a single project's. And it's not like the Wikipedia namespace is only used for policies and guidelines - if essays that many people disagree with can live there, why can't a page like this? — PyTom (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think what you are proposing is something like a subset of Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Free. It would be great to have a list of original characters that are freely-licensed. Encouraging those with the skills to make such characters to make them for Wikipedia or Commons would be fantastic, but this page doesn't seem to do that. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep at current location. As Kirill mentioned, Wikipe-tan is also adopted by the Counter-Vandalism Unit, the Admin Coaching program, the Military history WikiProject, and Wikimedia Hong Kong. The last of which even printed her out to be used in Wikimedia HK functions and have someone dressed like her to attend. Like it or not, Wikipe-tan has extended beyond the Anime and Manga Wikiproject and is a sizable part of Wikipedia culture; and thus the page cannot be moved as a subpage of that Wikiproject, much less be deleted. The only real concern here, WP:FAKEARTICLE, can be (and is) dealt with with a header note. _dk (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. – Allen4names 18:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Huh? SNOW obviously doesn't apply here, as LadyofShalott pointed out above. Drmies (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Move per LadyofShalott. Despite the multitude of keep votes here (and the somewhat random accusations of bad faith, etc.), this is not a big thing, certainly not big enough (in terms of representing the WP community, as the Lady pointed out) for a spot outside of a subpage of a project. She does not represent me and I find nothing cute about it. The "she's not a lolicon" argument is just distracting--that difference, between moe and lolicon, that the anime experts here say is so obvious, I don't see that. I don't doubt the good faith of at least some of the contributors to the page and (some of) its images, and that's one reason for me not to immediately call for deletion (i.e., right now I don't mind the history being preserved, for instance), but I certainly want lower visibility, and I really never want to hear the claim that she represents anything but a small but vocal minority of contributors. Drmies (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Move but Keep part of the wiki-history of not part of some wiki projects life. Denial mode that ever existed wont do. People can try to wash whiter than white all they will manage is to create bigger holes within the wikipedia community if one ever existed at all. I also accuse also the article nominator to be on a personal crusade trying to steamroll editors who don't share his view. Sorry you may consider Anime/Manga as "low culture" or "craps" and its editors as "scums" or "retards" but unfortunately for you we are still part of Wikipedia however much to your chagrin. So much for people preaching tolerance & diversity in Wikipedia... --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per Kirill's well-argued rationale. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep She's a part of wikipedia culture that's been around as long as I've been editing. Maybe not an official mascot but Jimmy Wales has referred to her as a "mascot" in at least one post. Half the nom's arguments are spurious and I see no harm in keeping her. As mentioned she goes beyond just the anime project to other wiki projects as well. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Where does Jim Wales refer to wikipe-tan as a mascot? Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• Hmm...I can't really find where he says that...it's not in the post where he says "I don't like Wikipe-tan and never have," is it? Drmies (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

When he deleted the two images he did call Wikipe-tan a "community mascot". Although he himself does not like Wikipe-tan, he did acknowledge that the community considers her a mascot. Reach Out to the Truth 21:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep She is a valid part of Wikipedia and as she is currently used by some of the portals getting rid of her would be a bad idea. --Spazturtle (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • A valid part? How so? Drmies (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Wikipe-tan adds images, humor and is notable in the wikipedia community, she has made such an impact that there are outside sources that back up notability not just confined to wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see evidence that this page is controversial in the same manner that the other one was. Most of the complaints seem to be about the images. But deleting this page wouldn't cause the deletion of any of the images. Besides, I think the complaints are mostly wrong. Gothic Lolita is, despite its name, not about pedophilia, and that is the only connection to lolicon that I can see. The nominator has claimed that the images are misogynistic but I don't see any evidence of that either and at best it's only a few people's opinion and does not represent the wider community as is evident from this discussion so far. —Soap— 00:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. She doesn't represent every Wikipedian, but neither do some essays and proposals in Wikipedia space. Individual images deemed to cause offense can be discussed individually on the talk page, but many illustrate Wikipedia functions. She's been seen at two Wikimedia HK and other events representing Wikipedia/Wikimedia. She's a significant part of this culture, even if some don't like her. I believe she's more than a subset of the Anime and manga wikiproject. TransUtopian (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete for largely the same reasons put forward at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan!. I think this sort of stuff is not really representative of Wikipedia and I am persuaded by arguments that say this has the potential to alienate particular groups of potential editors such as women. Also I think this is one occasion where WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a valid reason for deletion. Lovetinkle (talk) 04:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Would you care to explain what makes WP:IDONTLIKEIT a more valid argument here than elsewhere? Often when people advocate an exception to that policy, their special circumstances boil down to that this time they're the ones who don't like it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[

• Let me have a shot. We do not support WP:IDONTLIKEIT for several reasons in article space, but mainly because we do not censor material and because we want to cover all knowledge. But this is not in article space. It is in project space and the only real criteria here is that is assists the whole WP project. If an editor does not like something in project space and stops editing as a result, then we should take notice. I think we need to take very seriously "that say this has the potential to alienate particular groups of potential editors such as women" as only 13% of editors are women. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• I still find it pretty much impossible that anyone could actually be alienated by a cute anime girl (and specifically a female thinking it's somehow mysogenic) over 100s of other things on WP. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• By using same logic, that mean WP:ILIKEIT will be valid reason to keep too. Since making survey to count how many people like it, hate it, drived away by it, or "will start editing more once he/she known about it" is time consuming, lets say that both essay nullified each other. L-Zwei (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Melodia, will you please just stop saying stuff like "cute anime girl" is if it were somehow a fact that she's cute? Kids are cute, my kids are the cutest kids in the world, and my kids in a bath tub, that's the cutest thing ever seen on earth--but they're in the bathroom in our house, not in public, not for others. I don't find this image cute at all, and at the very least you should try to respect others' opinions (others who may be different from you). If you want to think this image is cute, that's fine, but don't pretend that her supposed cuteness is a generally held opinion. L-Zwei's point about ILIKEIT is well taken: you're basically generalizing your own taste and you're telling me that I should find this cute (non-offensive, useful, important, etc.) as well. I don't, and obviously I'm not the only one. Respect it. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Actually, my comment is for Bduke who claim IDONTLIKEIT is valid here. My point is, it isn't and neither does the ILIKEIT. In other word, lets cut all emotional or subjective stuff (be it negative like "distasteful" or positive like "cute") from this. L-Zwei (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Well fine, yeesh. The point is the made to look cute, even if you don't find her as such. What she is NOT, however, is sexual in any way more than any of the pictures I've linked to previously. And that is what I'm trying to get at -- any comments of "disgust"/"loli"/"pedo"/etc should be rendered null because some people just don't like anime style and want to apply their hate in a fashion that would make others sympathize and say "ZOMG THOSE HORRID PEDOPHILES ARE SPEADING THEIR SHIT ACROSS WIKIPEDIA DELETE DELETE DELETE" which is more effective than "Eh, I don't like it, toss it". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You all need to take this more neutrally....you're getting heated up again. calm down, no caps, and no signs of desperation and keep using reasoning.Bread Ninja (talk)

• Keep mostly per Kirill. I said delete on Think of Wikipe-tan, but I don't think this page has the problems the other one did. Captain panda 05:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipe-tan is currently used on several pages in both the article namespace and project namespace, so it is useful to have a page explaining what Wikipe-tan is. Even if this page were removed, all of the images of Wikipe-tan would still exist, and she would still be used on all of the other pages where she appears. If people think Wikipi-tan shouldn't be a part of Wikipedia, then the first step would be to try to generate consensus to remove Wikipe-tan from the places where she is used. However, it just makes no sense to remove a page explaining one aspect of Wikipedia while that aspect of Wikipedia is still in place. Calathan (talk) 06:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• There was actully a discussion on where wikipe-tan is used before this AfD was brought up (See here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Wikipe-tan ) with current consensus opting to keep the images mentioned (although one article was sent to AfD so one or two images may be pending). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep per Kirill. I also said delete on the junk Think of Wikipe-tan, but this one had no controversy until recently concocted; report Tarc for trolling and stomping all over AGF with his ad hominem bullshit; and run an SPI on IvoryMeerkat (5 week editor, less than 200 edits mostly focused on Wikipe-tan) per Geni.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - non-mainspace content that doesn't harm work on mainspace and is found to be of use to a group of editors, no reason to depart from collegiality and delete it. i've never heard of wikipe-tan and probably won't again (though the top google auto result suggestion of "Wikipe-tan Rule 34" is ahem...predictable), but apparently people use it as inspiration for whatever they are doing.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Unconvincing argument. "First, it is masquerading as an article, which has confused a number of people. See the WP:FAKEARTICLE rationale." I don't see how a content guideline for the user namespace is relevant to the project namespace. If the Wikipe-tan page looks like an article, it's probably because that's the best way to present the information; anyone is welcome to reorganize and rewrite the page so it looks less like an article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Move somewhere or Mark historical or Delete. Wikipe-tan has been around for many years and has achieved at least some popular recognition as an unofficial icon of Wikipedia; for that reason, and because this is part of our history, it wouldn't be my first choice to see this page deleted outright. But I agree with those who think it's immature and inappropriate for Wikipedia in the modern day. This sort of thing may have been fine back in 2006, but Wikipedia is a more important website now than it was then, and we should take our responsibilities more seriously. I don't think associating ourselves with a cartoon drawing of a prepubescent child really helps our image. Clearly, many people like this page and want it to be kept; all I ask is that if we keep it, we either move it to a different namespace or edit the page to make it abundantly clear that Wikipe-tan is NOT an official mascot in any way, shape or form, and that a considerable proportion of Wikipedians consider these images to be disreputable to Wikipedia and want nothing to do with them. Robofish (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  As an anecdote: for my part, I've been aware of Wikipe-tan for some time, and I used to just consider it a cute and funny image like many people here still do; it made me think 'aww, look at the cute little cartoon anime girl'. It's only in recent years I've come to dislike it. I recall I once showed this page to my sister, who didn't think it was cute; she found it creepy and disturbing. That's when I started to have second thoughts myself. I now think this page this one of the more obvious examples of Wikipedia's very male (and teenage and nerdy) demographics; it probably doesn't help in our efforts to broaden our user base. Robofish (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  The whole mascot thing is disputed (See above) so we can not just write off wikipe-tan as not being a mascot for wikipedia. "Considerable proportion of Wikipedians consider these images to be disreputable to Wikipedia and want nothing to do with them." I find no evidence that even supports that statement. As for wikipe-tan not being right for wikipedia, this is not just an encyclopedia it is also a community, wikipe-tan not only helps with the articles but is also a boost to the community. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep this is not April Fool's day yet. Seriously this is an important part of Wikipedia history. Deleting it is like deleting the American bald eagle because it is extinct. (it isn't quite gone yet) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I'm all for keeping the article, but the bald eagle comment is absolutely ludicrous. It's just a fictional character (at best). The bald eagle article would never be deleted, regardless of the status of the animal... EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipe-tan's continued presence on the Wikipedia: namespace has allowed such grandiose and self-propagating claims here that she is a "mascot", "icon", or "part of our history", and allow for its infestation into article space. Even the appearance of recognizing a lolicon mascot degrades the dignity and challenges the conscience of Wikipedia. Quigley (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If you think people should not use the character as a mascot, then write an essay opposing that use. If you think it should be removed from the article space, try to gain consensus on talk pages. Deleting records of Wikipedia's history, especially those that some would say portray the project in a negative light, is a bad thing. Wikipe-tan is part of Wikipedia's history (indeed a rather contentious part). Preserving only the good parts of Wikipedia's history just makes it harder for those doing research to understand the culture of early Wikipedia. --Banana (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Except that she's not a lolicon any more than any other drawing of a cute young girl is, like, say, Dora the Explorer. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Except that many feel that it is nothing but; the continued naysaying from the Anime FanClub matters quite little. Tarc (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - I agree with Calathan above, that deletion of what is fundamentally an information page, would be unhelpful at the present time given that Wikipe-tan is present in multiple areas of the project and is part of its history. Consensus could always develop to stop using Wikipe-tan, though that seems unlikely to happen at this time, and even if it did the page should probably still be kept to record that consensus and the history surrounding it. It should also be noted that the existing page makes clear in the opening sentence that it is not an official mascot. Personally, I think claims of Wikipe-tan being overly sexualised e.t.c. are overblown. It is unlikely that she is responsible for gender gap issues, and some specific evidence of trouble caused by her off Wikipedia would be more persuasive. CT Cooper · talk 22:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep and run an SPI on the nominator (less than 200 edits mostly focused on wikipe-tan? legit? It seems unlikely). Wikipedia's backroom culture is hard enough for new editors to understand without deleting the pages that explain it.©Geni 23:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• That some Wikipedia editors once worshiped a sexualized image of a prepubescent girl is a part of our history I'd rather see buried in the dirt, not provided with a neon signpost. Your ad hominem on the nominator carries little water, either. Tarc (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Argument by assertion. And it appears I was correct about the sockpupet thing

No history should be "buried in the dirt". Although we are all familiar with the culture of Wikipedia, there are others who would want to try and understand the project. We should not mislead them by only providing information on the positive points of the project. --Banana (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Argument by assertion there Tarc. And it appears I was correct about the sockpupet thing.©Geni 23:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep although i agree with certain comments toward delete (not all). I still dont think the problem lies within the page itself. however, i do believe we need to limit the usage of those images outside. She's an unofficial mascot, but holds some ground outside of this page. Which causes contradiction and disputes.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep as useful documentation of an unofficial mascot. I do agree with some of the questions on usage outside of Wikipedia space, but that is a challenge for the Anime Wikiproject to find/create replacement free images, not a reason to delete the currently existing Wikipedia space page on the character. Full disclosure: I have previously commented on this case at both ANI and the anime wikiproject. N419BH 04:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipe-tan is a legitimate topic for a project page because she is the longstanding unofficial mascot. If you want this page to be deleted, please have an RfC reach consensus that the whole idea of Wikipe-tan should be removed from Wikipedia. Otherwise, deleting this page is pointless. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep – I am not understanding how Wikipe-tan drives away newcomers; in fact, I think it's the opposite. Like with any cartoon character, it tries to lighten up the mood. –MuZemike 07:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I think you all give Wikipe-tan too much credit. Besides, is that the type of crowd we want to draw in?Bread Ninja (talk) 07:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's see, people who try to lighten up the mood, versus people who thrive on infighting and acrimony... So, what is the type of crowd you'd rather draw in?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

the people who are trying to lighten up the mood will try to bring more people who will attempt to try to lighten up the mood. But that's the problem, theres nothing wrong with Wikipedia if it wasn't lighten up. the people who try to make a joke out of things are the ones saying there's a problem and therefore act upon it. but that's not the case, in stead of fixing real problems, like incivility and vandalism, you people choose to attract more fun people to play around with. Instead of trying to encourage accuracy and finding information to improve articles or make their own, you guys call out these meaningless articles that serve no real purpose. I really don't see h problem keeping this one, but at the same time i don't think we should use this article to attract more editors. and for what? just to do more fun activities? You should be more worried about stub articles out there that are in danger of being deleted, or articles that could easily be merged, or just general improvement. not worry about meaningless pages that don't serve a direct purpose. Obviously, you didn't even bother seeing it my view as you only added to types of people and one of them obviously isn't the answer. but neither is the first one from what i had in mind. I think you know what type of crowd i'm saying we should attract but you refuse to give that option in your answer. Regardless, many have joined for an obvious reason. Honestly, the anime and manga does well getting new editors on it's own without wikipe-tan.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the high regard, but I'm not remotely psychic, you'll have to read your own mind and do your own soapboxing without me.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has joke pages, I would say that even if wikipe-tan is gone people who would want to lighten up the mood would still join. Also "This is not an encyclopedia article", this was moved to the mainspace long ago to avoid problems with the article status. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

well i think they should be userfied, but the difference is we wouldn't be the ones encouraging it.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many places to be serious. I don't think that those who like Wikipe-tan are inherently editors who use Wikipedia as a social or joke site. TransUtopian (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, missing the point. those who want to lighten up the site and want to attract users with this page which does fine on its own. wikipedia is meant to be serious by the very goal of wikipedia. those who wanted to lighten up wiki shouldn't.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry but you are wrong, wikipedia is ment to be serious yes about Articles but when it comes to the community and things in the namespace it is meant to be friendly and inviting, not cold serious and bland. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep It's a fun part of Wikipedia culture/history, and I don't believe the argument that this page causes harm. Arthena^(talk) 07:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete: Distasteful rubbish with very unpleasant and concerning undertones. Giacomo Returned 10:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Which images are you referring to? And do you have an opinion of the article itself, which is being nominated, instead of just some of the pictures in the article? Dream Focus 16:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Do you seriously want to explore my reasons why this garbage wants incinerating? Lets just address the first paragraph: "in which she is dressed like a stereotypical gym teacher" - you must have gone to a very wierd school indeed, if you don't think that is complete rubbish. The whole page is, to put it kindly, imature self-indulgence - the images themselves are born of a disturbed mind, but we are not discussing them. Quite frankly, Dream Focus, a few of us here are writing a serious encyclopedia: little girls smiling coyly in provacative attire are not really suited to that aim. If you wish me to continue my school of thought that won't be a problem, but I would advise against it. Please don't challenge my delete vote again. Giacomo Returned 22:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No need for anyone to do so its a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and clear that you hate everything about this article, there is no changing your mind or reasoning to be had here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• File:Wikipe-tan_coaching.png This image is used on a Wikipedia page about coaching Wikipedia Administrators. Wikipedia:Admin coaching Its been there for three years now. [9]. Other images have been used for just as long. I don't find any of this provocative at all, and if you are getting aroused by it, you need to see someone about that. And by a serious encyclopedia, would that include articles on fictional characters from comic books, cartoons, and video games? I don't see any difference with this article and any of those. And if you don't understand someone's presented rationale of course you should challenge/discuss it. You seem to have done that above in many places so its odd you would say that. Dream Focus 03:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• May I ask why your edit summary was "don't be so defensive pervert"?--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• You can read his comments and my response if you have trouble understanding it. Dream Focus 04:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Or you could explain it yourself. I don't see any comment here that justifies that response, and have no clue where it could be found. Reach Out to the Truth 05:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Lets just stop here, enough personal attacks and comments have been made on the whole ordeal reguarding wikipe-tan as it is. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete: Remove this from Wikipedia and the planet too. One of the images shows this child with an adult body in a swimsuit. It says "as an adult", but really, same face. And others in a French maid's costume, not to mention Jumping Wikipe-tan.svg. There's nothing fun or cute about this. It is clearly mixing children and sex. I think a better mascot for Wikipedia would be a bunny or an owl or something instead of child porn, or whatever this is supposed to be. It's gross. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Images were done by different people at different times. If you have a problem with a specific image, nominate it. Do you have a problem with the article itself, or the majority of the images? Dream Focus 16:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete or at least substantially reword. The image is not particularly good example, and there are understandable concerns about her dress. But this is not a deletion discussion about the images (I'll be nomming some of them individually myself I think). Rather I think the page should go because of the representation of Wikipe-tan as a Mascot, which is not even slightly true, and the suggestion of endorsement by Jimbo (which he denies). At the very least this is more of relevance within the Anime WikiProject. In addition some of the images on there are actually concerning and it would be best to, at the very least, remove them --Errant ^(chat!) 12:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• So your arguement is to get rid of wikipe-tan because she is an unofficial mascot? Like the images I do not think that discussion should be had here, I feel a discussion over at WP:Village pump about her mascot statues would be better (Wikipe-tan is already a mascot in some areas of wikipedia). Having a page that explains how wikipe-tan relates to the wikipedia community and talk of outside notability on the page to me are things against deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - bad-faith assumptions on the part of nominator (my 15-year-old daughter, an otaku, likes Wikipe-tan a lot more than I do, and thinks some people just don't understand cultures outside their own narrow prejudices). --Orange Mike | Talk 13:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point that OrangeMike has made. It seems like that some of the reasons that support deletion show some sort of a lack of cultural sensitivity. –MuZemike 20:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

you realize that argument is highly subjective and could be easily counterattacked.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment lets not make our comments rely solely on "oh my daughter likes it, my daughter doesn't like it". It's a shame that this discussion really isn't getting anywhere related to the accusations. and bad-faith isn't ar eal official term in wikipeida where you guys can say say it so freely. assuming good faith means assuming good intentions, bad intentions is very subjective here in wikipedia.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I assume good intentions on those who want it deleted, that they believe they're operating in the best interests of Wikipedia. However, I believe it's a difference in cultural perception that makes some see it as drawn child porn or of a similar nature, such as Anna Frodesiak's comment. Our comments shouldn't be based solely on subjective perceptions, but like some intensely dislike it here, I sent the link to the page to female friends, and all the reactions were positive. The page informs people about a character used in multiple Wikiprojects and essays. TransUtopian (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete First, it's beyond obvious that this is an attempt at a FAKE article, even if it's not in User Space. It's a clear attempt to make this character appear as if it is a notable part of the world of anime, and really should have a Wikipedia article, and that's the ultimate logic behind WP:FAKEARTICLE. Second, it definitely has no place in the Wikipedia:Project namespace, at any level. It's not an essay at all, because it has no message and expresses no opinion. It's not a guideline, proposal, process page or noticeboard. It's certainly not humour. It's of no use whatsoever to Wikipedia or to its editors, except as some sort of Wikipe-tan fan page to play with or rally around in some tedious inter-project feud or bizarrely even a real world morality dispute, none of which is a valid use of project space, or has any relevance at all to our wider mission. Compare this page even to one of the more vacuous uses of project space, something like WP:Barnstar, and the difference in intent and utility, even as a historical document, is still screamingly obvious. Keeping it in project space is a clear violation of WP:NOTHOST, which applies to all areas, not just User Space. If WP:FAKEARTICLE has to be changed to make it clear that it also aplies to groups abusing project space against the spirit of WP:NOT, so be it. Wikilawyering aside, the policy outcome of this Mfd is clear, all that's needed is a closer with the sense and the balls to say so. MickMacNee (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per Kiril, and maybe could the nominator spend some time doing something useful instead of trying to get stuff deleted and engaging in personal attacks? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The nominator got itself indef'd. Was that useful enough? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • As the nominator has been blocked for being a sockpuppet, I doubt they'll be doing anything useful any time soon. ;)
    Actually, given the nominator's sock-and-blocked status, could this MfD be closed? (that's not a request, but a question) There are some calls for deletion, but invariably it'll be kept, and I'm wondering if we're just dragging things out. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
    • well there's no point keeping it. but....i do see where the ones wanting delete are coming from. I personally think there's alot of bias reasons on here, and for that reason, we should just avoid this page at all costs.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Just my opinion but I am for an early close here based on recent developents and this being a bad faith nom. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
      • That's not going to happen. The debate has already advance far, far beyond whatever it was that Mr. Sock had to say on the matter, and many valid points from both sides have taken hold. "Even roses can spring for shit" as my great-grandmother used to say. Though she was on the sauce alot. Tarc (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Maybe that's when she came up with her best quotes? :) The topic is worthy of discussion even if the nominee's motives were questionable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Jesus Christ everyone calm down - Holy crap, everyone take a step back for a second. This is a discussion about the existence of an imaginary animated character outside of the article space on an online encyclopedia. Everyone needs to just chill out. Seriously. People who want this deleted are not racists or oblivious or evil or cruel. People who want this kept are not pedophiles or misogynists or planning the destruction of the encyclopedia. The outcome of this discussion, in the end, does not matter one bit. Everyone needs to just relax, stop throwing around accusations, and just take it easy. Thank you. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• HOW DARE YOU bring Jesus into this!! Jesus would clearly want this page kept.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Did someone call? 0:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, per Kirill's arguments above. And I'm in no way a fan of Wikipe-tan -- I think the character is silly in a bad way -- but I also don't see the harm. This entire dispute reminds me of how the original WP:BJAODN was deleted because certain Wikipedians thought having a little fun was a bad thing & somehow made Wikipedia look bad. -- llywrch (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia shouldn't be seen as a joke, it's a serious encyclopedia. Wikipetan can be a mascot of anime portal, but it can't be on wikipedia main mainspace for guidelines and rules. (WP:) Userpd (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• humour is accepted in the wikipedia namespace. See Category:Wikipedia humor. In fact the wikipedia namespace contains all sorts of random stuff.©Geni 22:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Humour? A tarty, cheap little Lolita? Appealing to the dregs of society - That may summarise your work - it does not mine. Giacomo Returned 22:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, we can't all be as refined as you and Gallagher in our sense of humour.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah true, a nine year old in a French maid's uniform, or dressed as a pilot with acentuated tits - all good stuff - truly the definitive Wikpedia mascot. Rock on. Giacomo Returned 22:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think the occasional drift towards the mascot role is largely due to the far more limited amount of art depicting the others.©Geni 23:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The humour statment was in responce to Userpd's argument.©Geni 23:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I think it's hysterically funny - don't you? A 9 year old girl wearing a French maids uniform, kitten ears, and on her hands and knees with a cat's tail on her arse - I can't remember the last time I laughed more. Truly the mascot wikipedia is in need of. Giacomo Returned 23:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we please stick to the article here, the whole mascot debate as I pointed out can be sorted out at the village pump. Images of wikipe-tan are used in anime/manga articles where no free content images can be found, the image of her has been adoped for use in other pages over time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Giano your attempts to sexualise the images have been noted. They are not however based on anything resembleing an objective judgement.©Geni 23:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• I see, the article which begins, Line 1: "considered an unofficial mascot of Wikipedia." Just delete the damn thing and have done with it. Giacomo Returned 23:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• If the community chooses not to have wikipe-tan as a mascot that still shouldnt be a reason for deletion, images (While not all of them and this has been discussed time and time again) are used in articles to improve them, wikipe-tan also has outside wikipedia notability as well as being in diffrent projects in some way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Let me be clear by my argument about WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That page starts with "The following are a list of arguments that can commonly be seen in deletion discussions for templates, images, categories, stub types, redirects and especially articles which should generally be avoided, or at least, supplemented with some more arguments". It says it is about arguments for deleting stuff in article space and related to articles. This is MfD, not AfD, or TfD or CfD, This page is in project space. The issue should be whether it helps or hinders our goals. I find it disturbing that so few people are actually addressing the arguments that this discourages women editors. Only 13% of editors are women. If some women find this creepy or disturbing, we should take that very seriously. Have some of you young editors asked your sisters about this? Since we only have 13% women editors, we are not getting the female viewpoint here. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Presuming to decide what women should like, is another form of sexism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It is when it's presumed by a male - I assume you are a male Bugs? Be careful with that carrot! Giacomo Returned 23:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If Bduke is male, then it's presuming to speak for women. If Bduke is female, then it obviously hasn't been driven away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I am male and I am not presuming anything. I am noting that we have a problem with the number of women editors. I am then noting that one male editor said his sister found Wikitan greepy and a woman editor found it disturbing. I then noted that these were not being taken seriously. I have 50 years experience in universities. When I started the science research labs were full of men and the undergraduate population was not much better. Women academics were very few indeed. It has been totally turned around by people treating the issue seriously and removing attitudes and practices that put women off as students or academics. We need to do the same, starting with deleting this or at least moving it elsewhere. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and two people have said their daughters loved her, and another claimed a positive response from female friends. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Is the low percentage of women here unusual, or does it square with male/female participation ratios in other similar kinds of projects? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• give current population demographics and the global distribution of women including in clutures with highly differing ideas as to what they consider acceptable I don't think that asking "does page X disscourage women" is a road we want to go down.©Geni 23:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? Giacomo Returned 23:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• • We should have a Vote on this polling women, does wikipe-tan prevent you from editing wikipedia and do you find it awful to have? I am sure colorful answers like "Who the heck is wikipe-tan?" would be common. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Good point. I myself was only vaguely aware of this cartoon character until this discussion came up recently. Nothing beats a deletion nomination for increasing a subject's visibility. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep As usual, there's compromise wording for a debated phrase: "sometimes been informally regarded as an unofficial..." I think it's silly to think of the image as a mascot, but it is part of Wikipedia culture. Even those who think it should not be, I think will nonetheless admit that it has indeed been so. Personally, I take what is probably an overly straight-laced view to what our demeanor should be on-wiki, but this is within the permissible. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Weak "Move somewhere or Mark historical", largely per Robofish's reasons, but in spite of myself, I oppose deletion. I think it's safe to mark her as historical or move her to under a wikiproject; she is not an official anything and does not represent the 'pedia, but she is supported mostly by members of certain wikiprojects, who ought to be free to use moe images in their own projects' space if they wish.

  Now, Tan creeps me right the hell out. I find her distasteful in the extreme, and from a purely IDONTLIKEIT perspective, I'd like to see her gone. But deleting a projectspace page on her isn't the way to go about that; deprecation of Tan as any sort of mascot, or clarification of the page's status as historical, etc, is best carried out on a talk page, perhaps via an RfC, not by wholesale deleting the (somewhat) informational page and trying to pretend she never existed. By all means let's mark up or move the page about her so that it's clear that she doesn't represent the community as a monolithic entity; anything further than that is going to require community input in an actual discussion, not in a deletion !vote. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep per DGG's reasoning. --MeekSaffron (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment For those intrested I made a section over at village pump Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Wikipe-tan as a mascot? reguarding wikipe-tan's status as a mascot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep as no valid arguments have been made for deletion. Wikipe-tan is an unofficial mascot of Wikipedia (even Jimbo, while stating that he doesn't personally care for the character, admits she is just that). She is in use by multiple WikiProjects, most of which have little to nothing to do with anime or manga. She has been used and covered in multiple reliable sources as given in the article. This article is certainly not a fake article, and, as it's in the project namespace, can't be mistaken for one anyway. The talk page of the article also clearly indicates the page is not a regular article such as you would find in mainspace. As for those advocating removing the images, that's a discussion for Commons, not here. All of the images are hosted over there, so any decision here won't mean a lick over there. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• "This article is certainly not a fake article, and, as it's in the project namespace, can't be mistaken for one anyway." Well, it would be hard for most regular Wikipedians to mistake it if paying attention to the namespace. However, before the addtion of the "not an article" banner, I think it would have been very easy for a random person who's not a Wikipedia editor to mistake this for a real article. By your logic, no article draft in userspace could be confused for an article, because it's in the userspace namespace! LadyofShalott 04:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Ideally the template I added should at least deal with this one issue.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed, which is why I referred to "before the addtion of the 'not an article' banner". :) LadyofShalott 04:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - The result at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan! I can understand. But I see no valid reason to delete this page. Garion96 (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - Alone the fact that she is used that much as she is should be reason enough to keep the page. Also, the mention of Wikipedia in the name should make it clear for everyone that this is Wikipedia-related just like everything else in the Wikipedia namespace. And yeah, it may look like a bit like an article, but it is for information, it is not a guideline. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• CommentI already voted for keep aswell, but you do realize the images can just be in category where this doesn't have to exist for that reason.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

• Keep, I see no reason to delete this page. It's not trying to masquerade as anything official and is doing no harm, but if anyone thinks that it is laid out too similarly to an article they are free to discuss reorganising it on the talk page. If anyone has any problems with any specific images (for the record, I don't have any such issues), then the correct course of action is to discuss those images not delete the page they are being shown on. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - being personally offended by something? Not a reason to delete. Think of the women/children? Ditto. Argument ad erotica? Absurd - the images are innocuous by any reasonable standard. Exxolon (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - extremely terrible personification, HOWEVER, it is widely used in WMF and should therefore be kept. Kayau Voting IS evil 15:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy keep A commonly used image to depict Wikipedia culture that has found its place within the community. Those arguing it is child porn have not successfully convinced others or myself. The nominator has also been permblocked as a sock.
• The current tally(more or less) =

• Removed as sign of good will

Any reason to keep this irrationally divisive discussion continuing?AerobicFox (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:AFD which says "Do not add tally boxes to the deletion page."Edison (talk) 05:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I will keep that in mind for the future. However, that is neither a policy nor a guideline, but a general recommendation for etiquette, and not justification to strike out others comments. If you have a problem with this then please contact me on my talk page.AerobicFox (talk) 05:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Closing this, rather than contain all this drama, will very possibly just create more of it. At this point, given that there's certainly no 100% obvious consensus, it really can't hurt to let it wrap up, given that both sides have given at least some reasonable arguments. The fact that the nominator is a sock is at this point unrelated, since others have also voted delete.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Well there's almost a 70% consensus for keep, and I think both sides have basically stated all that they are going to say. If you want to let it stay open for a few more days until responses have died down then that's fine also.AerobicFox (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Haha I mean it's not up to me, I'm just stating my opinion. It doesn't particularly matter to me how this all ends up.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Nonnotable anime/hentai/lollicon, irrelevant to Wikipedia. Possibly offensive to many editors: a cartoon little girl in a French maid costume, etc. Edison (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Only offensive to those with dirty minds. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
    • The French maid uniform is still in use in many conservative institutions just like how the supposedly sexy "school girl" outfit is still used in Catholic schools. Not allowing a picture of a child with a very conservative and adorable French maid outfit would be like not allowing a picture of a child in a school girl uniform. The outfit in question is very conservative, with only her hands and face showing skin; and it has been modified to include a large bow in the back which is a Japanese fashion convention.
  • People like to play dress up with little children, in the Victorian era they would dress up boys and girls in outfits with excessive frills and curls. I suspect Wikipetan's choice of cutfit to be derived from Wikipedia's theme of cleaning(giving the admin the mop). While I accept concerns that this could be offensive to some(and I believe a minority), please do not try to sexualize an adorable and innocently created image in the eyes of those who genuinely just enjoy cute-looking things.AerobicFox (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Hey, I have a dirty mind & I'm not offended by Wikipe-tan. I don't even find her titillating. Maybe if she looked more like a real person I might, but saying there is a sexual subcontext to the image is about as silly as that certain country banning Daffy Duck as sexually offensive because he didn't wear pants (or was it Mickey Mouse? That rodent needs a pair of pants too) & had three minors of an undefined relationship living with him. (Was he their illegitimate father? Or a sexual predator maintaining his victims under his own roof? If you find Wikipe-tan offensive, you know the answer to those questions.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Meido. For those unfamiliar with it "meido" is a Japanese cognate to describe a maid in Japan. They wear dresses inspired from the French maid uniform, but as its description here states "Compare to French Maid, the Hotter And Sexier origin of this trope." and that meido is "among the very few Moe Moe[Moe basically means cute] items that attract both Japanese and Westerners.". It is commonly used in a variety of Japanese media, almost always without any sexual connotations at all, and often with conservative connotations. Wikipetan's dress was chosen because Wikipedia is about maintenance and cleaning, her meido was never viewed by her originators as sexual, but as a common trope used in anime.(more so than the French maid which is fairly rare in anime).AerobicFox (talk) 08:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment No predatory child molesting pervert would "Ever" find the hentai/manga/anime/lolicon of a little girl in a French Maid costume stimulating. Uh-huh, understood. Accepting that assertion, where are the multiple independent and reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the image which are required to satisfy WP:N? Without that, the page must be deleted, despite the fact that so many editors "like" it. Edison (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Okay I did not once see the words hentai or lolicon being used here at all, what wikipe-tans maid dress stands for is all in ones opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• What part of this is not an article and thus WP:N doesn't apply do you not understand? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Couldn't a "predatory child molesting pervert" find most of our images of children "stimulating"? What a pedophile finds stimulating is not a good metric to determine if something is sexual or not.AerobicFox (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. A long-standing part of Wikipedia culture. Sure, some of the images of Wikipe-tan are in questionable taste, but that's no reason to delete the whole page. Long live the -tan! — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per above comments.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Move to meta:. Otherwise, I really don't care too much about this whole issue. -- œ^™ 18:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete as preferred first choice per Quigley and Giano. Move if not deleted per LadyOfShallott. Very clearly, it is causing unwelcome derision and does not sit well with many. I daresay that those in favor of keeping are younger than those saying delete. I liked Spiderman when I was a kid but I wouldn't want him as a mascot for WP either. Too much energy going into this subject so I would liken it to an infectious disease.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• How many is many here that it does not sit well with and where are you getting the ages from the people who do like wikipe-tan? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep I don't see anything offensive about this page, and I don't see a clear reason why removing it would benefit the project. I outgrew my anime phase a few years back but I don't have anything against those who appreciate such things. As a vegetarian I don't appreciate Wikipedia:Bacon Challenge and similar pages–but I just ignore them instead of trying to get them deleted. I would humbly advise those who dislike this page to adopt a similar strategy. (and by the way: whoa, I never guessed the nom's true identity) Qrsdogg (talk) 03:49, 7 March 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.