This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Potential GFDL vio, may be considered as original work since it isn't exactly a look alike. To be on the safe side, images should be retagged under GFDL (since GFDL requires it) unless the image is considered to be "original work" then it's PD tag would be fine. -- Catchi?01:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: Since several people seems confused, I will clarify several issues.
[Free] "Porn" is more than welcome on commons as for example it can be used to illustrate (*drum roll*) porn. Commons is a free image repository. Anything within our project scope is more than welcome. It is neither filtered for minors nor is it censored.
You cannot really {{Agree}} or {{Oppose}} this nom. Correct template to use would be {{Vk}} or {{Vd}}. Votes (they really are comments) without a rationale may be ignored. Comments without a valid rationale may also be ignored.
I feel it is necessary to clarify the status of it. I can't think of a better median than COM:DEL for the discussion. -- Catchi?01:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
we if there is a problem nothing to stop use from relicening to GFDL. However going by practice with tux there may not be a problem.Geni01:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
from Kasuga "I think Kohikki can remove his/her si:gnature from the image and reupload under GFDL and/or CC. Perhaps, it's the quickest solution for the first problem. Whether to use it is another problem."So we just need to remove the signature, and re tag it under... GFDL,i supose(or CC,according to Kasuga),since the author of the derivative put his part of the work in PD.--Pixel ;-)01:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The signature itself doesn't seem like any sort of problem to me, I removed it as a part of our standard no-watermarks procedures. -- Catchi?01:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
old 112,119 bytes,new 33,678 bytes.Are you sure that you didn't make a little mistake?I can't download it,network problem.--Pixel ;-)01:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreewith deletion. Wikipe-tan being a cute and curious girl about ten years old, I don't really like such deviations.
I also encourage the true drawer of Wikipetan to put on Wikipetan the same license that we have on wikipedia logo : "work copyrighted, freely usable by the wikimedia fundation (only)". --Yug(talk)02:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not possible, GFDL is non-revokeable. We on Wikimedia Commons are a "free image" repository. We wouldn't be a free image repository if we promoted full-copyright over free licenses. Wikipedia commons currently does not accept images to be used exclusively by the foundation. Image will be kept unless a compelling reason for delete is given. -- Catchi?02:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I deleted the image the first time around is that 1, the image had no source (which turned out to be 4chan, where pretty much copyrights are ignored), 2, the uploader was a throwaway account, 3, the image had licensing concerns on en.wikipedia. If they are even bothered by license concerns on English Wikipedia, then why have the image here. User:Zscout370(Return fire)02:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We require sources to help establish copyrights. Source claim seems to be self, which is acceptable. Derivative works of free material are still required to be comply with GFDL so I do not see any real problem copyright wise on this specific case. "Concerns on English wikipedia" is not a valid criteria for speedy deletion. From the looks of it, the matter is becoming controversial making a speedy delete less apropirate. I believe the images should not be deleted until this discussion concludes - tho I have no intention of a wheel war. -- Catchi?02:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point something out, I do not consider Zscout370's deletion out of line, I merely feel COM:DEL would be a better way to find a solution. -- Catchi?03:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the legal aspects here. From Kasuga's talk page: "That image is not my work. However, I think your(Zscout's) act was not wrong. Kohikki's work seems obviously a derivation work of Wikipe-tan. Kohikki should have uploaded it under GFDL or CC, or used a girl who is not Wikipe-tan. --Kasuga 03:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)" Does the license of this image comply with this? -74.245.90.22718:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The pic was uploaded under a throw away ID, and later claimed by someone with a different ID and only one two previous edits. Kohiki showed up on the Lolicon talk page around the same time as three different brand new anons. Conversations around this are obviously taking place somewhere off-site, thus there's a lack of transparency which is fundamental to the Wikipedia project. Something just doesn't feel right about this whole thing. Regarding the Wiki symbols, the issue isn't censorship, it's endorsement. -74.245.90.22719:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The user ID was probably discarded by the author because it was a bad choice of user ID with negative connotations. The image does not have any more problems GFDL- and trademark-wise than all the other Wikipe-tan images. If you want it removed, you need to make a different argument.--129.241.216.4321:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree We do not want Wikipe-tan in a kiddie cheescake pose. We do not want the Foundation's trademarked puzzle pieces used in kiddie cheescake pictures. Period. This is just a bad business, c'mon people. If the artist or another artist removes the puzzle pieces, that'll be different. Herostratus18:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled here. If Wikipe-tan is truly GFDL, then there can be no trademark restrictions for this image any more than the other Wikipe-tan images, which also have puzzle pieces, though no actual Wikipedia logo. How is the uncyclopedia logo any less a derivative of the Wikipedia logo? Also, Wikipedia is not censored - see the Mohammed Cartoon controversy article. --129.241.215.16318:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The personal opinion of one people shouldn't be a reason to delete anything. If you don't like it, it's not an excuse to delete something. Kohikki spent time to work on this image so it could be used in the article about Lolicon, and now you are saying "DELETE THIS BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THIS"? That's not right. --Anonyymi19:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are just a rude snob.Request for deletion all of Wikipetan images then,if they are trademarked.Why not sued unencyclopedia too,there logo is a potato with puzzle pieces,resembling wikipedia logo.--Pixel ;-)20:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe copyright issue was setled.The uploader had put it under PD by ignorance.For short ,in all cases the image falls under a free liscence compatible with The commons.Your oppinions on the content are irelevent,it's not illegal,wikipedia is not censored,in my nolege ther's no prosses for deleting images simply because you feel like it,the closing admin will simply discount your votes(we are not a democracy).--Pixel ;-)20:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. I'm seeing a lot of IDONTLIKEIT votes here, but the facts are pretty clear: the image is properly and freely licensed (what Commons cares about), encyclopedic, and representative of its subject (what Wikipedia cares about). There is therefore no reason for deleting it or not using it. --tjstrftalk20:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas fast as possible: Even the uploader is the copyrighholder, BUT there is really no need for hentai hentailike pictures on commons. From my point of view especially no wikipe-tan lolicon loliconlike or hentai hentailike pictuers --D-Kuru21:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that this isn't hentai, genius. Hentai is porn, and this certainly isn't porn. Sure, it might be suggestive, b:ut that isn't enough for this image to qualify as hentai. --Anonyymi22:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
@ Anonyymi: Thanks, I know what hentai is. However, I changed every "hentai" or "lolicon" to "henati-" or "loliconlike" pictures to make it more acceptable for you
Now better?
@ Pixel: I don't think that there is a rule for that, but I also think that such pictures aren't compatible with the project scope. Maybe the next pictures of wikipe-tan are toddlercon(like) pictures... So I think that it's better not to allow that pictures from the very first instead of creating a long deletion request where the question "why did you allow it four month ago?" turnes up more often than there are copyviopictures a day.
"Wikimedia Commons is a common central media repository of all Wikimedia projects" there are currently 17 wikipedias with articles on lolicon.Geni02:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment The complication is due to character rights. However since the authour of Wikipe-tan lolicon has released all rights it should be posible to use the images under GFDL or the relivant CC.Geni02:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the original Wikipe-tan is released under GFDL and CC it should be okay for others to do artwork of her, right? This isn't the first Wikipe-tan art by other people, there's a whole gallery for "Wikipe-tan by others" in the Wikipe-tan page. And some of that art is in use for other Wikipedia pages (in fact, the Wikipe-tan image in the Japanese article for Lolicon is not done by Kasuga). --Anonyymi07:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
QuestionThis is a Renaissance fresco.A boy masturbates an other one.Isn't this at least,as scandalous as loliwikipetan?Isn't, this real porn?Or is it art?--Pixel ;-)08:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that's art, but since we're talking about Lolicon here (as a category of hentai), that image wouldn't be accurate. --Anonyymi09:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that picture would be accurate if it got drawn today (or at least after the second world war). Julius III. died in 1555 so I think there is no link to today excapt the topic of that picture.
'Comment. There is no reason to have the Foundation's trademarked puzzle pieces in this softcore kiddie porn image. I have asked the artist to simply remove the puzzle pieces. I have not received the courtesy of a reply. In my opinion, this is deliberate trollery and/or point-making at the expense of the project, and some of the comments here reinforce that belief. I call on the closing admin to consider that rejecting what might well be trollery intended to embarrass the project supercedes all other considerations, arguments, and numbers. Herostratus00:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
foundation holds trademark on the name wikipedia and the globe. I haven't run across any claims on puzzel pices.Geni01:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWhether it is legally defined as porn in the UK, Honduras or elsewhere isnt releavnt to me. I dont make the laws but if I can have an influence here delete is to me a mo-brainer. Its use on Lolicon is an important factor, SqueakBox01:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is that it is child porn. Since no children are involved the use of the term is incorrect.Geni01:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By attacking the other users, you simply show that you have no valid argument.If you believe that there's a trademark issue,you should propose all wikipetans for deletion and sue Unencyclopedia for their logo(a potato instead of a sphere).--Pixel ;-)19:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. "Wikipe-tan is one of the personifications of Wikipedia." If I'm right Wikipedia is a project of Wikimedia. SO it's not directly related, but in one or another way --D-Kuru05:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Yug, Herostratus and FloNight. If the article needs an illustration, better one that doesn't pimp the Wikipedia mascot. It's not NPOV to imply that WP supports child porn. IMHO the image is porny not because of presence or lack of clothing, but because of her vulnerable position and frightened look. The presence of WP symbols on her pigtails implies she's part of WP. Kathryn NicDhàna03:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (therefore opposing deletion) as per tjstrf, Geni, Anonyymi and Pixel. It's obvious to me that this deletion proposal is driven by personal opinions regarding what the removers like/dislike. Why else would they still bother to try and delete a legal (I don't see how any court can find this to be actual child porn, or ANY porn at all) and RELEVANT image, even after copyright issues were settled? Grgspunk04:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even though we are not censored, it would not be a bad idea to keep both Wikipedia's image and Wikipe-tan's image in mind. Since this is under the GFDL, would anyone object to editing the picture to not being Wikipe-tan? (not that it actually looks like her anyways, besides the puzzle pieces). -- Ned Scott05:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to upload an alternate version to be used in articles. This unique work shouldn't be overwritten. -- Catchi?22:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the deletion. Using elements of the copyrighed Wikimedia logo and mascot in a picture in which adult sexuality is projected onto a pubescent girl serves to bring disrepute on the project. It certainly doesn't help the project. Will Beback05:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked usage to see what educational use this image was being put to and found that an anonymous user had recently placed in at the top of every single project page on lolicon, including the Hanja Korean one in the Incubator. It's clearly created for trolling and it should be deleted as such. - BanyanTree06:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You find continuously ignoring troll bait to take less effort than deleting it right off? I suppose it takes all kinds to make the wiki work. - BanyanTree08:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, if someone else not related to the artist puts an image to other pages then the artist made the image for "trolling"? So, if I would spam some articles with images would that make the image artists "trolls"? I don't think so. --Anonyymi07:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a well-made point. The uploader of the images doesn't have a contribution history that would allow me to make any sort of declaration that s/he and 87.64.23.34, who added the images to the articles, are the same person. In fact, the conversant English of 4lolicon in the uploads and what appears to be French skills by the anon may suggest that they are not. Apologies to 4lolicon if I have mistakenly combined two people. However, I still hold that the only significant use appears to be yanking people's chains and the "it's GFDL compliant" legalistic argument has failed when the purpose and nature of the image itself becomes controversial, e.g. autofellatio, cumshot woman, and bare-shouldered woman in front of the Quran, for those who remember some old debates. - BanyanTree08:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Controversial images are more than welcome on commons. We have plenty of images banned in some countries such as the Nazi flag for example. -- Catchi?14:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The symbols on the puzzle peices do not even show on the globe version. I do not understand the fuss about it. -- Catchi?14:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The puzzle pieces and Wikipi-tan are not copyrighted but are trademarks of the Foundation. They do not have to be registered to (legally) be considered marks of the Foundation. Herostratus15:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you speaking behalf of the foundation? Are you a board member? Only board members can make such a comment. Take it to the board and if they feel a trademark vio is the case all wikipe-tan images would need to be deleted. I'll personally delete them myself if thats the case. -- Catchi?15:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between the globe an puzzel pieces is such that I can't see the foundation haveing much of a claim. wikipedia is not the only wiki to use a form of puzzel as part of it's logo.Geni16:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If ther's relly a trademark issue,doesn't that mean that all images of wikipetan have to be deleted?Why only this one?It does not compute ...--Pixel ;-)17:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added them to thies articles,i do that some times since you don't really knead language skills,i find it helpful especially for small wikipedias,with less contributors.If i'm not mistaken i added them before all this nonsense started ,and the images wherent considered for deletion(if you read the deletion summary).For me this equates to the scandal with Jackson's breast.A quick look,and i don't see any one complaining about it,in the other languages,just see the old one in the Russian wikipedia.The other projects are not aware of the controversy,the commons isn't a subsite of the en-wikipedia.You American's are a bunch of "coincer du cul".--Pixel ;-)17:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on altering image - It seems to me that if the Lolicon article (as all WP articles) is about documenting the phenomenon, any image used should be one that has been produced for that purpose, by the groups or individuals being documented. Creating a new image of !child !porn for the purpose seems to miss the point, and again brings us into the territory of Wikipedia somehow sanctioning or even producing !child !porn. Kathryn NicDhàna18:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is amoung other things an art style. Since it hasn't been around long enough to be PD due ot age we have to try other aproaches.Geni19:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You take a real example of the phenomenon and use it with a fair use rationale. Or you wait 70 years p.m.a. This is what we do with cubism: there may be no free Picassos out there, but that is no reason to make a cubistic version of Wikipe-tan in order to document a phenomenon. Samulili20:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We could try the approach of not creating an image for the article. We could provide a link to already-existing images on the net if readers really want to see an example. The argument is often made that articles are "better" with pictures. I believe this is not just because images, well, illustrate the topic, but because they make the page more visually appealing. This argument doesn't necessarily work when you have an image that many find repulsive. Kathryn NicDhàna20:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could hide Wikipe-tan under a burka for all practical purposes</sarcasm>. Seriously though... how is what you are suggesting not in conflict with our copyright policies. This does fall under the spirit of wikipedia is not censored... -- Catchi?22:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this image has educational/informational value and proper license, and Commons, as Wikipedia, isn't censored, is it? AndyVolykhov19:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Lolicon "fans" really need Wikipe-tan lolicon pictures to jerk off? (Also an issue some of you don't agree with, but that's what I think about this)
I have heard of people who "jerk off" looking at pictures of Saturn. "jerk off"ability is not a deletion criteria. We have plenty of pictures of genitals on commons. -- Catchi?20:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She isn't even semi-naked, how the heck can it be porn? (actually do not answer to that, I really do not want to know). Also this is wikimedia commons an image repository not a Wikipedia (encyclopedia) -- Catchi?22:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Wikipedia already has an image problem regarding pedophilia and child porn. [2] Perverted justice has a lot of influence. Another example. [3] I'm not advocating what these links say--just saying this attitude about Wikipedia exists. I'm not even saying the picture is obscene. I'm just saying that it isn't smart to have stuff that is associated with the foundation on this image. I can guarantee you the foundation isn't happy about this kind of accusation and certainly doesn't want more ammunition. Some folks volunteer a lot of time to change this perception and fix the underlying causes. Why risk further damage to Wikipedia's reputation, cause trouble for a lot of people, and put the wonderful Wikipe-tan project in jeopardy, over this? -74.245.90.22721:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, since when do we ever actually put "Wikipedia's image" into consideration when editing an article? I see no rule or restriction regarding that. The only thing we SHOULD be concerned about is being as accurate, cited and NPOV (meaning we DON'T edit to promote/condemn the merits of the subject). The possiblilty of negative press is NOT grounds for censorship/POV posts. Grgspunk
If we are considered as a bunch of pedophiles because of this,i'm saying that this is witch hunt and an attempt of intimidation,Are you planning to list all the users that are/will vote keep?--Pixel ;-)21:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please pixel you misunderstand me i did not mean to threaten you or label you a pedophile, if you thought that for one second i am sorry. While we civilised human beings are having a rational debate, many in the media would not. They would happily destroy wikipedia to sell a few more papers or advert time. I see real risk for wikipedia's name in this image, there are anti-wikipedia sites out there that would use this to do a lot of damage to the project we ALL work so hard to make. hypnosadist from wikipedia. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by86.53.57.148 (talk • contribs)
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." The moment we are intimidated to the point of compromising from free speech for the sake of a little security, it will be the end of the project. This definitely CANNOT be a rationale. -- Catchi?22:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WTF! What do these icons of free speach say? Oh yes that wikipedia wants to be associated with pseudo-images of child porn. If you want to have the freedom to say that message go ahead just don't bitch and cry when this is in the press. The safty of the wikimedia projects must come before anything else. hypnosadist. 86.53.57.14822:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Private art, not within project's scope. Ceterum censeo, it's not child porn but it's still stupid from a PR/image point of view.
She's not Wikipetan, if the images stay, they should be renamed. Say it's a Wikipetan's cousin if you want, but it's not THE Wikipetan. This is modifying the perception of Wikipetan, which -as said- is "one of the personifications of Wikipedia". Platonides22:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas fast as possible This is inappropriate and unnecessary....Pedophilia in nature. It has not place here. DPeterson22:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not see how this is any way pedophillic. It is simply a cartoon, nothing more. The deletion request was not for the image to be deleted in the first place, it was simply to check whether the license was correct. Lcarsdata14:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that Wikipe-tan isn't an official foundation image doesn't really help. Its a amiage widely associated with Wikipedia and promoted as such. To link a prominent symbol of Wikipedia with a child in an overtly sexual context is inappropriate. It shows a young girl with her legs open and a distressed expression. To associate Wikipedia in people's minds which such an image is problematic - this image should not be used in any Wikimedia project and therefore lies outside the commons scope. WjBscribe21:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is well within the scope to illustrate articles related to Lolicon at the very least. Wikipe-tan is not a prominent symbol of Wikipedia. It isn't even a symbol of wikipedia as a whole. It is merely the mascot of anime wikiproject. -- Catchi?03:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no copyright issue surrounding this image. If the puzzle pieces are allowed in a normal Wikipe-tan, then they're allowed in derivatives of Wikipe-tan. Any debate therefore should not take copyright into consideration, only other issues such as scope, censorship, and quality. Cary Bassdemandez14:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, it is not copyright but trademark at issue here. Company mascots etc are trademarks. Hey, why don't we make a lolicon picture of the Campbell's Soup kids? Think Campbell's'd be OK with that? Then why should do we do a similar diservice to ourselves? Herostratus15:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realise that what your proposing means,that ALL wikipetan images have invalid copyrights?If you can't make derivatives then the GFDL copyright is emptied from it's substence.Should we delete all of them?And what about the uncyclopedia logo(the potato image on this page),should sue them too.--Pixel ;-)17:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another red herring to eat, the uncyclopedia logo is parody as protected under 1st amendment of the US constitution (where i think both sets of servers are based). 86.53.57.14817:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, this is probably true, but what about the other wikipetans? What's the rational in keeping them? Isn't a trademark violation too? Surely it's not parody. Then what's the meaning of the GFDL on them? --Pixel ;-)17:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCloser, please note: this is a trademark issue, although not a copyright one. Wikipi-tan and the puzzle pieces are trademarks. They just are, is all. That they are not registered (TM not ®) is of minor imporant. Look: if an enemy entity -- say Wikipedia Review or a competing encyclopedia -- hijacked Wikipedia-tan for their own (non-parody, non-fair-use) purposes, that would certainly be actionable. It's just... amazing that you would countenance misusing Foundation trademarks. This amounts to Commons attacking the Foundation... why on earth do you want to open that can of worms? Herostratus15:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipe-tan is in no way a trademark of Wikipedia/Wikimedia. It is a completely unofficial mascot. Fair-use is not in any way welcome on commons. -- Catchi?17:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you are saying is that if Big Ed's Fabulous Encyclopedia decided to make a competing encyclopedia they could use Wikipe-tan as their mascot since it's not a trademark. That's obviously untrue. Wikipe-tan is a de facto tradmark and nothing you say can change that. Herostratus02:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are more than welcome to use Wikipe-tan as their official mascot. They won't be able to claim trademark rights as can't wikimedia foundation since the author did not restrict such a right. Since image is a freely licensed under GFDL it can be used for any purpose. The license also allows commercial usage and derivative works. Nothing you say will change the fact that image is licensed under GFDL. Tux is licensed under GFDL and I am more than allowed to use it as such. I can make it my company logo if I desire provided I comply with GFDL (aka post the entire license with my logo) which would be rather inconvenient. -- Catchi?03:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment"First rationale was the question of weather or not wikipe-tan images violate trademark laws of the foundation. The median to answer that is the board, not COM:DEL"... wow. No, the median to answer that is right here: Wikipi-tan IS a trademark of the Foundation. She just IS; no one can deny that for this reason: it is true. If you are unable to understand this I can't help you, except to say: trust me, I know what I'm talking about. Anyway, no one or almost no one has even made the argument that Wikipi-tan is not a trademark (she is); many people have noted that she is not copyrighted, which is true, and irrelevant. Herostratus15:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipe-tan is in no way a trademark of Wikipedia/Wikimedia. Your insistence to the contrary will not change this fact. It is being used mostly to avoid trademark and copyright concerns actually. You demonstrate a lack of understanding of wikimedias copyrights and trademarks with this very post, I do not feel comfortable "trusting" you with such matters at this point. -- Catchi?17:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Herostratus,if wikipetan violates a trademark,don't you think that all wikipetan images are deletable?If the foundation can forbid certain derivatives works,then their GFDL license is radius to a joke.Ι mean it would be equivalent to a copyright of the foundation.--Pixel ;-)04:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment"...hurting Wikipedias reputation". Even if [this] is valid, that is no reason for us to delete the images." Wow, is one of us crazy? Protecting the Wikipedia's reputation no longer forms a basis for administrator actions? I guess I didn't get the memo... that is just scary. (The following passage about the Nazi flags is an irrelevant red herring.) Herostratus16:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Protecting Wikipedia's reputation" is completely irrelevant for commons Administrators. This is NOT Wikipedia, it is commons. Domestic local affairs on other wikis is of no concern to us as is our domestic affairs no concern to those wikis. Having said that, of course we will delete vandalism only uploads on sight. Vandalism is also not welcome here. -- Catchi?17:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Protecting Wikipedia's reputation" is completely irrelevant for commons Administrators; good to know we are all working together productively, oh wait. 86.53.57.14817:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you bothered re-opening? You personally have made up your mind that wikipedia should create, store and deceminate child porn on the grounds of "free speach". You have been warned of the inevitable outcome of this, i'll just make sure that you and pixel get the hate mail delivered, shame you won't be able to fix the damage you are about to do.86.53.57.14817:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll gladly take the hate mail from cartoon characters that are raped over a non-nude photo drawing of wikipe-tan. -- Catchi?17:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I am taking this quite seriously just like any administrative decision I make. I am the nominator of this and I had made up my mind before nominating it. I have had some concerns about the licensing of the images as a potential GFDL-vio which were answered. I have raised these concerns to the uploader a few hours after the upload to commons and decided to go for COM:DEL when the uploader did not respond. Beyond that, no one to this moment has provided a compelling deletion rationale inline with deletion criteria/policy. -- Catchi?17:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Youve been warned of the damage this could cause, and you don't care, youve made that very clear. As i say youve made you decision so just close this "debate". 86.53.57.14818:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem awfully familiar with commons policies and guidelines while only making edits to this page raining accusations. -- Catchi?18:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The second image is used nowhere. The first image, like the second, isn't very good quality, and isn't even a good example of Lolicon (someone mentioned an image that seems more appropriate - final-solution-chan? - with an even worse name!). It also strikes me as trolling and in poor taste. If someone made cartoons of wikipe-tan or commons-tan being scared, humiliated, beaten, shot, eaten by lions, melted in Dip by flickr-tan, cloned in a vat by citizend-tan, I would want to see them used in a hilarious satire or deleted; if we don't protect our mascots' honor, who will? I hope the community agrees. (On the other hand, if someone can suggest a use for these images on the projects that can't possible be better served by a better-drawn and less insulting image, please share!) While it is tempting to take this [as with any controversial topic] as an opportunity for devil's and other advocates to showcase their debate skills, I would like to see the images deleted and not caught in the middle of perennial censorship/propriety/policy debates. +sj +02:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe mascots have a sense of honor. You are welcome to draw alternatives. Wikipe-tan is as official as any other image on commons not licensed by the wikimedia foundation. So long as images are freely licensed and are within our project scope, we should NOT delete them. -- Catchi?03:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Copyright issues sorted. Commons not censored, we don't delete images becuase of the filename either. -- Drini22:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reopened. Deletion requests stay open for at least one week. Also, the reasons for a decision should address the issues raised, which Drini's decision didn't. Samulili04:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reclosed. There is no rule to keep a deletion request open for a week - the discussion here is no longer about copyright laws or commons scope but peoples ethics. Some of the issues raised has nothing to do with commons.
First rationale was the question of weather or not wikipe-tan images violate trademark laws of the foundation. The median to answer that is the board, not COM:DEL.
Second rationale was weather or not the images may lead to a "child pornography case on media hurting Wikipedias reputation". Even if the second rationale is valid, that is no reason for us to delete the images. We have plenty of controversial images on commons such as flags with Nazi symbol which is explicitly banned in Germany. Any Nazi symbol can lead to a similar problem at least on the German media. Wikipedia is not censored.
If there is still a need for deletion people can bring it up in 1 or 2 weeks. I do not want to have a case until the nonsense leaking from en.wikipedia ceases.
Addressing concerns: Unfortunately, this is not a vote, so the proportion of !votes is irrelevant. So, arguments were weighed. The original concern (copyright) was moot as it was solved. The problems about pornography, were moot, since commons is not censored (see Penis). Wikipetan is not officially related to wikipedia, is not an official logo, is not an official mascot, is not an official anything. So, except for those who want to believe wikipetan represents wikipedia, there's no association at all. The image fell under project scope as it was used to illustrate articles. So... weighing the arguments (and not vote counting), the request was closed as keep. --Drini 18:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
So, the arguments that gave origin to this deletion reqeust are adressed. If there are others, then feel free to start a new one using that rationale. And IDONTLIKEIT THINKOFTHECHILDREM OMGWTFBBQ rationales are not valid commons arguments.
Deleted by Jimbo Wales: pedophilic sexualization of a community mascot? No. - email me if you have questions —the preceding unsigned comment was added byD-Kuru (talk • contribs)
WTF?-Then why is it,in "Deletion requests"?In all cases we don't delete. --Pixel ;-) 01:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree with deletion. Wikipe-tan being a cute and curious girl about ten years old, I don't really like such deviations.
Question So the licensing issue is settled now, correct? --tjstrf talk 07:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The pic was uploaded under a throw away ID, and later claimed by someone with a different ID and only 
Oppose And now that I made an account for myself, I oppose this deletion. --Anonyymi 19:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment There is no copyright issue surrounding this image. If the puzzle pieces are allowed in a normal Wikipe-tan, then they're allowed in derivatives of Wikipe-tan. Any debate therefore should not take copyright into consideration, only other issues such as scope, censorship, and quality. Cary Bass demandez 14:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)