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

Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan!

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

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

A humour page should still have a point or a message to deserve existence in WP. It's not enough to just be "funny" in the view of some editors. Otherwise we would have a million such pages. This page doesn't have a point, therefore it should go. Nanobear (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Its a page asking to donate to wikipedia, how is that not a valid point? It also has the be aware of child abuse message there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously contending that this page is raising the level of awareness of child abuse? As though this section make it somehow a responsible piece of dreck? IvoryMeerkat (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Knowledgekid makes valid points. This is suppose to be a humerous page meant to get people to donate to Wikipedia. That's its purpose; its using satire to get across a point.陣内_Jinnai 04:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • ??? Do you seriously think people are donating to the foundation on the basis of this page? If so, are those the sort of sponsors we even want? IvoryMeerkat (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Userfy - Hmph, that's my third userfy for today it's extremely unfunny and I hate the Wikipe-tan, but that's my opinion. Anyways, it doesn't really encourage donations IMO, and doesn't say something funny about WP, just the wikipe-tan. It's better to move this to the userspace of someone who find it funny. Kayau Voting IS evil 04:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep At the very least just to piss off those who lack a sense of humor. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • In other words, people who find this reprehensible are not welcome at this project, but people who find it humorous and don't mind the crude societal implications are the people we want associated with the project? IvoryMeerkat (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. This page is fuckin' awesome. Hell, I would love to "abuse" Wikipetan myself, if you know what I mean! Underween (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Sock of banned user Wiki brah (talk · contribs)}. –MuZemike 08:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete ^{The page has been rewritten, with the offensive content excised. Cunard (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)} this tasteless, disgusting page. To use the analogy of raising funds to free a child sex slave to encourage people to donate to Wikipedia is in extremely poor taste. Humor on Wikipedia is good, if it does not bring the project into disrepute. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein#User pages ruled that "While not explicitly stated on Wikipedia:User page, it is implicit there that users should refrain from creating user pages likely to bring the project into disrepute." The spirit of this ruling applies to Wikipedia namespace pages as well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have just been asked if I intended to link to Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan. Yes, I did, as that is the article about our mascot. I think the simple use of our mascot is fine. I was however questioning some of the images in the gallery in Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan. I suggest that some judgement should be used there as to which images are included, rather than listing what may be all that have been created. That however is an issue different from this MfD. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Your broad characterization of people who are offended by this page ("Also, while I think only humorless people would be offended by this page, if the page isn't serving any good purpose there is no reason to offend those people."), is disparaging and unnecessarily personalizes the discussion. Cunard (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is also not censored WP:NOTCENSORED while I can agree if some of the things on the page are offending just replace the text with something else its that easy, no need to take away a humor page here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• The page as a whole is inappropriate for Wikipedia space (or userspace); see the description above by Kaguya-chan (talk · contribs). Furthermore, as SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) mentioned below, the page is not sufficiently related to Wikipedia to merit retaining it.

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

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

• Thank you for the clarification that your "humorless" comment is an exaggeration.

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

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

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

• Because this page has little relevance to the project, and because it is highly offensive, I oppose userfication or a move to a subpage of WikiProject Anime and manga. Cunard (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

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