Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan2

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 debate was speedy keep. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan

This page is completely and utterly ridiculous. An entire page dedicated to the "worship" of a childish drawing. If you think "worship" is too strong a word check out some of the David-Brent-level-cringe-factor comments on the talkpage. This user loves Wikipe-tan, the cutest personification of Wikipedia. is extremely apt - but whatever happened to This user loves Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia - that's what we're here for, not an extended anime fan club!! Given the deletion of that great Esperanza project on the basis it was distracting people and creating a socialized wiki culture I don't see how this can possibly be retained. It has no positive benefit for the project at all - why is it the namespace? Reason: it would get deleted as an article for a lack of notability. It's just a list of the uses of wikipetan and numerous derivative images. I honestly find it sickening that such an article exists on our encyclopedia. And before the accusations start flying yes this is just a dummy account (AFAIK this isn't against "the rules") as I'd prefer not to be a marked man by Wikipe-tan fans.

Delete --Anon deletion (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no evidence that this creates a "socialized wiki culture" that distracts editors. The page has been retained in the past for sentimental value, and adds similar community value to humorous pages such as BJAODN. — scetoaux (T|C) 04:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per scetoaux. The norm mentioned comment from talk page which, AFAIK, can be much more relax than the article as long as it isn't insultive. Plus, this page actually has positive benefit. At least two controversy images brought here, discussed and deleted. Of couse, as an article it would get deleted, but she's notable in Wikipedia community with her images use in various way, world-wide (this pages exist in 19 different languages). L-Zwei (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. This is not article space. --Bduke (talk) 05:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No valid grounds for deletion. --Carnildo (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on a lack of a sense of humor. rootology (T) 06:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The proposer makes a valid point about the cringe-worthy nature of a lot of the stuff here, and it is clear that the page would benefit greatly from a good deal of toning down, but there could remain enough non-cringe stuff to form a project page in future. Mayalld (talk) 06:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, especially since it has lead to benefits in article space. For example, the image I made for Visual Novel used images from this page. — PyTom (talk) 06:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia should not cater to sexual deviants in project space. Dance With The Devil (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the basis that it's in bad faith, especially if we're getting accusations that people who like Wikipe-tan are "sexual deviants". Though, if a dispute about a year ago concerning this mascot was able to lead to a free-use image in lolicon, I guess we are nothing but sexual deviants after all. --十八 06:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Read up on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza; this was a completely different issue and problem. G.A.S 07:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Default keep per total lack of evidence that this page is doing anything bad. --Masamage ♫ 07:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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