Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikipe-tan in swimwear.jpg

< Commons:Deletion requests
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.

File:Wikipe-tan_in_swimwear.jpg

edit

Image isn't the best of quality and is of little educational value. In addition it depicts a pre-teen girl in swimwear, a form that is not usually acceptable. I appreciate we have a policy of "not censored" but this image is not used in any educational context or to demonstrate any particular style of image. In addition within Wikimedia it appears only to be used within project namespace in association with Wikipe-tan pages ErrantX (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also agree with below and thus changed to Keep or Userfy, the image is not sexual unless you want it to be and really has no problems as it is already confined to userpages and not the encyclopedia its-self 24.91.121.72 23:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question This image is no less educational or out-of-scope than any of the Wikipetan images. Why single out this one but not the others? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because of the focus/context of the image. This classifies as a level 1 image on the w:COPINE scale, without educational use/interest I see no need for it to be hosted here --ErrantX (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suspect that the COPINE scale is meant to be applied to photographs, not drawings, but that isn't clear from the article on Wikipedia. I find it strange that you apply a scale used for qualifying child pornography to this drawing just after saying "Wikipe-tan is about as far from Child porn as you can get, and the people who enjoy such imagery are, psychologically speaking, nowhere near to pedophiles" and "there is no real concern in my mind over Wikipe-tan being a "sexualized image of a prepubescent girl"". Were you talking about a different Wikipe-tan, because I think drawings like this are the reason some editors find her inappropriate as some kind of unofficial mascot. This drawing, incidentally was made by User:Kasuga who, I believe, is the creator of Wikipe-tan (and also made this helpful example of Lolicon). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the COPINE scale can be used for graphic imagery. It is sometimes debated over whether such things can be used within a prosecution for child pornography, but it isn't usually hotly debated. The point I was making is not "OMG child porn". It is not, paedophilia is about context as much as anything. But given the classification of the image and the lack of an educational use (note; the lolicon image is also level one, but has a legitimate educational use) I don't see any need to have this image here. ANd, yes, I was talking specifically about the original Wikipe-tan in the comments you cite and not about the derivatives, some of which concern me. BTW I am confident the image was drawn in good faith with no bad intent. --ErrantX (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see any educational value in this image whatsoever. "Cute" is not a word that comes to mind here. I agree with nominator and with Future Perfect. Also, as a test case, this AfD serves a valid purpose, I believe. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons given in nom. Lar: t/c 15:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not a fan of Wikipe-tan (I think the idea of Wikipe-tan is silly in a bad way), but keeping this image does no harm. -- llywrch (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while I agree the image is not of the best quality, I do not agree with the above assertions that this image has any legal problems. There is nothing sexual there unless you make it sexual which can be said for any image. If keep is not acceptable (and I don't see why not other than the quality of the image), then userfy.24.107.136.106 23:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there have indeed been some inappropriately sexualized images of this figure, but this costume is about as non-sexualized as a bathing suit can be. But I agree with the comment that it needs to be replaced with a higher-quality image. DGG (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not believe a higher quality image would exist since Kasuga probably uploaded the original version of his work to commons. It may be useful to ask, but I believe Kasuga's faded away from the projects. I do not see a pressing need to remove this image from commons and the arguments made here do not sway me. 216.81.81.84 03:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After reading through COM:SCOPE, I see that it gives an extreamly very broad definition of "educational purpose". Essentially, if an image is used by another Wikimedia project, even if that use is in template or project name space, then it is automatically considered to be useful for an educational purpose. Hence why File:Piratey potrace.svg is allowed on Commons when it is used on only three project name space pages and was once used in a bounty template in the past. In addition, this Wikipe-tan image is displayed on far more Wikimedia project pages then that of Piretey. What educational purpose do the Lolcat serve? Also, the quality of an image is not a reason to delete it. It is merely an indication that it may be replaced with a higher quality version. And in accordance with COM:NOTCENSORED, an image should not be deleted because some find it objectionable. Claims that the image is "sexualized" is entirely subjective and even disputable and the image does not violate any laws of the state of Florida or the United States. TheFarix (talk) 03:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This is a well meaning request for deletion, but it does risk rehashing the old allegations that Wikipe-tan is somehow an in-joke for pedophiles. This has never been the case, so it is misleading to use this as an argument. I would also have to dispute whether this classifies as a level 1 image on the w:COPINE scale, because if it did, the tabloid media would surely have found it and made a fuss by now, as would the w:Internet Watch Foundation. The "sexual element" here seems to be in the eye of the beholder. After the 2010 Fox News/Sanger brouhaha, all of the images on Commons were checked for compliance with State of Florida law. There has always been an element of w:WP:IDONTLIKEIT in debates about Wikipe-tan, but let's not make issues where none exist. This is not a great image by any means, but nor is it hugely offensive.--Ianmacm (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not having been the subject of media attention in no way suggests that it does not meet the definition of level one in the COPINE scale. That's a bit like saying it isn't murder if no one finds the corpse. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Internet Watch Foundation said that the w:Virgin Killer cover was a level 1 image on the w:COPINE scale.[1] It would take a good deal of imagination to see this cartoon as being in the same league. All of the cartoon images of children were checked in 2010, and this one survived, presumably because it has no obvious sexual meaning.--Ianmacm (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You need to work on your reading comprehension skills. That is not what the linked article says. I believe that album cover would be a 5 or 6 on the COPINE scale. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Virgin Killer cover seems to be level 1 on the SAP scale, which is a variant of the w:COPINE scale used in the UK courts. The swimwear definition is given in the COPINE scale, but not the SAP scale. COPINE level 1 is rather broad and subjective, and if none of us here are lawyers, w:IANAL would apply. The translation of the Japanese text below is helpful.--Ianmacm (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • The important thing to remember is this; a gun is a lethal and sometimes illegal weapon. But owning one is not necessarily a crime. This is indisputably a level one image; if I cam across it during an investigation it would get a flag. On its own there is not much to it, as part of a pattern it starts to look problematic. Virgin Killer is a Level 1 SAP (which is usually called the COPINE scale nowadays) and either level 3 or 4 on the full COPINE scale. Anyway; the thing is this, there seems no educational use behind it and no need to host the image. That it is a Level One simply tips me onto favouring deletion against the argument "no harm keeping it" --ErrantX (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The image has educational value to Wikipedians, may be a little though. It was uploaded in January and reminds us that thinking the image out of season is a Northern Hemisphere point of view. What Wikipe-tan says in Japanese: "Kisetsu hazure? Sore ha Kitahankyū POV yo.", translation: "Out of season? It is a Northern Hemisphere POV." It is similar to File:Don't_abbreviate_as_Wiki_(English_version).png which also advises a good practice about Wikipedia. --Kusunose (talk) 07:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Level 1 COPINE is too subjective and allows "eye of the beholder" interpretations. It would be assuming bad faith in Kasuga to say that this image is intended to be child porn. Even COPINE level 1 does not say "all images of a child in a swimsuit are child porn", it would be a large collection of these images for no obvious reason that aroused suspicion. See also w:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan (2nd nomination) where this type of scaremongering about Wikipe-tan was rejected.--Ianmacm (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ouch, careful, it is definitely not child porn. No one has claimed that one. This isn't scaremongering, I think this is an example of an slightly inappropriate image (per liberal Western ideals, which is where we generally follow law & derive policy from), given the lack of significant use there simply seems no need to keep the image :) BTW you are vaguely correct on the "eye of the beholder" comment, but in this case it is in no way borderline, and would be generally classified as L1 without dispute --ErrantX (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am British and have assumed that ErrantX is as well. A British police officer or social worker finding this image on a hard drive might well start saying "Ello, ello, ello, what's all this then?" However, in Japan this type of image is commonplace pop art. This is why I voted "weak keep", because Wikipedia can do without this sort of controversy. It is important to remember that not all Wikipedians are Westerners, and that different attitudes prevail in different societies. Lewis Carroll took photographs of children that were considered cute at the time, but might well get him arrested today. There is also a parallel here with the w:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. These cartoons would certainly be banned in a country with Islamic law, but they are considered to fall within Western free speech laws even though they are highly controversial.--Ianmacm (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, absolutely there is cultural bias problems here (yes, I am a Brit, and yes I work in the field of investigating such stuff), I'm more weighing that up against the fact that we base most of our policy (and definitely the "which law do we follow" ones) on US/EU customs. I do dispute that this image is "commonplace" in, say, Japan. Certainly it does not have quite the same connotations as it does in America, but it is by no stretch of the imagination common. It is certainly in a similar theme to some you might see, but in my experience this specific type of image is not considered commonplace. --ErrantX (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • This issue has been discussed extensively at w:Lolicon. I'm not an expert here, but this type of imagery seems to be far from rare in Japanese pop culture. Kasuga probably did not anticipate the fuss that this particular image would cause, as it does look "a bit dubious" to Westerners.--Ianmacm (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why are we applying a British scale of "child pornography" in the first place, especially when the "class" can be so widely interpreted that just about any photo of a child can be classed as Level 1? But based on my interpretations, Level 1 applies to an image's inclusion within a larger collection of similar images instead of a single stand-alone image. TheFarix (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dunno. Let's apply the rule of freedom of speech enjoyed by citizens of my state of Oregon, which is far more expansive than the rest of the U.S. IANAL, but from the reports of court cases, (As a result, Portland has more strip clubs per capita than any other city -- which seems to be the only result; legal guidelines concerning other matters such as libel appear to be the same as elsewhere.) Here this image would not even raise an eyebrow. -- llywrch (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Really I do not see all the fuss over this image, Level 1 in COPINE states: "Non-erotic and non-sexualised pictures showing children in their underwear, swimming costumes from either commercial sources or family albums. Pictures of children playing in normal settings, in which the context or organisation of pictures by the collector indicates inappropriateness." So would that mean that an image of dora the explorer in a bathing suit on a bathing suit would arouse a pedo here? The whole thing is as put very broad, plus there is the whole image of lolicon on wikipedia, what level would that be on the COPINE scale? That leaves the educational value, where on wikipedia does this show that? - 24.91.121.72 14:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. If I had a photo or a drawing of my three-year-old daughter in a one-piece swimsuit, it would look very much like this -- with the exception of the jigsaw-like puzzles & the color of the hair. This is how children look. It is only sexualized if the viewer desires it to be -- but then, there are sexual predators who find clicking a ball-point pen enough to get them thinking about sex. Some associations, for better or worse, we can do nothing about. -- llywrch (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jimbo wanted the infobox image in w:Lolicon to be deleted back in July 2010. It all got quite heated as other editors were adamant that it should stay. This is probably w:User:Kasuga's most discussed image, the swimwear one here is a newcomer. Jimbo is on the record as not a fan of Wikipe-tan, or images of her that have any suggestion of sexuality.--Ianmacm (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Tom Morris/Why Women Don't Edit Wikipedia. I am currently engaged in a dispute at Fan service over including this image in an article for crying out loud, and why should I have to go through this? Why give ourselves headaches like this on purpose? If all the peeps in favor of keeping this image could explain to me why it's OK for them to decide that's it's fine for me to have to waste my time dealing with stuff like this, I would appreciate it. Are you going to come over and walk my dog while I deal with this idiocy? Because I don't see you doing it. If you people would be kind enough to back us up while we try to create an encyclopedia instead of making it harder, we would appreciate it. Herostratus (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blaming this on why women do not edit on wikipedia is complete utter BS, and is used as an excuse here to get rid of this image. The issue of women editing wikipedia has been brought to Jim Wales attention over and over again and there is no mention on images driving women away as an excuse that I have seen, See also: [2] As for the edit dispute there are a number of editors against you on this, wikipedia is NOT censored you can not go around removing images because you do not approve of them, something you appear to have a history of doing. - 205.173.154.21 20:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Herostratus Your behavior is one of those creating feuds, grudges, acrimony and distrust between editors. In that regard you are also contributing to make Wikipedia a place where editors don't respect and trust each others. Bottom line maybe you will get your 25% female contributors but meanwhile the overall participation and contributors will have dropped by some 20% thanks to editors like you. --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Herostratus, Morris's page is simply an image gallery and does not provide any explications or arguments as to what the perceived problem is with those images. The rest of your argument amounts wanting to censor an image because you dislike it. However your position is contrary to Common's policy regarding censorship. I would also like to know if Commons has a no personal attacks policy similar to Wikipedia as Herostratus's comments would grossly violate such policy. TheFarix (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I rest my case. If you cater to 4chan, you are going to get 4chan. There is such as thing as system dynamics. That is all. Herostratus (talk) 03:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are not making any rational sense at all. What does this image have to do with 4chan and how does it cater to them? And what do you man by "system dynamics"? I think your assertion that this image creates problems with 4chan users is nothing but a hill of beans. TheFarix (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While some of the Wikipe-tan images seem to have legitimate uses, I can't see what legitimate use this one has. It's low quality, arguably tasteless, and I don't really buy the arguments about its "educational value". Kaldari (talk) 02:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -- The original nomination argument holds up in light of the comments made, and many of the keep arguments did not directly address the nomination, but rather went off on other tracks. For one example: British child porn laws don't apply here, so if that was the nominating argument, then it should be kept. An argument about serious child porn was not made here however.

Fundamentally, deciding what is clearly educational and good quality has nothing to do with legal meanderings. Put another way: it doesn't have to be illegal to be poor quality, not useful for educational projects, and even just plain creepy. Files, like this one, that meet all three criteria should be deleted. Wikipe-tan generally is a perfectly fine expression of Internet culture and Wikimedia's culture, and the fact that this file is tasteless to some is a tertiary note when compared to the fact that it's not necessary or obviously within the educational scope of Commons. Steven Walling 02:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Wikipe-tan_in_swimwear.jpg&oldid=52171049"