Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Wikipe-tan full length

Wikipe-tan full length

Reason

Aliasing, minimal encyclopedic value, and self references to wikipedia are generally not featured

Nominator

Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs)

Past FPC

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wikipe-tan

• Delist — Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I managed to drop a note on the uploader's talk page over on the Japanese wiki letting that person know about the delist nom. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Replace with Nothing-tan. How is this not encyclopedic? It is perfect for moe anthropomorphism, and one of the few free pics we have to demonstrate the anime style. Keep keep keep! The aliasing can be easily fixed. And where did you get the idea that this is a self reference? We have an article on wikipedia don't we? So why can't we have a moe anthropomorphism of wikipedia? This would be a self reference if we let that influence our decision! --ffroth 04:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea was not to feature self references. Also take a few minutes to read the objections to the original nom. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 05:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Self-references are not an issue. Anyone who has taken the time to read WP:SELF will understand that using Wikipedia as an example is completely appropriate. Self-reference issues deals with two things, one is to make it easier to use content on another site without having to reformat it (if you say "here on WIkipedia we.." it won't make sense for other sites), and the other is possible COI when writing about Wikipedia. WP:SELF, in no way, is applicable to this image. This has been a painful misconception from day one. -- Ned Scott 23:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess Raul654's comment here was what gave me the impression that self-refs were bad. I didn't quite remember it the way it was written, though. This is a little different than WP:SELF. I agree with you that the image probably shouldn't be delisted on this basis, but on the other hand, it was a mistake to put it on the main page, that much is clear. I still think it has major quality problems though, and I hope you can understand my rationale for the delist nom. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delist The aliasing is a big problem. Also, I find its enc value a little shaky; it just seems like a piece of fan-art to me. CillaИ ♦ XC 19:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delist Per above - the original voting was almost painful to witness in terms of the amount of ballot stuffing that went on from members of Wikiproject anime --Fir0002 21:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I take offense to the accusation of ballot stuffing. Sure, there was a bit of pile-on in good fun, but it was the arguments, not the number of users, that mattered in that discussion. Strong arguments were provided, and it's too convenient to write all those people off as screaming anime nerds. -- Ned Scott 23:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • "Sure, there was a bit of pile-on in good fun...". Ah, no, actually this just proves Fir's point. These are a type of Meatpuppet vote, and as the policy page states "..when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity". In other words, all the 'votes' from users that have been recruited into this debate in both the original nom and this delist nom should be treated as a single entity (or single vote). I hope the closer will take more note of this this time around. --jjron 08:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm saying that there were a few people who came and supported probably for "the hell of it" (like the ones who just showed up and didn't really comment, like in many discussions), and that just because of that you cannot discount the thought out and more honest supporters. We count arguments, not votes, and that is why this is a featured picture. Saying that everyone who feels the same way about this image, and found out about the discussion from the same place, should only be seen as one person.. is total bullshit. Not everyone in the Anime WikiProject even likes Wikipe-tan, which is evident in the original nomination. Anime is not just some blanket genre, where everyone shares the same tastes. There are as many different preferences within anime for style and characters as there are for any form of media. We are separate voices with our own thought-out rationales. You don't like the picture, fine, but do not belittle our rationales. -- Ned Scott 20:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delist per all above. I remember cringing during the original nomination, it brought out every kawaii-screaming fan. --Bridgecross 15:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • How about "Support Creepy as hell, but the perfect example. Staxringold 06:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)" from the original FPC? Several non-anime fans were supportive of the image, and several of the anime fans had very good rationales for supporting the image. There even were some anime fans who opposed it, so being a fan of anime was hardly the deciding factor, far from it. -- Ned Scott 23:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. This is borderline for me, because I like user-created content that is encyclopedic, but I vote Delist if only for the reason that it strikes me in some way as original research and self-referencing. It does illustrate the article, but the subject of the image is a non-notable invention of a Wikipedia user, created as a self-reference. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-10-22 17:36Z
• Strong Delist Fir0002 and Bridgecross. NyyDave 04:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delist: I remember the original nomination as well. This always has been a disaster, per the reasons stated above. --Hetar 23:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Per ffroth TheOtherSiguy 23:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Replace with Nothing-tan It seems a shame to loose user-created attractive images like this one from FP status. This version has no Wiki-affiliation and is therefore not a meta reference. It is slightly downsampled, so aliasing is no longer a problem. As for its encyclopedic value, it could not illustrate moe anthropomorphism any more, but it remains highly encyclopedic for fan service and anime, or kawaii. de Bivort 03:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Awesome, replace with nothing-tan. This is actually better than wikipe-tan IMO since the no-self-reference thing was kind of touchy --ffroth 20:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Now that we have a proposed replacement, why don't we delist wikipe-tan now and let nothing-tan go through a formal FPC nom like everyone else? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delist without prejudice to a nomination of nothing-tan, per Jeff Dahl. Spikebrennan 00:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delist per votes on the original nom (but I'm still waiting for all the voters from some wikiproject who have never been seen on FPC before or since who voted en masse to get this promoted originally to now reappear and vote to keep it). --jjron 10:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment per WP:VOTE#Deletion, moving and featuring - it shouldn't matter how many 'wanted/unwanted' voters show up, decision is only decided on the strength of their arguments. (so 'per user xxx' votes don't have an impact either) Ninja neko 13:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• This may be raised as an argument 'in theory'; in practice it is rarely (if ever) put into effect, and certainly not when there are large numbers of votes for/against (the only occasional exceptions are things that are found to be scientifically inaccurate for example, and even that's no guarantee). Incidentally the 'per user xxx' votes are usually perfectly acceptable and do have an impact (why repeat the same point if you're just going to say it in different words?). ----jjron 13:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

*Delist Wikipe-tan, find a better name for Nothing-tan and propose it for featured picture. John Carter 13:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC) See changed comment below. John Carter 23:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm partial to Non-tan myself. —Quasirandom 14:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Not quite sure why in the world it should be delisted, unless one of the criteria is that it must be on aritcles -- AND on the article(s) it was on it's replaced with the Nothing-tan. I don't quite see the issue with self-ref in this case, for a VERY simple reason - since HOW THE PIC IS USED is unrelated to it being on Wikipedia. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 15:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Nobody gives a shit outside of this website. The Wikipedia featured pictures list is not considered a place to find images of "encyclopedic value," nor do I see anyone crying about the self-reference on magazines or journals of literary merit. On the contrary, this picture was used to illustrate stuff in various publications. The featured pictures list assists in finding pictures like this one. I feel sorry for the guy who spent hours making this picture and other versions of it, only to have people bump it around because OZOOOMGMGMGGGZZZ IT'S A REFERENCE TO WIKIPEDIA THAT'S TOATALLLY UPROFESSIONAL GET IT AWAY. I bet even Editor & Publisher publishes articles referencing itself. Get it into your heads that you are not running an art critique magazine and these pedantic standards for featured pictures are not helping people who just want to find good pictures. In short, get a life. 春日様、すみません。ヲタクたちの口論はやめられません。Shii (tock) 18:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

  Whether people "give a shit" or not... I would start laughing if in Britanica's anime article had a picture of Brit-tan-ica... ha ha ha. World book-Tan, Really, I'm laughing as I type this. Featured picture's is to showcase exeptionally stunning, high quality and informative contributions. I disagree that nobody gives a shit. look at the number of user pages with the picture of the day on them. In short, close the tab with the anime porn that you get off on in the evenings put down the box of pokemon cards and... get a life. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 21:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

  I don't know about anyone else, but I have a life. Couldn't type this message otherwise. And granted, I may be feeding the troll, but this photo IS quite informative for such articles as Moe (slang) (which at the moment appears to have a differerent Wikipe-tan pic on it). I'm sorry if you don't like anime style, but would Worldbook or Britannica have an article on Fucking, Austria, Male lactation, McDonald's urban legends, Chess boxing, or hundreds of other unusual articles? And besides, there's no actual article on WP-tan, her place is on a WP space, not article space. The pic itself is somewhat unrelated to that; it's simply a libre image used to illustrate things. Which is the whole point of the feature picture system in the first place. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Try to keep it civil. You can get your point across without attacking others, and if you can't, then it doesn't really belong in this discussion. --84.90.46.116 20:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • You can also not hide behind an anonymous IP when participating. At least Shii is willing to present his opinion (poorly worded though it may be) as him/herself rather than hiding behind anonymity. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 14:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Again, keep the personal attacks down, since when do I, as an IP, have less worth then a registered user? Attempting to lower the value of my opinion by calling out that I am an IP is discrimination, and that doesn't belong here either. Seriously though, hiding? I chose not to make an account. My choice and you have nothing to do with it. If you must contact me, drop a message in my talk page, which as an IP, I have like everyone else. I'm as contactable as the next guy. So, in the future, refrain from making assumptions without a fact basis about me personally or anyone else, as they are irrelavant to discussions and their integrity and tend to make the assumer look silly once he makes them and is proven wrong. --84.90.46.116 17:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
        • • I made no personal attack, so there's no reason to wave that flag around. That's like calling someone a homophobe just because they disagree with that lifestyle choice—just plain retarded. It takes all of 30 seconds to create an account, so there should be no reason not to create one if you plan to contribute even semi-regularly to Wikipedia. And dropping you a message on the IP talk page won;t necessarily do anything because for all I know, you may not be the same person who originally wrote the comment above. That's one of the main reasons to create an account: so message intended for you get to you. You are not anywhere near as contactable as the next guy as long as you fail to create an account. ···日本穣 ^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Actually, telling me that I should stop hiding is a personal attack because you're lowering the value of the things I say by saying that I am in fact hiding. This is my home IP, and I'm the only person with access to it. When and whether I create an account is up to me really, and I intend to do so - when I have some degree of experience with the wiki and the people in it. Right now, however, the only thing I can't do is vote here - my opinion is worth as much as yours or as anyone elses. Also, your little indirect nudge at calling me retarded also counts as a personal attack ;) I'd try to take things easier if I were you, seems like you're taking it way too seriously. --84.90.46.116 10:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
        • hear hear. de Bivort 18:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep listed 1, self references do not apply to images such as this. Please take the time to look at WP:SELF. 2, "minimal encyclopedic value", Right now Wikipe-tan is not only an excellent representation of anime style, the concept of "moe", and a few other examples we have of her, but is one of the only free images we have for such articles. 3, Aliasing, an easy fix. One could literally re-size the image and this would be corrected and it would still be large enough to be considered an FP. -- Ned Scott 23:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC) slight refractor comment. Caught in the moment, sorry :) -- Ned Scott 23:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: Not that resizing would be the desired option of fixing the aliasing, but just pointing out how it is an easy fix. -- Ned Scott 23:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - previous opinion was based on having not actually read WP:SELF, for which I apologize. On that basis, there is no reason that I can see to delist this image. John Carter 23:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - WP:SELF does not cover this, and the image illustrates moe anthropomorphism very well and with far more personality than Nothing-tan. TomTheHand 01:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP per above 3 posts. --ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 01:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Ned Scott. WP:SELF does not apply in this instance, and as Ned pointed out, the image is an excellent example image for several articles, and it's a FREE image. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per ned Scott. So don't see solid reason for delisting. L-Zwei 05:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• This is absurd! Now that Project Anime and Manga have got their pitchforks out is there any chance of this getting unbiased critique? It really brings up the question as to whether such canvassed "blow in" votes should be counted at all... --Fir0002 05:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANIME uses the image for several things because it's a free image. If the nominator had taken the time to determine where proper notices should have been placed (WT:ANIME and here, and then placed them there, this wouldn't even be an issue. Involved parties should always be notified of discussions such as this, regardless of whether you agree with their likely stance. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 14:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment on their contributions, not who they are. What's this, an apartheid? _dk 06:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Canvassed votes tend to be ignored whether it's FPC, RFA or AFD. MER-C 08:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a notice on the main page for the image being considered, so it's hardly canvassing. As the image is hosted on Commons, it's the only logical place to put a notice regarding the discussion (a notice which should have been placed by the nominator, I should add). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 14:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope arguements from both sides are judged accordingly by their merits, not solely because they were "canvassed" or not. The number of votes shouldn't matter here, but the opinions should. _dk 08:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)\

Everybody has the right to vote here, whatever be the reason - the closer has the responsibility of sorting through them, seeing what is ballot stuffing and what isn't and thus choosing what to take into account and what not to - We have NO right to blow off peoples votes and their opinions or even to attempt and prevent them from voting because of a group that someone belongs to. That is effective discrimination and does not belong in wikipedia. --84.90.46.116 13:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You canNOT be seriously suggesting that a comment on a Wikipe-tan page is a bad thing. I can't even FATHOM how anyone could argue that. Absurd? Unbiased? Please explain how it's unbiased for someone to have come across this a different way, but not because they happened to be watching a certain page. I swear, people take the canvass thing WAY to the extreme. This is no different than someone seeing an AFD notice at the top of articlespace. (And note, I didn't mention WP:Anime.) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 10:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the link provided by Fir does not really constitute canvasing - even though it did stir up a hornet's nest. de Bivort 18:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Proposal Thank you everyone for your comments, I feel everyone should be welcome to comment here, as long as we keep it civil. Please keep in mind that this is not a deletion discussion, it is a delist discussion. A user suggested I should have notified the Anime wikiproject about the delist nomination. I understand this user's frustration at not having been notified, but keep in mind that notifying a wikiproject is not mentioned in the delist guidelines. I did notify the uploader, as suggested. Because I understand the importance of notification, I'd like to propose a different solution to the problem in the future, since no one can really predict, on any given image, what users/projects will want to be notified. If we add a template, such as {{FPdelist}} to the image page, then any users who have the image watchlisted can see right away about the discussion; this is even better than trying to have the nominator decide which people/projects need to be notified. If someone can help with the links/syntax of the template, I would appreciate it. Will this solution be acceptable for the notification problem in the future? I implore everyone to keep the discussion on point and civil. If someone can upload an SVG version of wikipe-tan without the aliasing, I think it would go a long way towards fixing the problem. With respect to notification on commons, I don't agree about that in this instance, since this process is not relevant to commons users. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 19:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• If need be, it's much more reasonable to run a review again, rather than "defending" the current status of the image. "someone can upload an SVG version of wikipe-tan without the aliasing", well, gonna have to contact the creator. KyuuA4 20:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• There's no need to de-list her because some people have a misconception about the self-reference guideline, or fear that us big-bad anime fans are some kind of hive-mind. -- Ned Scott 20:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Jeff Dahl's idea of the delist template - is there any particular area of wikipedia where to suggest templates for regularized use? If so, I'm quite certain that practical idea would pass. --84.90.46.116 20:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have no problem with who the nominator notified, because others can give additional notification if they want. I've gotten a bit tired of this WP:CANVASS paranoia. My problem is that the nom didn't look at the guideline about self-references before nominating the image. -- Ned Scott 20:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delist Highly unasthetic. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 21:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• erm ... this rationale is subjective to the point of meaningless. Can you give a specific concern - like "colors clash" or "unbalanced composition" or "low contrast" because if the root of your reason is that you don't like anime-style art, I don't think that's valid. de Bivort 21:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• something about it go against my perception of artistic. It has nothing to do with the subject matter, I have nothing against anime per se. sorry I can't be more specific. :-/ -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 02:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention, there's a LARGE number of features pics that are far less aesthetically pleasing. Having a quick peak at this month's, the slave-whipping one, for instance. A couple of the war ones, as well. Not to mention, what Debivort said. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Question. What criteria under WP:WIAFP did this image fail? KyuuA4 21:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment The only one it could remotely be questioned on is #3, "is among Wikipedia's best work", so far as I can tell. John Carter 21:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The concerns are that there is significant aliasing (FP criteria #1, #3) and lack of enc value (FP criteria #5). As far as I can tell, nobody on the keep side has addressed the technical concerns. MER-C 04:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Can someone explain for me how this is not OR? On wikipe-tan's talk page, Ned Scott says that "images are except (sic) from the no original research policy" but what WP:OR#Original images actually says is "Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy...This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments...Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed..." (emphasis original). In contrast to maps, diagrams, and photos which can be checked for factual accuracy against published sources, a creation such as this was made up (not simply created) specifically for wikipedia.

Well, I don't really know, but my instinct is that it isn't "Original Research" because it isn't Research at all. It's an illustration of a concept, not an exploration of it. Would the images illustrating Perspective (graphical) be OR? No... just an illustration of a concept. It's an original creation but it doesn't purport to add knowledge or insight to a field - so hard to call it research. de Bivort 22:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The existance of moe anthropomorphization is hardly in question.Geni 17:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep KyuuA4 makes a good point that this discussion should be based on if the image still meets the Featured picture criteria, not if you personally like the image or not. These are the Featured picture criteria (my opinion in the parentheses): 1. Is of a high technical standard. (yes), 2. Is of high resolution. (yes, 1110 × 2100 pixel), 3. Is among Wikipedia's best work. (yes, per the criteria that it is "best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer" and "illustrates the subject in a compelling way"), 4. Has a free license. (yes), 5. Adds value to an article. (yes, to the Moe anthropomorphism article), 6. Is accurate. (yes), 7. Has a good caption (yes), 8. Is neutral.(yes), 9. Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation. (yes) (Duane543 04:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC))
• Strong Keep per Duane543, this image still meets the guidelines and anti-anime and pro anime alike should be discounted about this and it should be about whether the image meets the guidelines (which Duane outlined above) which it does. Cat-five - talk 10:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I believe it is a high technical standard, is among WP's best work and adds value to "Moe". Self-references are not an issue though Nothing-tan is good, too. --Kurihaya 16:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious keep. It still fits all the featured picture criteria, so why is this even a question? Self-reference isn't a problem unless it's labelled "the moe of this website" rather than "the moe of Wikipedia". We're allowed to mention WP, just not to call it "us". So unless you want to delete the Wikipedia article itself, I don't see a problem. --Masamage ♫ 17:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious keep. If nothing this is a very good illustration of anime and perhaps manga as well as many other articles (hence encyclopedic). It is indeed "fan art". Had it been professional, it would have been copyrighted. -- Cat ^chi? 21:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

  WP:SELF: "Wikipedia's free content is reused in many places, online and off. Do not assume that the reader is reading Wikipedia, or indeed any website."

  How is the image in question violating that? Images by very nature can't violate WP:SELF. Wikipedia:Avoid self-references is intended for article namespace. -- Cat ^chi? 21:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

  WP:OR#Original images: "Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy...This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments...Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed..." (as quoted above)

  Had the image in question be claimed as a new genre, you would be right. It is an illustration of an existing genre. It is a free alternative to an otherwise heavily copyrighted genre. Manga and anime are commercial products. This freely licensed image and images like it is a treat. Such images should be encouraged. -- Cat ^chi? 22:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. With regards to WP:SELF, the image is about Wikipedia, not Wikipedia itself. That follows the same logic as Wikipedia having an article about Wikipedia. Wikipe-tan serves as Wikipedia's mascot, selected from a mascot contest two years ago. KyuuA4 22:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Oh yeah you can really tell consensus was for Wikipe-tan to be Wikipedia's mascot. 26 votes in support of wikipe-tan over (pretty useless) competition but 21 votes of the people who actually knew that this competition existed said they'd rather Wikipedia had no mascot! So no, Wikipe-tan does not serve as Wikipedia's mascot --124.176.241.101 10:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

  WP:SELF was intended to prevent articles like Featured picture candidates. In other words articles about wikipedia processes that any wikipedian would know but rest of the world would not care. Wikipe-tan is not an image on wikipedia. The world would care about wikipe-tan as an illustration of anime-style art and not as a wikipedia mascot which is why Wikipe-tan is a red link. -- Cat ^chi? 10:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delist. This is not encyclopedic material. All it took to create ‘Nothing-Tan’ was removing a couple of jigsaw pieces from ‘Wikipe-Tan’. The end product of such an arbitrary process cannot be encyclopedic. Pstuart84 Talk 23:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Um ... What are you talking about? It encyclopedically illustrates anime fan service and could easily illustrate other articles. It is a free image in a world of copyrighted ones - how else would you illustrate those article? Come on now. Also removing the puzzle pieces wasn't arbitrary! It was deliberate to remove any aspect of self-reference. So, what on earth do you mean it isn't encyclopedic because it was "arbitrary"? de Bivort 23:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• We're not talking about Nothing-tan here. _dk 23:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• If it isn't encyclopedic, please delete all the content in category:anime and category:manga as they are not encyclopedic either then. -- Cat ^chi? 10:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Restart nom My concerns over "self-ref" are gone, but aliasing problems remain. If this were voting, the count stands as 11 keep (6 strong), 11 delist (4 strong) and 2 replace. Restarting nom will allow the community to assess the remaining issue: aliasing. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• No, I'm competent enough to assess that the aliasing is a very serious and irreparable issue. None of the keep opinions addressed this, and this is the reason why FPC is not a vote. Delisted . MER-C 01:44, 29 October 2007 (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 the featured picture candidates talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.