- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Draftify. I have placed the draft at Draft:Bunny Girl, without prejudice to other locations. -- j⚛e decker talk 17:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- Bunny Girl ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of significant, reliable, secondary coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, neither in article nor in web searches. Lots of blogs, deviantart, and anime wikis though. Possible original synthesis of the Playboy Bunny costume. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 20:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC) --Animalparty-- ( talk) 20:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 21:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
DeleteUserfy/Move to Draftspace,as bunny girl already exists and redirects to Playboy Bunny. The bit about Japanese culture has already been covered at Moe anthropomorphism#Animals, so there is nothing to merge. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Changed to userfy as per below. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)-
Franbunnyffxii (
talk)
00:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Neither page discusses the unique history behind the bunnygirl trope itself though. I've yet to finish the page. The origin and history of the bunnygirl trope is very different from the Moe trope, and the history goes beyond anything stated within the Playboy Bunny page as the trope is not confined to either the japanese moe or american waitress appearance.
- The only way we can be sure this trope is notable and not based on your own opinion,
original research, or
fancruft is if you supply and reference reliable sources that discuss the trope. To claim the subject is worth an article, you must offer proof that
reliable sources, have covered the topic, which is required by Wikipedia's
Verifiability policy.
--Animalparty-- (
talk)
03:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- @ Franbunnyffxii: If you want, we can WP:USERFY the article for you, so you can continue to work on it in your userspace and it can be moved back when the article is ready. However, as Animalparty says, reliable sources would still be needed to prove notability of the topic. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- The only way we can be sure this trope is notable and not based on your own opinion,
original research, or
fancruft is if you supply and reference reliable sources that discuss the trope. To claim the subject is worth an article, you must offer proof that
reliable sources, have covered the topic, which is required by Wikipedia's
Verifiability policy.
--Animalparty-- (
talk)
03:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
So basically it comes down to a matter of opinion as to what is worthy of an article or not. I had an interest in creating the page for the sake of sharing the unique history behind the trope as it differentiates from other tropes of a similar background but if said topic is going to be left up to the opinion of another's as to whether the article is worthy of publication, then it defeats the point of working on said article in the first place. The references that I had previously posted would refer back to the history of the trope, but if these can't be used or referenced then the information supporting the trope is unfairly rejected. Rather a large set of references from other pages would have to be used. EG the usage of the trope in the a 2003 game, and other media usage of the trope. Are these not viable references? If not then much of wikipedia is unverifiable. The trope supersedes its origins, and to prove this as a verifiable source this history would have to be posted else where first as a reference? Franbunnyffxii ( talk) 20:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I would also like to note that /info/en/?search=Catgirl Is a page with the same intent and value with less references that are possible and usable for information. Simply viewing the historical origin and then the modern version of the Bunny Girl trope automatically provides enough evidence that the trope is different from others. By reference if provided that the history of the trope as it occurs first in american culture (playboy bunny) to be picked up by Japanese culture to be used in the game Final Fantasy Advanced tactics: http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Viera "They first appeared in Final Fantasy Tactics Advance." and eventually reitterated again in Final Fantasy XII as an entrance to mainstream video game publication, and then again reitterated through out japanese "kawaii culture" as an associated kenomomimi. Following the history of the trope also included the instance of Riven in the game League of Legends with her "Battle Bunny" skin(theme appereance) http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com/wiki/File:Riven_BattleBunnySkin.jpg and then again in the game WildStar with the Aurin http://wildstar.gamepedia.com/Aurin Elaborate as to how to cite these references? As their occurence is important in following the history of the trope as it does not adhere to the assumed "moe anthro" association. The trope is not directly associated with japanese culture but rather was reitterated by it, as provided by the fact that the playboy bunny was originated from american culture.
This provided far more references and prove historical origin beyond what the Catgirl page provides. So why does the catgirl page receive its own when it has little validity outside of being a subset of a the larger Moe anthro and Kenomimi culture which it belongs, but Bunny girl does not when it's not directly associated and does not specifically belong to moe anthro and kenomimi? Franbunnyffxii ( talk) 20:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- @ Franbunnyffxii: It is not at all a matter of opinion. It is a matter of of Notablity, which requires evidence: e.g. you or anyone else providing a couple reliable sources that discuss the topic in depth, such as a book (not a comic book), news feature, article by a renowned artist or pop-culture scholar, or something that wasn't posted by an anonymous user on a website that profits from promoting anime fandom. Wikias like you mentioned are user-generated sources, and are not considered reliable. Your article currently includes one source that is not even about the anime trope but the Playboy Bunny, and a list of characters that look sort of like bunnies.
- It is true that Wikipedia has articles on things it shouldn't have. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Catgirl may also warrant deletion, and I agree it is not well sourced, but it appears to at least meet the barest minimum claim to notability in that Fred Patten devoted an article to the subject. Articles of that caliber and better are the types we would need to cite to demonstrate a subject is notable in the real world. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 23:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I linked other references but those were considered unworthy apparently. The Viera article references are not valid then?
↑ 1.0 1.1 Final Fantasy XII Scenario Ultimania Page 88. ISBN 4-7575-1696-7
↑ Final Fantasy XII Scenario Ultimania Page 88. ISBN 4-7575-1696-7
↑ Final Fantasy Tactics Advance Radio Edition, Vol. 3 (Chapter 10)
Furthering the question of validity of Wikia
What about the reference to Riven's Battle Bunny outfit from League of Legends?
What about the reference to Aurin from WildStar? http://wildstar.gamepedia.com/Aurin
Whether or not these exist is not debatable, they do exist and are definite examples of said trope. These are able to be viewed and placed outside of the wikia reference. Franbunnyffxii ( talk) 01:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
How would I reference these things above as to which to provide said evidence for the trope itself? Point be made that the trope exists beyond the bounds of the expectation, and there are book references, as well as other pop culture references. There is no question that this trope does infact exist outside of both the playboy bunny origin, and Japanese kawaii culture. One does not need to be world renowned or an expert to prove that something exists.
Franbunnyffxii ( talk) 01:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please don't think that we're trying to prevent an article about bunny girls from existing on Wikipedia. I, for one, am all for having such an page. However, reliable sources (if you haven't read the linked page before, then I highly recommend you read it) must be present in every Wikipedia article in order to prove that it is notable enough to be worthy of inclusion in the encyclopaedia. If you believe such sources exist; that's great, like I said we can userfy the article for you so that you can work on it in your own time. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 10:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Although I admit that this article needs some work, I'm opposed to deleting it outright. This is a topic that I feel deserves coverage.
Bensci54 (
talk)
04:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- See
WP:ILIKEIT,
WP:Existence ≠ Notability, and
WP:Subjective importance. There is as yet no evidence that sources with a reputation for fact-checking or critical analysis feel it deserves coverage.
--Animalparty-- (
talk)
04:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Animalparty, it's WP:VALUABLE, not WP:ILIKEIT. Mr. Guye ( talk) 01:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- See
WP:ILIKEIT,
WP:Existence ≠ Notability, and
WP:Subjective importance. There is as yet no evidence that sources with a reputation for fact-checking or critical analysis feel it deserves coverage.
--Animalparty-- (
talk)
04:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment – Franbunnyffxii, what the article needs is more sources like this one: The Anime Machine, a book on anime. When I searched it for "bunny", there were 5 references. You could look for game reviews or descriptions of famous characters (in books and magazines, not fan sites). Ideally one that discusses bunny ears in some depth, or at least as part of the moe + animal trope. If you can find 3 or 4 more references like the book, that should be enough evidence for an article. – Margin1522 ( talk) 11:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald ( here I am) 16:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. No reliable sourcing or commentary to demonstrate that this is a sufficiently notable topic to justify a self-standing article. -- DAJF ( talk) 01:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Incubate; Turning it into a draft seems the best solution here. Franbunnyffxii is convinced that the topic is notable, so let's let them work on it for a while. -- Mr. Guye ( talk) 01:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
While I would like to keep the article and continue to work on it, the discussion here about having such a page has completely warded me off from having any motivation or interest in completing said article for the time being. It's certainly a notable topic in existence, but the fact that it's being debated by such of those whom don't possess similar knowledge to the subject simply feels like fighting a fight that I can't win. I can't find any motivation or interest in finishing the article anymore because of this. And I feel at this point next to no one really cares about the subject enough to really give it any thought other than myself. Let the article sit dormant or hidden, ect. Until I can return to the topic, or whatever can be done. I have no interest in completing this article at this time. Franbunnyffxii ( talk) 09:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 17:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. I have no objection to userfying, and would encourage Franbunnyffxii to do some real research on the topic. Cite a textbook on Anime history, not a video game manual, and hold back all of your opinions until they are verified by reliable sources. The question is not of existence, but notability. If after months of incubation, all that can be produced is a list of fictional characters that have bunny ears, but no secondary sources that address the question of "what does it mean?", "who cares?", or "why bunnies?", then we'll be back to this same discussion. Again, see Existence ≠ Notability and Existence does not prove notability. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 18:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Userfy per others. We can wait until notability is demonstrated on the draft. APerson ( talk!) 19:19, 9 February 2015 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Draftify. I have placed the draft at Draft:Bunny Girl, without prejudice to other locations. -- j⚛e decker talk 17:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- Bunny Girl ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of significant, reliable, secondary coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, neither in article nor in web searches. Lots of blogs, deviantart, and anime wikis though. Possible original synthesis of the Playboy Bunny costume. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 20:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC) --Animalparty-- ( talk) 20:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 21:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
DeleteUserfy/Move to Draftspace,as bunny girl already exists and redirects to Playboy Bunny. The bit about Japanese culture has already been covered at Moe anthropomorphism#Animals, so there is nothing to merge. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Changed to userfy as per below. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)-
Franbunnyffxii (
talk)
00:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Neither page discusses the unique history behind the bunnygirl trope itself though. I've yet to finish the page. The origin and history of the bunnygirl trope is very different from the Moe trope, and the history goes beyond anything stated within the Playboy Bunny page as the trope is not confined to either the japanese moe or american waitress appearance.
- The only way we can be sure this trope is notable and not based on your own opinion,
original research, or
fancruft is if you supply and reference reliable sources that discuss the trope. To claim the subject is worth an article, you must offer proof that
reliable sources, have covered the topic, which is required by Wikipedia's
Verifiability policy.
--Animalparty-- (
talk)
03:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- @ Franbunnyffxii: If you want, we can WP:USERFY the article for you, so you can continue to work on it in your userspace and it can be moved back when the article is ready. However, as Animalparty says, reliable sources would still be needed to prove notability of the topic. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- The only way we can be sure this trope is notable and not based on your own opinion,
original research, or
fancruft is if you supply and reference reliable sources that discuss the trope. To claim the subject is worth an article, you must offer proof that
reliable sources, have covered the topic, which is required by Wikipedia's
Verifiability policy.
--Animalparty-- (
talk)
03:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
So basically it comes down to a matter of opinion as to what is worthy of an article or not. I had an interest in creating the page for the sake of sharing the unique history behind the trope as it differentiates from other tropes of a similar background but if said topic is going to be left up to the opinion of another's as to whether the article is worthy of publication, then it defeats the point of working on said article in the first place. The references that I had previously posted would refer back to the history of the trope, but if these can't be used or referenced then the information supporting the trope is unfairly rejected. Rather a large set of references from other pages would have to be used. EG the usage of the trope in the a 2003 game, and other media usage of the trope. Are these not viable references? If not then much of wikipedia is unverifiable. The trope supersedes its origins, and to prove this as a verifiable source this history would have to be posted else where first as a reference? Franbunnyffxii ( talk) 20:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I would also like to note that /info/en/?search=Catgirl Is a page with the same intent and value with less references that are possible and usable for information. Simply viewing the historical origin and then the modern version of the Bunny Girl trope automatically provides enough evidence that the trope is different from others. By reference if provided that the history of the trope as it occurs first in american culture (playboy bunny) to be picked up by Japanese culture to be used in the game Final Fantasy Advanced tactics: http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Viera "They first appeared in Final Fantasy Tactics Advance." and eventually reitterated again in Final Fantasy XII as an entrance to mainstream video game publication, and then again reitterated through out japanese "kawaii culture" as an associated kenomomimi. Following the history of the trope also included the instance of Riven in the game League of Legends with her "Battle Bunny" skin(theme appereance) http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com/wiki/File:Riven_BattleBunnySkin.jpg and then again in the game WildStar with the Aurin http://wildstar.gamepedia.com/Aurin Elaborate as to how to cite these references? As their occurence is important in following the history of the trope as it does not adhere to the assumed "moe anthro" association. The trope is not directly associated with japanese culture but rather was reitterated by it, as provided by the fact that the playboy bunny was originated from american culture.
This provided far more references and prove historical origin beyond what the Catgirl page provides. So why does the catgirl page receive its own when it has little validity outside of being a subset of a the larger Moe anthro and Kenomimi culture which it belongs, but Bunny girl does not when it's not directly associated and does not specifically belong to moe anthro and kenomimi? Franbunnyffxii ( talk) 20:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- @ Franbunnyffxii: It is not at all a matter of opinion. It is a matter of of Notablity, which requires evidence: e.g. you or anyone else providing a couple reliable sources that discuss the topic in depth, such as a book (not a comic book), news feature, article by a renowned artist or pop-culture scholar, or something that wasn't posted by an anonymous user on a website that profits from promoting anime fandom. Wikias like you mentioned are user-generated sources, and are not considered reliable. Your article currently includes one source that is not even about the anime trope but the Playboy Bunny, and a list of characters that look sort of like bunnies.
- It is true that Wikipedia has articles on things it shouldn't have. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Catgirl may also warrant deletion, and I agree it is not well sourced, but it appears to at least meet the barest minimum claim to notability in that Fred Patten devoted an article to the subject. Articles of that caliber and better are the types we would need to cite to demonstrate a subject is notable in the real world. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 23:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I linked other references but those were considered unworthy apparently. The Viera article references are not valid then?
↑ 1.0 1.1 Final Fantasy XII Scenario Ultimania Page 88. ISBN 4-7575-1696-7
↑ Final Fantasy XII Scenario Ultimania Page 88. ISBN 4-7575-1696-7
↑ Final Fantasy Tactics Advance Radio Edition, Vol. 3 (Chapter 10)
Furthering the question of validity of Wikia
What about the reference to Riven's Battle Bunny outfit from League of Legends?
What about the reference to Aurin from WildStar? http://wildstar.gamepedia.com/Aurin
Whether or not these exist is not debatable, they do exist and are definite examples of said trope. These are able to be viewed and placed outside of the wikia reference. Franbunnyffxii ( talk) 01:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
How would I reference these things above as to which to provide said evidence for the trope itself? Point be made that the trope exists beyond the bounds of the expectation, and there are book references, as well as other pop culture references. There is no question that this trope does infact exist outside of both the playboy bunny origin, and Japanese kawaii culture. One does not need to be world renowned or an expert to prove that something exists.
Franbunnyffxii ( talk) 01:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please don't think that we're trying to prevent an article about bunny girls from existing on Wikipedia. I, for one, am all for having such an page. However, reliable sources (if you haven't read the linked page before, then I highly recommend you read it) must be present in every Wikipedia article in order to prove that it is notable enough to be worthy of inclusion in the encyclopaedia. If you believe such sources exist; that's great, like I said we can userfy the article for you so that you can work on it in your own time. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 10:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Although I admit that this article needs some work, I'm opposed to deleting it outright. This is a topic that I feel deserves coverage.
Bensci54 (
talk)
04:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- See
WP:ILIKEIT,
WP:Existence ≠ Notability, and
WP:Subjective importance. There is as yet no evidence that sources with a reputation for fact-checking or critical analysis feel it deserves coverage.
--Animalparty-- (
talk)
04:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Animalparty, it's WP:VALUABLE, not WP:ILIKEIT. Mr. Guye ( talk) 01:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- See
WP:ILIKEIT,
WP:Existence ≠ Notability, and
WP:Subjective importance. There is as yet no evidence that sources with a reputation for fact-checking or critical analysis feel it deserves coverage.
--Animalparty-- (
talk)
04:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment – Franbunnyffxii, what the article needs is more sources like this one: The Anime Machine, a book on anime. When I searched it for "bunny", there were 5 references. You could look for game reviews or descriptions of famous characters (in books and magazines, not fan sites). Ideally one that discusses bunny ears in some depth, or at least as part of the moe + animal trope. If you can find 3 or 4 more references like the book, that should be enough evidence for an article. – Margin1522 ( talk) 11:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald ( here I am) 16:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. No reliable sourcing or commentary to demonstrate that this is a sufficiently notable topic to justify a self-standing article. -- DAJF ( talk) 01:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Incubate; Turning it into a draft seems the best solution here. Franbunnyffxii is convinced that the topic is notable, so let's let them work on it for a while. -- Mr. Guye ( talk) 01:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
While I would like to keep the article and continue to work on it, the discussion here about having such a page has completely warded me off from having any motivation or interest in completing said article for the time being. It's certainly a notable topic in existence, but the fact that it's being debated by such of those whom don't possess similar knowledge to the subject simply feels like fighting a fight that I can't win. I can't find any motivation or interest in finishing the article anymore because of this. And I feel at this point next to no one really cares about the subject enough to really give it any thought other than myself. Let the article sit dormant or hidden, ect. Until I can return to the topic, or whatever can be done. I have no interest in completing this article at this time. Franbunnyffxii ( talk) 09:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 17:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. I have no objection to userfying, and would encourage Franbunnyffxii to do some real research on the topic. Cite a textbook on Anime history, not a video game manual, and hold back all of your opinions until they are verified by reliable sources. The question is not of existence, but notability. If after months of incubation, all that can be produced is a list of fictional characters that have bunny ears, but no secondary sources that address the question of "what does it mean?", "who cares?", or "why bunnies?", then we'll be back to this same discussion. Again, see Existence ≠ Notability and Existence does not prove notability. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 18:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Userfy per others. We can wait until notability is demonstrated on the draft. APerson ( talk!) 19:19, 9 February 2015 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.