Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject hot chicks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was Delete. Moved to BJAODN, to be precise, since several people suggested that, even if I didn't find it all that funny. Radiant_>|< 17:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject hot chicks

This project is a sexist, mysognist disgrace to Wikipedia. It serves absolutely no purpose and is utterly offensive. Ambi 12:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete; Bananas, this **** is. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 12:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Yay! No more template signature for Merovingian! Delete in support fo that fact. Alphax τεχ 13:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
      • BJAODN This seems like a joke, and should be treated as such. Still, it seems weird to not have Merovingian's sig though. Karmafist 13:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm going to make it all one color, so I can see it better when I scroll down. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 15:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: It's not causing any disruption and it has a single well defined goal which goes hand in hand with the general goal of Wikipedia, to improve articles (see the Towel article for instance). —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Isn't it possible to illustrate articles without being sexist? Ambi 12:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
      • You know, you can start Wikipedia:Wikiproject hot males, if you want. :-) bogdan | Talk 13:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I think you dislike this project because you define hot chick too narrowly. A hot chick could be anything: a girl, a woman, a chicken, even obese men (see the project page). —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • What? You mean the page isn't just for humor? — Matt Crypto 13:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless they agree to include fat chicks as well. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Karynn, apparently weight isn't a problem as long as they're not cold -- that'd go in Wikipedia:Wikiproject cold chicks Karmafist 13:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • In anatomy or other refernce books, when they show you the female body you won't see any drawings of fat women! bogdan | Talk 13:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Of course fat chicks are included (they're hot too!) —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless we include fried chicks and chick nuggets as well. --Cool Cat Talk 13:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Remember that KFC doesn't fit in this. Contrary to popular belief, KFC products are not made out of chicken. bogdan | Talk 13:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I'll grant you that stuff like chicken nuggets might not be (haven't tried those), but the last time I went go KFC I ate some chicken wings that definitely had the bonestructure and meat of a chicken. How do you explain that? —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Genetically engineered pigeons. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Amazing what the petrochemical industry can do these days, isn't it? :-) bogdan | Talk 13:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Chicken nuggets and fried chicks are hot chicks too;) —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --HappyCamper 13:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This isn't sexist, how on earth is this sexist? In my opinion, this is just silly. --Friðrik Bragi Dýrfjörð 13:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Inherently POV - they havn't mentioned user page photos - and some of our editors look hot to me :-) --Doc (?) 13:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Try to keep Wikiprojects a bit serious OK? Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* --Ryan Delaney talk 13:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN --Phroziac(talk) 13:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't support something as sexist as this. I know from first-hand experience of the KDE project that this is likely to push a lot of female editors away. chowells 13:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not due to sexism. It is just a load of nonsense. Xtra 14:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Where is the humour, people :(. Don't delete it, BJAODN it rather. -- SoothingR 14:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not especially funny, certainly no other merit. Xoloz 17:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. --Carnildo 03:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rossami (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. -- Beland 01:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I think Ambi should chill out a bit as this clearly is just a bit of a joke, and a harmless one at that, but we don't need it, so delete, jguk 19:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep what a noble goal!  Grue  21:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I like it a lot. BJAODN. — Matt Crypto 22:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Making articles more visially appealing is an objective improvement to Wikipedia. Potential editors who are so sensitive as to be offended by this would certainly be reduced to quivering tears on encountering an actual controversy at some article like George W. Bush. Vonspringer 03:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Get a clue. Arguments over articles are necessary, and I'm as much a veteran of difficult areas as anyone. Sexist crap like this, on the other hand, is not necessary. Ambi 05:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I am admittedly not entirely serious with my vote. "Hot chicks" is a pretty ridiculous category. However, I do not think it's sexist, as I would certainly not be offended by a "hot guys" category. In fact, both could well serve as a rather harmless diversion from the occasionally intense battles elsewhere on Wikipedia. Regardless, I believe my point stands. The entire raison d'etre of this category is simply that attractive people are visually appealing in an encyclopedia, and I do not see how those who are offended to the point of leaving by this can function in an atmosphere of heated controversy. Sorry if I caused offense to you however, you were not the target. I was referring to the people chowells referred to above, those who would leave over something like this.Vonspringer 05:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Ambi, there is no place for this kind of objectifation on Wikipedia. We should be aiming for a factual, useful encyclopedia, not this Fark.com-esque nonsense. Cnwb 06:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete on the opinion that "hot chicks" is a broad, abstract, POV title that makes this WikiProject's focus unclear. Perhaps you should start a WikiProject on something like supermodels or Playboy Playmates instead. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN I can live with losing this from the WikiProjects, but if it doesn't at least stay in BJAODN, there's no justice in the world. Speaking of hot chicks, I've got a picture of a white bitch in nothing but her knickers. Chris talk back 05:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete silly --rob 05:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I added this to my watchlist earlier and think it's nice. Right now I'm leaning towards keep. If there's any evidence of this project leading to a real improvement in some articles, I'll agree more, but right now it does seem sort of unnecessary. Cookiecaper 06:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN and Delete silly --JAranda | watz sup 06:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN current version; I love it! Before that, it should have been deleted, no questions asked. --Idont Havaname 03:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete but copy to BJAODN first - sure, it's funny, but WikiProjects should only be used for serious subjects. --Ixfd64 04:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- No censorship -- Test-tools 10:52, 4 November 2005 (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.