Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pantsu

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE.

The votes were 12 delete, 5 redirect, 3 keep. dbenbenn | talk 18:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pantsu

Not encyclopedic or notable, but I'll just let the article speak for itself:

A Japanese word for underwear, this object of sexual desire is worshipped by many in the Half-Life 2 modification community, as well as various anime/game IRC channels.

silsor 07:00, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Evil Monkey∴Hello? 07:02, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to undergarment or something similar. It's somewhat well known as a word referring to underwear, although the half-life 2 reference doesn't seem notable. Yelyos 07:05, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, May aswell make a redirect too. Inter 07:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to undergarment (although I'm tempted to say redirect to Chobits) --L33tminion | (talk) 00:49, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, dictionary definition. Megan1967 01:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's encyclopedic in that it explains something that you and I didn't know before. It's notable to those who are familiar with the culture in which it was created. If this goes, then delete Didgeridoo, too. Unless someone has a solid place to merge it to (maybe one of the things it links to, more likely one of the anime/hentai refs, because it's even more out of place in undergarment than it is floating on its own), it might as well stay where it is. Blair P. Houghton 02:12, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Speak for yourself. :p But, okay, seriously... the difference is that didgeridoo is an encyclopedia article, whereas pantsu is a dictdef. And it's not even an English dictdef, although it is based on a loanword. Furthermore, it's not a dictdef which could be expanded into an encyclopedia article without duplicating undergarments. I'm not convinced it even warrants a redirect, but I suppose redirects are cheap... Shimeru 05:22, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

It's marked as a stub, and grows about as often as anything else on my watchlist. I see no reason not to give it a chance. Again, its relationship to undergarments exists only because it's an undergarment; in this case, however, the usuage is unique to a certain subculture, and therefore more about their referent than the mundane object being so repurposed. Blair P. Houghton 23:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unique? How, exactly? And why doesn't the article say so? I submit that the supposed usage is not noteworthy or encyclopedic. The Japanese usage could be — but not in English. (And the Japanese article would essentially duplicate, in translation, undergarments. And perhaps bits of some fetish article.) Furthermore, the English usage isn't something that can result in the article growing until (and unless) the usage itself broadens. If it's sufficiently noteworthy within the Halflife 2 "subculture," then it might rate a mention in Halflife 2, yes. A separate article? I don't see any indication that it's widespread enough or that the subject is deep enough to warrant it. And since I didn't say so outright before: Delete Shimeru 10:40, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

There are only 148 results when one searches for Pantsu and "Half life" in Google [1] suggesting that it is not notable enough. Didgeridoo gets 527,000 results. And it is not actually linked to by an article in Wikipedia. Evil Monkey∴Hello 05:12, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Then delete Didgeridoo because it's well-known enough that we don't need anything in Wikipedia to tell us what it is. Blair P. Houghton 23:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• "It's encyclopedic in that it explains something that you and I didn't know before." - that's like saying something is "coloured blue, in that it is shaped like a coffee cup". silsor 23:30, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

I can only respond by saying no it's not, because to paraphrase (iirc) Max Planck, your argument "isn't right, it's not even wrong." Blair P. Houghton 23:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for reasons established by Blair P. Houghton. —RaD Man (talk) 04:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it's cruft, not dicdef. Wyss 23:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• From one okaku to another, delete. humblefool® 23:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or at most redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:13, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think we need an encyclopedia article on the Japanese word for underpants. Half Life 2 isn't such a blazing sun of notability that anything on which its light falls becomes notable itself. --BM 00:21, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • You'd delete Millard Fillmore. 65.122.15.98 02:44, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, if there are any non-notable American presidents, he'd be one of them. But, no, I reckon all American Presidents -- indeed all heads of state (but not their twin brothers who died in infancy) -- are notable. --BM 15:02, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• redirect. Yuckfoo 01:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Rossami (talk) 05:18, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• "something that I didn't know before" is not a reasonable criterion for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Being known by those of "the culture in which it was created" (an assertion that, by the way, Evil Monkey has demonstrated isn't even verifiable) does not magically make a dictionary definition anything other than a dictionary definition. This is a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete. Uncle G 03:00, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
• Redirect. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:07, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, by the way, what's a didgeridoo? :-)) Lectonar 15:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Elefino. What are Pantsu, and why are alla these punks talking about them all the time like they're special? Blair P. Houghton 20:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) (driving home the fricken' point)

• • You could try looking didgeridoo up in that Wikipedia thingie. I hear it isn't half bad. --BM 19:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Thx. At last I know what it's good for; but I abide by my decision, we could do without Pantsu, or could we? Lectonar 15:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef at best, more likely just gamecruft. Edeans 03:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Believe it or not, I typed "pantsu" into the search to find out just what it meant; I'd seen it mentioned in conversation on IRC and elsewhere. It's not encyclopedic, but it's not a dicdef either. This is what people like to call a meme, perhaps not in the strict definition, but in the memepool.com sense. But does this deserve the same level of documentation that All your base are belong to us has received? What is the threshold for worthiness? It's hard to decide. Google search? Pantsu by itself brings in ~17800. That makes me believe it's used in more than just the few contexts listed -- Half-Life mods and Anime IRC channels. So give the article a chance to grow into something that documents the phenomenon and contributes to our understanding of the subculture. Keep. - mako 09:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to undergarments without merge. There might be something worth saying specifically about "pantsu", but if there is, none of it is in the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.