Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panty waste

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, incorret usage of term, correct term already on Wikitionary Madchester 06:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panty waste

I had speedied it but the creator politely asked me to restore it. It's un-encyclopedic, maybe it could be moved to wiktionary. Mushroom 15:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Mushroom 15:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete...or transwiki if someone can confirm this to be a widely-used term. I've never heard of it, but I've also (thanking God right now for this) never had to deal with vaginal smegma. *Shudder*... JHMM13 (T | C) 15:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I would state that a quick google of the term shows that it IS a widely used term (when spelled as it is here)Pickelbarrel 17:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• delete, it's a dict def at best, and already at Wiktionary. I suggest future expansion takes place to the article there. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 15:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• As UkPaolo points out, the word is actually pantywaist, which has nothing to do with vaginas. The creator of the article is arguing (on my talk page) that the fact that the word has been used in a movie, showing its occurrence in popular culture, makes it encyclopaedia-worthy. That is a patently flawed argument, as there are lots of words that one can find used in movie dialogue. A word being used in a well-known work doesn't make an encyclopaedia article. Quotations make dictionary articles, not encyclopaedia articles. A quotation, showing a word in use in context in a well-known work, is straightforward dictionary article content. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete. Uncle G 16:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, with venom and prejudice too. This is vile, badly written trash. It is, at best, a dictionary definition (not that we generally go about defining slang words here... *cough*Wiktionary*cough*). A vulgar attempt at humour. Dan 18:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: an article entitled Pantywaist (spelt correctly) exists on here too. As nothing more than a one line dict def already in wiktionary, I have (temporarily) made it a redirect to Panty waste. Should this article be deleted, the redirect Pantywaist should go as well. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 19:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; first of all; the proper "word" is pantywaist and has nothing to do with what the article panty waste refers to. [1]. At any rate, delete pantywaist as a dicdef/slang and delete panty waste as someone hearing the word "pantywaist", spelling it wrong and inventing their own meaning for it. Peyna 19:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete'. This stuff belongs on Wiktionary. enochlau (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As has been mentioned, the redirect from pantywaist is going in the wrong direction. The first definition given on this page is competely bogus. The second is a bit more accurate. Pantywaist can stay in Wiktionary with its correct definition. Crunch 01:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

comment: I fully agree that the redirect is the wrong way round, and felt I should explain myself (as the creator of the redirect). I didn't want to move Panty waste as it is up for deletion here, and since it seems likely it will be deleted, turning the duplicate definition into a redirect seemed the best thing to do (since that will be deleted in due course too). I acknlowedge this article is the wrong spelling, however! _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 21:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep you will never find a better source for Panty Waste matetial than Pickelbarrel

• comment As the author of of this bit, I have to say I am somewhat hurt with the hostility taken by some(although most have been quite nice) of the other editors here. Pamento thought it would be a hoot to link this page to my home page for an example of panty waste, while Dan stated he wanted it deleted with prejudice(if you have already prejudged the article, should your oppinion even count) both of whom were asked to help me write the article(I guess it was funnier to make fun of my article than to help write an article). But mostly I was shoicked to findAdministrator UncleG making claims that I argued the articles relevance based on it being in a film. I never made this argument and as an administrator(an a man whom I truely truely admire) I would have thought he would have not made the accusation, or at least appologized after realizing that it wasnt the intent of my argument. What I said was that I used the same formula that was used in the zagnut article, telling what the meaning of the word is and then referencing it to a film where people could here the term being used in a film, and also (presumably) see what a person who is considered a panty waste might look like. I was deeply hurt that he never bother to at least appologize for misinterperating me. At any rate I want to at least give the reasons I wrote this article(although it seems at this point that it is unlikely anything I say will change the outcome) so that people will realize I was attempting to make a legitamit article, and while Im sure that the knowing ones will be able to tell me a million different reasons why I was stupid to think this, I wanted to at least make this known. I looked up the term panty waste and found it had 7300 plus entries, that is aproximately seven thousand more entries than the term pantywaist has(about about four hundred fifty). By my resoning I thought that the fact that the vast majority of people refered to the term in this manner it would make the term valid...regardless of weather the knowing ones can prove that NO SUCH TERM EXISTS...to me it seeems that if the vast majority of people THINK the term has meaning, then it therefore DOES have meaning. It seems similar to the case of Emperor Norton WAS the emperor of the United States, at least in the san francisco area, because those in the san fransico area treated him as if he WERE the Emperor of the United States. If a large amount of people Accept that a term exists, I felt that simply the fact that since so many (7300) were using the term, it therefore DID exist. But my friend cenestrad had warned me about such assumptions, stating that while wikipedia has a brain it has no soul, and that regardless of what the average person thinks is correct, The knowing ones will be quick to explain to them that no such term exists has ever existed or ever will exist. It seems as though he was correct, and I shouldn't be suprised by it, but I am a little saddened. I will not vote to keep my article as the KNOWING ONES have already informed me I should have never written it to begin with, but I will offer mya pickle for the knowing ones, or truth in a homespun dressPickelbarrel 20:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because a lot of people can't spell, doesn't mean it's worth an encyclopedia entry. Second, to "delete with prejudice" means to delete this article and any subsequent incarnations of it. Peyna 21:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

comment: i appreciate that you are genuine in your desire to contribute a good article to Wikipedia. However, this article is innapproriate, and from your comments on his talk page I do not think Uncle G is too mistaken in stating that you considered the article had relevance because of film references. Regarding the spelling, I presume by entries you are referring to google search results. In which case "panty waste" give 9840 [2] results, where as the correct "panty waist" gives 17,700 [3] — vastly more. I wonder if you just looked at the popularity of each word individually, in your search. Oh, and I can't believe I've just spent time googling such things! _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 21:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

reply I was actually referring to the aol googl search of this http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?query=panty+waste&page=10&encquery=f2f982abf576e6b2124f38d80ce867b6&ie=UTF-8&invocationType=keyword_rollover and this http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?encquery=7c600fe98bc5e6851cb7a70a47a37bff&invocationType=keyword_rollover&ie=UTF-8 where there is signifigantly more under the term "panty waste" I beleave yous shows to google searches of both using different incorrect spellings and the term painty waist includes every time an article says the term wiast along with panty...mine may include every time the word panty is included with waste but I had no way of veryifing this as I went down the list....at any rate it I would state that at the very least about HALF of all people using the term seem to think it should be spelled the "incorrect way" , but beyond all that, I realize my effort is futile, and DO appreciate you acknowleding my work...for that I thank you, you have been very peasent in you criticisms.Pickelbarrel 23:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I was told by Pickelbarrel that an article he wrote entitled Panty Waste was the subject of an AFD and he wondered if I could use my powers to help save the article. He had been tireless in the campaign to save the Taint article so I felt obligated to take a look. After reading the article and the debate on both sides I am afraid I have no choice but to side with the argument for deletion for the current article. But before those of you voting delete get excited at having my endorsement my research did turn up several uses for the term and so the current article will not exist for long. It seems located in the City of San Francisco there is a museum dedicated to undergarments named Panty Waste (yes that is the spelling). If the Museum of Bad Art can have its own article I suppose the Panty Waste museum can as well. The museum also sponsors a touring exhibition again entitled Panty Waste. The article is getting larger. Also of note is a line of Adult Movies entitled Panty Waste. So it seems this misspelling (an art Pickelbarrel has mastered) has unearthed a cornucopia of possible new articles. I see a possible Panty Waste disambiguation page in the future. Lastly I would like to ask that more senior editor treat newer editors with kindness. I know that sometimes they can be tiresome but remember it is their boundless energy that fuels the world of Wikipedia. This I order for the common good. --Cenestrad The Emperor of Wikipedia 03:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I went the other way on taint, but I don't feel the same about this one. --Liface 18:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Dan --kingboyk 18:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all articles where second Google hit for the term begins "I'm an intelligent, caring man who likes to wear lingerie during sex". (Seriously, Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary.) --Malthusian (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2006 (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.