Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panty line


 * 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 redirect to Undergarment. Randykitty (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Panty line

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There is a deletion request over on Commons regarding, effectively, creepshots in the "panty line" category. In looking through it, I had to wonder: why do we even have an article on this. Wikipedia is not a dictionary (nor Urban Dictionary), and it seems there's not much to say about this topic other than the term's definition, origin, and usage. If we had some sort of very inclusive glossary of fashion, it might merit a merge/redirect, but I haven't found a suitable topic (clothing terminology is a little more, you know, actually connected to clothing). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Undergarment (and maybe add a relevant sentence there). I agree with the nominator about WP:NOTDICTIONARY. I took a quick look for other sources and found mostly passing mentions in fashion how-to guides (Dress to Impress, Dressing Smart in the New Millennium, Look Like a Winner After 50, ...). Cheers, gnu 57 18:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree with the redirect and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Oaktree b (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Transwiki any useful material to Wiktionary and delete the rest. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and it seems like this article is never going to be anything but a dictionary definition. No point in keeping it here. Dronebogus (talk) 06:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment We allready had this dicussion aubout the german version in 2015. The result was Keep. BTW it is not only a woman thing. As the male actors on Star Trek The Next Generation where requierd to wear special underpants to avoid said VPL. Or in other words: you may have seen it for 7 years. B/C you did not see it. (Minute 3) --Tobias ToMar Maier (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What the German Wikipedia does has no relevance on what the English Wikipedia does. And I have no idea why the sex of the person in question has anything to do with the argument. The last sentence (which is technically broken into two fragments) barely makes any sense so I can’t really respond to that, sorry. Dronebogus (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete this is a wiktionary entry, we are not a dictionary. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:DICDEF, and also per 's orthographical analysis of a comment verging on a 'delete' !vote. ——  Serial  14:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Undergarment. I can believe it's possible to turn this into an article about women's health / fashion, but until somebody steps up with the sources to do it, an article is not appropriate. However, it's a valid search term. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Undergarment.4meter4 (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I can support a redirect. Dronebogus (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2021 (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.