Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visible penis 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   delete. Keep arguments havn't actually found any sources that discuss this particular terms so the delete argument that this is already covered in wiktionary and fails as a dicdef hasn't been refuted, Spartaz Humbug! 17:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Visible penis line

 * – ( View AfD View log )

If this deserves coverage at all (which is an open question), it is solely as a wiktionary definition, where it is already covered. See also Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Even the refs here are primarily non-RS, and nothing more than a definition is offered, with most of the article being completely unsourced. Epeefleche (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  —Epeefleche (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Perhaps I've researched this in the past, or perhaps I had to prove this, but there are zero google news hits, zero google books hits, and only one Google Scholar hit (for "Listing eBay masculinity: erotic exchanges and regulation in 'gay'and 'gay interest'underwear and swimwear auctions"). Naturally, there are some Rule 34 hits. tedder (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  — tedder (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with the nomination, It doesn't seem that there are any reliable 3rd party sources of information for this subject. TehGrauniad (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Nobody should waste any more time on this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep There are 51,000 hits for the contiguous phrase "visible penis line" on Google - but I am not opposed to merging this into Moose knuckle which has four times as many hits. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So your argument for keeping it is that it has google hits? tedder (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We've got google scholar and 50,000 hits all meaning the same thing - what is the rationale for deltion? Has camel toe been deleted?  Odd that we are more afraid of men's than woman's naughty bits. μηδείς (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Camel toe has plenty of available references. A single Google Scholar result doesn't indicate a depth of coverage, and again, counting hits is specious at best. tedder (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See also: Articles for deletion/Moose knuckle. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Google hits is a minor part of a non-policy essay. Why not try WP:NOTPAPER and WP:NODEADLINE. μηδείς (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that all of these thousands of hits don't give you any facts, let alone insight, other than the definition of the term. Some slang terms have colorful, interesting histories which shed light on society in all sorts of ways. You can recognized them by the fact that reliable sources have lots to say about them. Other slang terms just exist: you got the term, and you got the definition, end of discussion. And there is a perfect job for a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Read all of Wikipedia is not a dictionary and you can't escape the conclusion that slang pages like this should be deleted. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are rejecting it in terms of not being a guideline, I'll invoke WP:OSE: my personal name, in quotes, has 3x as many google hits as this term. I can create an article now? The answer is no, because the guideline is notability, and there are insufficient reliable sources to meet notability guidelines. tedder (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, give us a full first, middle and last name and if in quotes they generate more than the same for the three words visible penis line I will change my vote. But sophistical comparisons of one apple to three oranges hardly helps here.  μηδείς (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Since it isn't a vote, I'd expect that opinions based on counting Google hits will be ignored, since even millions of hits fail to change a dictionary definition into an encyclopedia article, and no number of self-published sources is equal to one reliable source. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge (per wp:NEO) with Moose knuckle or even with a catch-all that would include somehow camel toe, although I don't know what that might be. The difference between an encylopedia and a mere lexicon is depth of coverage and grouping overlapping entries, I beleive, would help in this regard, if an appropriately descriptive term could be formed for it. (On this note, note the last graf at the guideline on neologisms):"... ... ... Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.  Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a 'true' term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles.  In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title."--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * !Re-vote: Keep - Don't think of the title as a neologism. Think of the title as a straightforward description of the style of dress being covered. Historical treatises (eg, I recall an entire section on the subject in the award-winning Albion's Seed) mention the tight clothes of mid-18th C. peasantry and even, to some extent, the upper class, as opposed to that of the era's middle-class Puritans; and, indeed, the style of male dress is on a pendulum from tight to loose, back and forth (skinny jeans, low-riding jeans, etc.) from generation to generation. To combine this concept with female attire only needlessly complicates it. Let's not be so wary of possible male-female inequality that we disallow an appropriate treatment for a topic that is more usually noted among women (well, at least--as I noted above--within our current times; at one time it was men who wore tight breeches and women who never did).--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I just looked up the Albion Seed quote and it doesn't get into a discussion of the crotch area at all."backcountry women dressed in...a full bodice with deep decolletage, tight-fitting waist, short, full skirt and a hem worn high above the ankle[: white] homespun linsey-woolsey garments, often of exquisite beauty and refinement. ... Male backsettlers...commonly wore shirts of linen in the summer and deerskin in the wintertime. [The...] upper garment was cut full in the chest and shoulders, with broad seems that ran horizontally across the front and back, and was drawn or 'cinched' tightly at the waist. The effect was to enlarge the shoulders and the chest. Much as female costume created an exceptionally strong sense of femininity, male dress in the backcountry put equally heavy stress on masculinity. The dress ways of the backcountry were designed to magnify sexual differences. The men of the backcountry wore loose, flowing trousers or 'drawers'.... The lower legs were sometimes sheathed in gaiters called 'leather stockings.'"However, a century or so just-previous, the style throughout Europe was for men to wear tight-legged (or was it just thin-material?) trousers with a cod-piece on top so it's entirely possible that Davy Crockett's, et al's, buckskin or linen breeches (depending on the weather) were somewhat revealing, by Puritan standards--just as the "dandies'" thigh-hugging style was (as in the iconic image of Uncle Sam) of a later era's tailoring.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong delete The sources listed are not only self-published but really don't go into this so-called topic in remotely enough detail to satisfy our requirement of significant coverage. Plus it's a stupid article :P ╟─ Treasury Tag ► person of reasonable firmness ─╢ 07:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - agree that this is really more like a dictionary entry. Does not meet significant coverage.  jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 03:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. At this point, this would seem to qualify for a Snow delete.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep there are multiple historical references available to the visible effect of thisstyle of dress. I'm not sur,e however, what is the best term for the heading.    DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you cite these references please? As per WP:NOTDICT, instances of the term being used are not relevant. That only proves the term exists, and existence is not the issue. We are looking for encyclopedic content, about the term. In other words, something more than what you would find at Wiktionary. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not taking the current title as a common term but considering instead the topic of men's dress where the outline of mens' penises are visible, is it possible that applicable references could likely be found by such means as, say, doing an Internet search of the exact phrase penis visible (GOOGLE NEWS ARCHIVE) or visible penis (GOOGLE NEWS ARCHIVE) but then add in the word fashion or style or dress?--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't keep articles because one editor thinks it might be possible to find encyclopedic material. We keep articles when editors actually find encyclopedic sources and cite them. It is not constructive to drag this discussion out longer if you don't have a good argument.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * wp:N's wp:FAILN section in my view provides a pretty straightforward rebuttal. "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself...." IAC, I've added a citation to the 18th C. designer Geo. Brummell here.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edits are violations of No original research. You cite sources that merely mention men wearing tight pants, and then you pretend they're talking about visible penis lines. You should not be putting words into the mouth of your sources this way. Please stop. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your contention that, eg, dandies' style of dress did not accentuate the genitalia is unsupportable. However, Brummell--whose fashion sense, by the way, is the reason (according to fashion scholars) that modern men wear a suit and tie--did in fact popularize this style. Full stop. See the biography, Beau Brummell page 121: "...tight pale breeches, such as those pioneered by George Brummell, accented the crotch."--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The source mentions the "crotch", and your imagination supplies the "penis" and the "line". That is WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:FRANKIE, whatever you want to call it. Wikipedia is not the venue for you to publish these ideas of yours. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Dennis Bratland, how I understand your argument is that you believe an assumption that crotch, in relation to a man, means "penis" is wp:OR, is that correct? (That is, the  current Politico newspaper article's lede about a crotch bulge that reads, "First came the crotch photos. Then came the lying and denial. Now, Rep. Anthony Weiner is seeking treatment...." --you believe may or may not refer to the Representative's visible penis and to believe it refers to one is but a synthesis unsupported in this source?) I've opened a discussion of this question of import on the OR Noticeboard, here: No original research/Noticeboard .--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your arguments keep wandering further and further from the original subject. I'm not going to waste time trying to refute this new question you've brought up about Anthony Weiner because the connection just isn't there. There is no need for a Wikipedia article that collects together ever single book or news article that mentions of a man's crotch area, and if there was, Visible penis line would not be that article.There comes a time when one must listen to other editors. A number of editors have tried to get through to you here, but apparently it is not working. The fact is, the more third opinions you solicit, the more editors line up to delete the article. And their comments indicate a growing frustration with wasting time on this. Have you not noticed that? Please stop. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sir, please wp:AGF. Do you personalize debates whereever you comment throughout the project or is this an isolated case? IAC we're all encouraged to avoid accusing each other such things as "tendentious editing" on article talkpages or on an AfD but rather are encouraged to put our money where our mouth is and raise such accusations at wp:ANI.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You've got two AFD pages going on this, and you've added the OR noticeboard. And you want to add ANI. That's called forum shopping. It looks like an attempt to filibuster. It walks like a filibuster. It talks like a filibuster. It smells like a filibuster. Could it be a filibuster? WP:QUACK? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There are thousands of articles about topics the title of which does not necessarily match any actual source: New Jersey English dialects,State church of the Roman Empire. Technology of the Dune universe. We don't delete them because they deal uniquely with a real topic.  An article is not just its name.  The question here is, is this a real phenomenon, and is there some other article which already covers the topic? Obviously this article and Moose Knuckle should be merged. But the topic is separate enough as an intentional effect (Sticky Fingers) that is should not be shoehorned into Cameltoe. Complaining that when authors describe the phenomenon they don't necessarily use the word we have chosen for the article title is merely saying what we really need to do is change the name of the article to visible bulge, not delete it. μηδείς (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Why the FUCK wasn't this speedied??? Original research, for starters. Contains false information, for seconds. Carrite (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your command of the English language is exquisite. Yet without specificity youyr claims ring hollow.  What lies?  What original research?  Please be as specific as you can be offensive. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. There are no hits under a google books' search for the term "visible penis line."  There are also no hits under a google news archive search.  There is one hit under google scholar, which is the 2010 Journal of Gender Studies article already cited. ("mscljocko's fisted hand presses down on his groin, emphasizes his genitals, and invokes the process of masturbating. In other underwear listings, he flexes his well-muscled body and tilts his hips out in order to display a visible penis line (2007a)").  This lack of citation harms the claim that this term is a "common colloquial term."  In fact, it appears to be internet slang that hasn't risen to the notability level of other slang.  To the extent the concept is noted in sources, it can be noted in other appropriate articles.--Milowent • talkblp-r  15:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. The topic is probably legitimate and notable once it has been widened a bit to include phenomena such as codpiece, koteka, and possibly also tanga (clothing) and cameltoe. I am pretty sure this must be a notable topic with significant coverage including technical information for fashion designers. I just don't know how and where to look for it. As a first measure this article should probably be merged with moose knuckle. Hans Adler 17:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So far I haven't had any success with fashion books, but I found "The Book of the Penis" in Google Books. The chapter "The penis in fashion" has 14 pages and begins with descriptions of the kynodesme and the codpiece. As far as I can tell we have no general article on this notable topic yet, and widening this one or the "moose knuckle" article would be the obvious solution. Hans Adler 17:12, 14 June 2011 (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.