Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panty Waste (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 17:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panty Waste[edit]

User:Pickelbarrel, who previously created Panty waste wrote this article. Random exhibits in art galleries don't get encyclopedia articles. Rhobite 07:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: G4. Also, might be worth a {{deletedpage}}. --Kinu 07:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a speedy candidate, it is not substantially identical to a deleted article. Rhobite 07:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks the same to me, per the description on the original AfD page (such as the link which goes to a page of pictures with "Art" beneath each and the unencyclopedic advertisement). Of course, without seeing the original I can't be 100% sure. --Kinu 07:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - That was speedy deleted out of process. Should have gone through the full AfD. Rhobite 07:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah, gotcha... wasn't aware of the lack of process on that one. In that case, I'll change my vote to plain ol' delete. Still might be worth the {{deletedpage}}, based on the persistence of the user in question to keep producing this and similar articles. One has to wonder what his connection is to the topic (i.e., possible vanity). --Kinu 07:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        My connection was not a coincedence, emperor Cenestrad] came across the article while I was triing to make an article about the term panty waste, and suggested that it would make a legitimate article. I am not as knowing as many wiipedians, so its hard for me to contribute on some of the more comples articles...but this one hadnt been written yet, so it was a bit easier. The museum is a real place, although it is only open one for a couple of weeks every year. I think with help it may become a pretty good article, and will attempo to kep working on it even while its being considered for deletion.pickelbarrel 18:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        There's no indication that this is anything more than a one-time exhibit in a gallery. It seems to have opened in 2003, and it doesn't look like the exhibit is there anymore. Obviously we can't make articles about every art gallery exhibit. Rhobite 19:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I had found info of at least three years(i beleive) of this exhibit running. But I was blocked for a month for writing this article before i could add the info(My block was eventually reverted). I will try to relocate the information, but dont assume that just because we only have the one date so far, that is the only date. I am also Triing to get ahold of Ricky Lee to see if she can add info. If you do not like the article I respect your oppinion, but I do hope the silliness of blocking editors because they have written an article that the knowing ones veiw as being beneath wikipedia ceases. Noone is so smart that they cant still learn from a childpickelbarrel 19:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I almost forgot to vote...Although I acknowledge it needs to be expanded. user:karmafist has been feeling a little beat up, and I thought his emotions were more important than any immediate work on this article. pickelbarrel 22:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google search on "panty waste" "underwear museum" brings up only 20 hits, and articles about every individual art gallery exhibit seem unnecessary. - dharmabum 23:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I tried the "more reasonable" "panty waste" +museum search, and only around 10 of the first 50 hits (297 total) were about the actual exhibit; they were mostly about other topics with use of "panty-waste" as misspellings of the invective "panty-waist". - dharmabum 07:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment So that would average out at about 60 hits by my math...I think that checking "panty waste" + "art" might give a more accurate result of related articles, allowing for articles that talk about pieces featured in at Panty Waste as well pickelbarrel 17:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A more reasonable search of "Panty Waste" + museum netted over 300 hits. Sites indicate that this museum has been open 3 years (I found listings for events at the museum in 2003, 2004 & 2005) Plus notable bay area artist have created art specific to the museum. Needs work but worth working on. --The Emperor of Wikipedia 03:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As near as I can tell this is not a museum, but rather an exhibit in a museum, albeit a long-running one. As such it has does not need its own article, although this information might be used in an article on the Balazo gallery. Dsmdgold 15:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So your vote would be actually Merge if there existed an article on the Balazo gallery? -- Malber (talk · contribs) 17:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so, although for purposes of balance this should probably warrant only a line or two within the larger article. (I assume that the gallery has run many exhibitions, so unless this is a permanent feature it should only be mentioned in passing.) Dsmdgold 16:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as before per WP:BALLS. Stifle 16:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That was a foolish thing to say. This may be a nonnotable exhibit but it is far from bollocks. Check the link if you need to and you will fing that even if the exhibit is not encyclopedic it does exsist. So don't add monkey gibber and think before you type. If you can't do that than block yourself for a day or two. This I Order For The Common Good.--The Emperor of Wikipedia 21:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Emperor. Kappa 03:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above per the Emperor--SammyTerry 23:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above user has 12 edits, all of them to AfD pages or own user page. Rhobite 15:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.