Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wardrobe malfunction


 * 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 17:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wardrobe malfunction

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

'Glorified' dictionary entry, offering little value, especially given that there is a Wiktionary entry for same (please correct any errors in this process, my first AfD) Achromatic (talk) 07:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Stupid though it is, the use of "wardrobe malfunction" has become somewhat universal to describe unintentional public nudity (that, in itself, sounds just as stupid, but there you are). The article definitely needs more sources than just Language Monitor, but the term has gained widespread use in the media. This could easily be a useful and relevant article with some work. Duncan1800 (talk) 07:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article contains more information than may properly be put into a dictionary entry. Certainly a notable expression. Why would we NOT want someone to be able to find this factual and notable information?Halfmast (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is already an article on the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy; the term "Wardrobe Malfunction" is best relegated to that article and Wictionary. There isn't enough material to merit its own article. Majoreditor (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is correctly noted as the first instance of the term "wardrobe malfunction", to be followed by many others. And I disagree about the lack of material. Like I said, it's stupid, but there's a lot of coverage out there to continue adding examples of notable wardrobe malfunctions. The concept has also been parodied in various ways, thus proving its durability. Duncan1800 (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Conditional delete redirect. I don't mind using the Global Language Monitor as a source, but it certainly is not a reliable source to meet the Wikipedia criteria for notability. And Halfmast's subjective assertion of importance does not constitute notability in the Wikipedia sense. My personal sense is that the necessary reliable sources are not out there and the article should be deleted. But if someone does come up with reliable sources - and quickly - then they deserve a chance to meet the notability criteria and make this an article worth having. Ipoellet (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend not to make much of a distinction in my mind between deletion and reducing an article to a redirect. Probably bad of me in general, and certainly bad in this case. I stand corrected by Verdatum. Ipoellet (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy. It's a term that would reasonable be searched on WP, doesn't appear to warrant a separate article. -Verdatum (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect Although I put this up for AfD, I'm inclined to go with Verdatum here and suggest a redirect to Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy. Achromatic (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Conditional Keep Last year the article contained a fairly full, if not comprehensive, historical survey of the phenomenon.  The entries were not fully supported by citation, but there's no reason to think they couldn't be; just requires work.  A restored version of the fuller article, which actually discusses the subject, would be worth keeping.  Reduced as it is to a dictionary definition and a comment on the Superbowl incident, it is not.  I suspect the heavy cutting of the article is prompted partly by distaste: it just needed input from editors in terms of citations - as many articles do.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * Conditional Keep. If there was a fuller version of the article, it should be restored. Even so, the term has come into widespread use since Jackson, in much the same way that collateral damage, although the term existed previously, didn't come into wide public use until the 1991 Gulf War, or how the term political correctness came into vogue in the 1990s. 23skidoo (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the term is increasingly used for a fairly wide range of episodes, accidental and otherwsie. There's enoguh for an article. Another example of first removing material instead of sourcing it, and then trying to remove the article. DGG (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The only material I removed was tangential, at best - "upskirts" - if anything, that's a "genre" of papparazzi/celebrity photographs, than anything claimable as a "wardrobe malfunction" Achromatic (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think DGG's assertion is quite fair to Achromatic. The rule about referencing information before removing it applies to the community as a whole. If any one user doesn't believe a piece of information or an article belongs, then they are invited to be bold and do something about it. If other editors believe that information is referencable, well then, that's what AfD discussions are for. End result if referencable: referenced before deletion. Meanwhile, it would be nice if DGG and others who insist that "Wardrobe malfunction" is referencable would start actually inserting some real references into the article, because I am still skeptical that they're out there. Ipoellet (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters who cut what. One editor seems to have removed an enormous quantity of material (compare these versions[]).  Take only one example: Sophie Marceau at Cannes 2005.  Why be sceptical it can be referenced?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by KD Tries Again (talk • contribs) 19:19, 11 February 2008 (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.