Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wardrobe malfunction (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 was keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Owen&times; &#9742;  20:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Wardrobe malfunction
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Per

" section comprised entirely WP:BLP problems, original research, low-quality sources, WP:NOTTABLOID problems, etc."

"actually, this seems sufficiently well covered in the main article about the origin of the term. there's almost no good content here that isn't already there" Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep IMHO, this is a keep. Improvements are always welcome, but notability of the term seems to be well established. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Owen&times;  &#9742;  14:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - the term may have originated at a Super Bowl event, but it has certainly since then become part of common modern English language and as such notable on its own outside of the original Super Bowl event where it was first used. This is possibly a WP:SNOWBALL. It looks like it even made its way into intentional usage for fashion as outlined by this article. Raladic (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy, where this subject is already thoroughly covered in a more encyclopedic way. As a separate article, this becomes primarily a coatrack for tabloid garbage. We have two sections, "etymology" (see also WP:DICDEF, and again how it's already covered in the main superbowl article) and a list of salacious examples that combine WP:BLP violations with original research (and the tabloid stuff). It starts with a full paragraph sourced just to a blog that doesn't even mention "wardrobe malfunction". Then we have e.g. In July 2012, when Australian model Miranda Kerr at one point leaned over to buckle her son into a car seat, she inadvertently revealed her thong to create a whale tail. The Huffington Post described this episode as a "wardrobe malfunction". High quality Wikipediaing right there. There's no question this term became widely used after the Superbowl, which is why that article devotes so much space to it. The question isn't WP:N, and any keep !vote based just on "it's notable" isn't responding to the deletion argument. The reasons for deletion are on one hand WP:NOPAGE and WP:NOT, and on the other hand the reality that there's nothing of value to include in an stand-alone encyclopedia article that isn't a WP:BLP disaster. Even when filled with BLP and OR problems, we have people repeatedly reinstating the material. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If there is questionable content, then we have different means to address that, such as removal, editorial templates or adding page protections if it particularly happens from newer editors.
 * But the concept of a wardrobe malfunction is notable on its own and the term was coined at the Super Bowl, but since then has found widespread usage, including whole Books using the title that can be incorporated into the article, or how the phrase has evolved it's use since introduction, such as this Wall Street Journal article on some new MLB jerseys or this NewYorker article talking about the longevity of the phrase and how it has become a pop-culture thing of its own, long after the original incident. Or this marieclaire article talking about the history of the concept and bringing it all the way back to Napoleon.
 * Or this Wardrobe malfunction: Case studies of disability and clothing at the threshold of older adulthood. research article in the Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment.
 * This was all just a quick 10 minute of searching to find that there is plenty of content that can be incorporated into the article that has nothing to do with tabloid journalism.
 * All of this is not covered (and should not be) at the Super Bowl article since that moment in time was just the inception of a term for the concept that had obviously long existed, but just didn't have a defined name prior to it.
 * Interestingly even, the term appears to have started usage before the Superbowl incident as the google ngram data shows usage in books prior to 2004, so it might very well be that the term was coined prior to the Super bowl, but just found its widespread adoption into the common english vernacular then. Raladic (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Raladic, this is a fairly common phrase used to describe a broad situation which reoccurs in society Claire 26 (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Popular culture.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  17:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Notice: I've added a link to this discussion from WP:BLPN. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The term is certainly notable beyond the incident it was coined for (the term is widely used in the UK and nobody here knows what a superbowl is) but the content of the article is problematic. I'm not sure it's possible to write a decent encyclopaedia article on the subject beyond its meaning and origin and it will inevitably be bulked out by an example farm. Perhaps a soft redirect to Wiktionary might be the best thing? HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 18:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The "Instances" section is a predictable sack of trivial bovine feces that plagues far too many Wikipedia articles ("in popular culture"), but crappy articles was never a criteria for deletion, unfortunately. Example cruft magnets like this must be tended judiciously lest every nip slip that gets 2 mentions would be crammed in. &#45;-Animalparty! (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: This isn't a notability issue, and previous Keep !votes seem to have assumed that notability is a sufficient, rather than necessary, condition for an article. Moreover, WP:GNG lists two necessary conditions for a topic to merit an article: (i) notability, and (ii) non-exclusion under WP:NOT.  We can agree that the topic is notable without agreeing it should have an article.  In my view, this article violates WP:NOT/WP:BLP:
 * 1) WP:NOTNEWS:
 * 2) WP:NOTGOSSIP:
 * Insofar as WP:BLP is concerned, I think the topic – when people have (inadvertently) displayed their intimate parts – is lurid, failing (i) the concerns for balance and attack pages presented in WP:BLP, and (ii) the policy's presumption in favour of privacy (cf. WP:AVOIDVICTIM). While the term's etymology might merit an article that could extend beyond WP:NOTDICTIONARY, I entirely agree with 's concern that I'm not sure it's possible to write a decent encyclopaedia article on the subject beyond its meaning and origin and it will inevitably be bulked out by an example farm. A redirect to Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy seems inappropriate given the wide range of the term's applications. IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️) 15:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Raladic. Raladic has also demonstrated the existence of additional sources to improve the article. If the topic is notable, but the article is poorly written, then it would be overkill to delete the entire article. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not that the article is poorly written – it's that the subtopic (namely, examples of wardrobe malfunctions) is unencyclopedic. If an article on the topic (wardrobe malfunction) cannot be written without it including the subtopic, or if the topic without the subtopic doesn't meet our notability requirements, then the entire article should go, even if it is written exceptionally well. IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️) 10:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NEXIST, the sourcing proven by Raladic demonstrates that the topic is notable, even without the subtopic. It is clear that this topic can be written without including the subtopic and can be expanded with the sources shown by Raladic. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. A quick before shows this term is used in the titles of several academic works. This has not been mentioned by the nom, and therefore I conclude that WP:BEFORE was not done here. (Note that my keep vote does not mean that I don't agree that the article may need a substantial rewrite...). PS. Side note: relevant Commons category is "commons:Category:Accidental nudity". Which name should be used is something to discuss, but at minimum accidental nudity, which redirects here, is also a term that we should BEFORE before any serious deletion discussion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ? The nomination just quotes my edit summaries when redirecting. Mentions in titles of academic works would be relevant if the deletion rationales were based on notability, which they were not. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 03:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep Since the event, the term has become part of popular culture, important for understanding aspects of culture. PuppyMonkey (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep: Notability is clearly established and the term is almost everyday use in internet. The hits on the article (~15k per month) suggests that. Also, deletion is not cleanup. Tagging can be done for cleaning up, not AfD. This is almost a SNOW. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2024 (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.