Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wardrobe malfunction (2nd nomination)

Wardrobe malfunction

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Wardrobe malfunction
• Articles for deletion/Wardrobe malfunction (2nd nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Wardrobe malfunction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per [1]

" 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× ☎ 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. — 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. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
• Notice: I've added a link to this discussion from WP:BLPN. — 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 | 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. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)