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 merge to Underwear. Opinions are split, but there seems sufficient consensus to pick this option as a compromise that will satisfy the other parties. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Going commando[edit]

Going commando (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Following a discussion on the talkpage, a few editors seem to think an AfD might be appropriate for this page. I think the primary rationales for deletion would be 1) WP:NOTDICTIONARY as this article seems to primarily give definition to a slang term, 2) WP:NOTABILITY as there are basically no RS's which cover this topic as a stand-alone subject, and 3) the talkpage seems to entirely dedicated to debates surrounding the addition of gratuitous offensive images. NickCT (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As nom. NickCT (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentWeak Keep Very very neutral, whilst the article is (almost) little more then a dictionary entry and does contain some interesting snippets (such as health issues), which indicate this may be slightly more then just a slang term.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Slatersteven: - Are there really any RS out there that cover "the medical benefits of going commando" as an independent subject? NickCT (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, but it is clear that [[1]], that its a claim out there [[2]]. This tells me there may (as I said "slightly") be notability here. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Men's Health source is sorta RS, but the primary subject seems to be Charles Barkley, not the act of going commando.

Regardless, b/c something is a legitimate (or illegitimate) health concern doesn't really seem like a standard for inclusion. Wearing tights shoes could have health implications. Should "loose shoe" be an article? NickCT (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It that a common slang term? The point it seems to me (and this is leaning me towards keep now I have to say) that this is a real and genuine modern term, phrase, slang word or whatever else you might wish to call, it is clear it is a bit more then just a slang term. whoes cultural impact is widely reported from both medical and social perspectives. Sorry but I have just argued myself into a keep vote.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's a "real and genuine" slang term, but WP:NOTDICTIONARY says that that's not justification for inclusion. I don't see wide reporting. I can't find a single work that deals with it as a stand-alone topic. Can you? NickCT (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking is this: electric vehicle can describe the purpose and benefits of electric cars. But what if they actually increase consumption of rare earths for batteries? What if they're problematic to dispose of, and increase use of coal fired power plants? Should we have not electric vehicle to describe that? (Anti-Electric, while a good band name, is even better as a 1940s superhero). It's a kind of POV fork. Well, it is a pov fork. Hence the preferred place for all that is Electric vehicle#Advantages and disadvantages of EVs. The best place to describe why you would or would not wear undergarments is undergarment. There's other content about military lore and kilts and such that should be spun off to the appropriate articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Bratland: - Is that a rationale to delete? If so, could you add *'''Delete''' - to the front of your comment? NickCT (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said this is not a made up term or article title to describe something, this is an actual cultural thing that has been written about, in a number of ways [[3]], [[4]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: - I'm not arguing that it's a made up term. You provided one source that's primary topic is Richard Madeley, and one that's about Men's Underwear. Again, do you see any sources that deals with this as an independent topic. NickCT (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As in the ones disusing its heath benefits [[5]], [[6]], [[7]]?Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And it was not a reply to you anyway, but to another user.Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: Ok..... So here's the thing; we seem to agree that references talking about the health benefits of X don't demonstrate that X is an independently notable subject (e.g. "loose shoes"). I think we also agree that something being slang, isn't rationale for inclusion.

The way I see it, you're combining two non-rationales for inclusion, to somehow create a rationale for inclusion. That does not compute...

Sorry for replying to the wrong post... NickCT (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to a new glossary of related undergarment fashion terms including muffin top, camel toe, buttock cleavage, wedgie, desnuda, male bra, men's underwear index, and several similar ones. They're dictionary definitions, with just a smidgen of encyclopedic content that goes beyond a definition, and that smidgen would fit in a list of terms. A reliable etymology is encyclopedic; a collection of early sightings and inexpert speculation, folk etymology, about where a term might have come from, is worse than nothing. It's not even equivalent to "it is unknown where this term originated according to experts". Merge to undergarment would also work. If we don't merge, then delete. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please allow RFC on nude photos in Going commando to run until ready to close and consensus is established, and preserve that discussion. Userfy if no home is found. My main reason for caring about this topic is the precedent it sets regarding WP:SHOCK and WP:GRATUITOUS. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTDICK, I mean NOTDICDEF, seems very appropriate: delete. As for the pictures--I find it interesting that the history suggests that it's always women going commando. Someone might say it's just always men adding pictures of vaginas, of course, but that's crazy. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  AFAIK there have been no images of vaginas associated with this topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Due to Google ngram viewer results and decent number of non-English wikipedias which have this article... if you delete it, don't be surprised if in five years someone translates it from another language into English.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google Ngram Viewer shows me a minuscule number of hits. As for those other-language Wikipedias, I looked at the Japanese-language article, titled Nõpan. It's partly about the odd phenomenon of nõpan kissa (see the English article No-pan kissa) and nõpan shabushabu (having the same relationship to regular shabu-shabu restaurants as nõpan kissa had to regular cafés), partly a list of celebs who claim, or are claimed, not to wear undies. Shall we look at the other articles too? -- Hoary (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 20:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  10 sources below:

  1. The Pleasures of Testicles: A Celebration and Exploration of All Things Balls by James L. Riedy
  2. "Do Commandos Go Commando?" from Slate
  3. "Gynaecologist reveals why women should always go without undies" from The Daily Telegraph (Sydney)
  4. "The seven surprising benefits of sleeping naked" from The Daily Telegraph (London)
  5. "Should You Be Wearing Underwear With Your Workout Leggings?" from HuffPost
  6. "The Case for Going Commando, According to a Gynecologist" from Health
  7. "‘I Went Commando for a Week—Here’s What It Was Like’" and "The Right Way to Go Commando" from Women's Health
  8. "Benefits and Precautions of Not Wearing Underwear" from Healthline
  9. "Is It OK Not to Wear Underwear When You Work Out?" from Shape
  10. "The Reason Why Sleeping Without Underwear Might Be a Great Idea" from Glamour

  — Newslinger talk 20:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The topic of every one of these articles is the pros and cons of underwear. Flammable and nonflammable both redirect Combustibility and flammability for the same reason that both the pros and the cons of electric vehicles are in the same article. Anything else is a POV fork. The term "going commando" itself is premised on underwear as normative and no underwear as deviant, even though we have in that very article examples of cultures or garments or contexts where no underwear is the norm. The systemic bias inherent in the term is a whole other reason to merge it into underwear, or else a list of similar terms. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  "The term "going commando" itself is premised on underwear as normative and no underwear as deviant" is an interesting argument, but I don't consider that a reason for deletion, as the Going commando article doesn't frame the practice as deviant, or suffer from any other neutrality issues to be considered a POV fork. If you take issue with the name of the article, you can request to move it, but "going commando" is almost certainly the common name of this practice. "Going commando" gets enough coverage in sources that deal exclusively with this topic (and not anything else related to underwear) that it deserves its own article. — Newslinger talk 02:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think keeping the article totally contravenes the notability guidelines. We could justify having such an article, if we wanted. But "this is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page", as notability says. There are several reasons why we're better off without it, for the same reasons we're better off without stand alone articles on nonflammablity or the disadvantages of electric cars. In a lot of ways, going commando is a coat rack for several unrelated ideas, like whether women should wear anything under their yoga pants or why frog men don't wear underwear or whether that's hot or not. Kind of a grab bag of things relevant elsewhere. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added content from some of these sources into Going commando § Usage, benefits, and drawbacks. The "Etymology" section is now only a fraction of the article's content, so WP:NOTDICTIONARY/WP:DICDEF is no longer applicable. — Newslinger talk 08:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's clear that while this article is in relatively poor shape, the topic of going without underwear is a notable one that has been discussed in many reliable sources. It's probable that "going commando" is the most common name for it, but that is not really relevant to this discussion. Also not relevant is what, if any, image(s) the article should have as that is a matter for the talk page (and that discussion seems to have been sidetracked by those with strong opinions about images of nudity rather than the topic at hand). If this was merged anywhere then undergarment is the only logical choice but that article already has several sub-articles that are splitout for length reasons and so all that would be appropriate about this topic there is a short paragraph at most with a link to this sub-article. That the article needs improvement is also not a reason for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thryduulf: - re "the topic of going without underwear is a notable one that has been discussed in many reliable sources" - Not sure that's true. I still challenge anyone to provide a single source that discusses "going commando" as a standalone, independent topic. Sources like this one address a fashion topic (i.e. flares) "directly and in detail", which is the foundation of notability. I've yet to see a source that really discusses "going commando" as a primary topic. There are bunch of sources with subjects like "Person X goes commando" or "Health can be improved by going commando", but those are giving the topic indirect rather than direct coverage. NickCT (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:SIGCOV gives a pretty vague definition of "significant coverage", but nothing in the guideline requires a source to cover all aspects of a topic to be considered "direct" coverage of the topic. The 9 articles I listed above (disregarding #1, which is a book) are primarily focused on the topic of "going commando", and the coverage is detailed. — Newslinger talk 17:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Newslinger: - The primary topic of 2 seems to be commandos. The primary topic of most of the others seems to be health. An article titled "Loose fitting hats prevent migraines" does not make "loose fitting hats" an independently notable subject. Obviously. NickCT (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    re "requires a source to cover all aspects" - Sure, there's no requirement, but I think it's pretty obvious that a source discussing a topic "directly and in detail" is going to discuss more than one aspect of that topic. NickCT (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    A source can provide significant coverage of more than one topic, and in my opinion, the listed sources all provide significant coverage of "going commando". Loose-fitting hats aren't really discussed by reliable sources in this way, but extra depth shoes and non-restrictive, close-fitting socks do have their own articles. — Newslinger talk 17:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the definition of "direct" basically means "single topic". If I'm talking to you "directly", the inference is that I'm talking only to or primarily to you. If I start talking to multiple people, the conversation is no longer "direct".

    Glancing at your examples, it's not clear to me Diabetic shoes are notable. I might support a deletion there if it can't be better sourced.

    Here's an RS discussing health problems related to tight fitting shoes. If I could provide you with more RS like this, you'd say "loose fitting shoe" should be a topic? NickCT (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Common counterexamples of sources that provide significant coverage of multiple topics include articles on both a company and its executive (example: Apple Inc. and Mike Markkula), both a song and its artist (example: "The Story of Adidon" and Pusha T), and both a substance and its health effects (example: asbestos and mesothelioma). The fact that a source covers the health impact of "going commando" doesn't preclude it from providing significant coverage of "going commando". The primary topic guideline applies to article naming, and not to notability. Unlike the sources on "going commando", the linked article doesn't even mention the subject in question (loose-fitting shoes). — Newslinger talk 04:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    So take your Mike Markkula example and look at the NYT piece that's used as reference in that article. That's a clear example of "direct coverage". It's a high quality RS that is examing multiple aspects of a single subject (i.e. Mike). That's a strong indication of notability, and its the type of reference that doesn't exist for "going commando". Even if asbestos didn't cause mesothelioma, both subjects would likely be independently notable. In other words, there would likely be RS talking about asbestos, a common building material, even if it didn't have health risks. It's not clear that "going commando" has RS outside its health issues.

    re "doesn't preclude it from providing significant coverage of "going commando" - If by "significant coverage" you mean "direct coverage" (which I think is how WP thinks about the term), then I think it does. People reading articles titled "Health impact of X" are probably reading b/c they're interested in health, not b/c they're interested in X. Health is the topic or subject that is being directly covered. Not X.

    re "The primary topic guideline applies to article naming" - Yeah. Granted. I was using "primary topic" in the non-WP sense of the term. Maybe I should have said "primary subject" (i.e. the subject that the RS article is mainly about). NickCT (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    NickCT, based on too many years of hanging out at WT:N, "direct" means "actually about the topic of the article". So, to extend the example above, diabetic shoes become notable when someone writes about diabetic shoes (e.g., what PMID 29371890 calls "medical-grade footwear"), but not when someone writes about shoes, or diabetes, or even the surprising number of people with diabetes who are wearing the wrong size of regular shoes. Similarly, a "Foundation for the Promotion of Diabetic Shoes" would become notable when someone writes about the foundation (e.g., founding, revenue, purpose, activities, people involved), and not about their cause (i.e., diabetic shoes). In the instant case, a source that is "directly" about going commando would actually write about the who/what/when/where/why/how of "going commando". An article claiming that people should sleep in the nude is not actually about "going commando" AIUI, and the ones making health claims aren't reliable sources for medical content. When I look through the titles given above, most of them are either non-WP:MEDRS sources making medical claims (so unusable for their primary content, although I suppose they might be reliable for ancillary information, such as the number of people who practice this) or articles about nudity (so unusable because off-topic). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    9 of the 10 sources (all except the last one) refer to the practice as "going commando". While some of the claims made in the sources may fall under WP:MEDRS, some of them don't (e.g. comfort and chafing). — Newslinger talk 05:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Newslinger: - Refer to, maybe. Give direct coverage, no. NickCT (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @WhatamIdoing: - I concur with all of your comments. NickCT (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to a suitable article, such as Underwear. One of the problems I've had while looking for sources is that there is nobody talking about this "directly and in detail". I could find a few etymology claims (none authoritative) that might interest a dictionary, but I found no serious consideration of a definition. What counts as "going commando"? If underwear simply did not exist in your culture (e.g., approximately everyone before the 13th century), did you "go commando", or was that something different? Is not wearing underwear actually "going commando" if you're not supposed to wear underwear in that situation (e.g., swimming) or if it's unclear whether underwear-wearing is typical (e.g., sleeping)? Is there a difference between a university student not wearing underwear under his jeans because he thinks it's sexy, and a non-verbal girl with sensory processing problems refusing to wear not just underwear, but also any type of leggings or pants? If there were any decent sources talking about this concept "directly and in detail", then I really ought to be able to answer such basic questions. And, you know, if "going commando" is actually a synonym for "not wearing underwear" (which I doubt, but which some past contributors to the article assumed, and there are no academic sources to determine which POV is correct here), then the article title is inappropriately slangy for an encyclopedia... and we still might decide that Non-use of underwear ought to be merged into Underwear, as a very closely related subtopic, about which we can't say much more than "Some folks don't wear underwear as often as others, and maybe the most common slang name came from soldiers in hot weather".
  In terms of developing encyclopedic content on the subject, this US-based poll might make an interesting source for prevalence (although difficult to interpret: How do you report percentages of people doing something, when more than a third of respondents chose "I don't know what that means"?), which is more encyclopedic than one person's recollection of the behavior in a bar during a war, which is the level of information that we're currently presenting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added the poll results to the article. — Newslinger talk 09:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per WP:DICDEF / WP:TNT. Mostly original research based on mentions in the media, plus strange ideas that wearing pajamas or swimwear is "going commando". --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:DICDEF, or failing that merge into Underwear; the few things here that are not strict dictionary definitions or random etymology are WP:TRIVIA and wouldn't belong in a completed article. With that in mind, there's no valid article here and no indication that the title could ever support one. Regarding some of the comments above, note that none of them actually answer this objection or provide any policy-based reason to keep - things like Google ngrams aren't a reason to ignore WP:DICDEF (any common word or term will logically have reasonable presence, but the whole point of DICDEF is that that doesn't support an article.) Similarly, sources that do nothing but elaborate on the dictionary definition or which only provide trivia are not enough to support an article. --Aquillion (talk) 06:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the very small amount of encyc material into Underwear or similar. Endorse arguments of WhatamIdoing and others, most content falls foul of WP:DICDEF, much is WP:OR or trivia. This is like having an article about a neologistic, slangy term for NOT wearing socks. Neither the term nor the practice seems sufficiently defined, distinct or notable to warrant an article.Pincrete (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep And improve per previous "Keep" votes. Notable topic, plenty of RS cites. And, for heaven's sake, add a photo! --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Pete Tillman, most people wear underwear; some people don't. For most of the latter, most of the time, the underwear or lack thereof is I believe hidden by outerwear: a skirt, jeans, whatever. Do you want photos of people wearing skirts or jeans (etc) and allegedly wearing nothing beneath? Or do you want "upskirt"/"upkilt" photos? -- Hoary (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The photo debate is here. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Not only would a photo of someone who says they are not wearing underwear, but looks just like anyone who is, fail our basic Verifiability test, it would be silly. I guess I will (at some point) look for a RS that says "Going Commando" is a form of exhibitionism. OK, how about right now:

• Here's a video of 5 ladies throwing their panties at the videographer. Still weak on verifiablity. What if they just had an extra pair of panties stashed?
• Google isn't finding a RS for "Going Commando" = exhibitionism. Just some porn sites. So maybe it isn't (as another editor argued. Huh. Back to what I'm supposed to be doing, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep or alternatively merge to Underwear. I think there is enough to ring the N bell, but not by a wide margin. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2019 (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.