Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pantlessness

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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pantlessness

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

This is just a collection of trivial mentions of people not wearing pants on some occasion or other. The most notable claim, that it's "one of the fashion trends of 2010", is at the very least inflated--the article does list it, but only after five "real" trends are discussed, and then only in a long list: "Fringing, military details, leather, ruffles, sheer fabrics, animal prints, bows, clogs and lower heels, one-shoulder dresses, cycling shorts, jumpsuits, peplums, genie pants, fur shag coats, capes, pantsless-ness, plaids and checks, draping and knotting, lace tights, sweat pants, tattoos, bodysuits, body-con dresses, blazers and military jackets, vintage and chintz florals, miniskirts and mini-dresses". In other words, it's nothing. We really can't be writing up articles that collect trivia--and one wonders if this article really isn't just an excuse to put up pictures of girls without pants riding the subway (File:No Pants Subway Ride 2011 Seattle.jpg). Hits in Google Books are trivial, passing mentions; hits in JSTOR and EBSCO don't exist; Expanded Academic Index gives only one hit, where the word is jocularly used in a caption in Esquire. Drmies (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a July 2014 WP:content fork of No Pants Day, an article whose history dates back to May 2005‎, by an administrator who should know better (permalink). Actually there was a history split in August 2014, I'm not sure what the deal with that was, but there really only needs to be one article on this topic. "Expanded scope of article" as if "pantlessness" was a normal condition, rather than a stunt celebrated on a single day each year for fun? Wbm1058 (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see, Talk:No Pants Day#History split request. An RfD discussion ensued from the bold and disruptive page move to this title. A neologism? Wbm1058 (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge It seems that the edit history is entwined with that of No Pants Day and so we should be keeping it for attribution. No Pants Day seems to be a definite thing in the US but there's more to say about the global concept which is big in Japan, for example. See also sans-culottes for the French revolutionary take on this. And I, myself, created the article Donald Where's Your Troosers? which celebrates a True Scotsman... Andrew D. (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, I hope the devil pays you well for having you on retainer--you must be playing devil's advocate, which is always appreciated. But sans-culottes isn't even in the same ballpark in terms of significance (this concerns a bunch of jokers in their underwear comfortably riding the subway), and the Donald article has decent sourcing, including a real book from a real publisher. (You must admit the sourcing in this article is lousy, and there was even worse stuff in earlier versions.) I would not oppose a merge, I reckon. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - It should be noted that the sans-culottes were not pantsless, but instead wore pantalons -- what we would now call ordinary pants. -- The Anome (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I would not call them ordinary pants; I'd call them trousers – I'm British, you see. Given the linguistic complexities, it is sensible to have a clearing house article, like a dab page to help readers find the appropriate type of fashion. Andrew D. (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - My point is that the sans-culottes were neither pantsless (American) or trouserless (British). They were wearing pantalons. -- The Anome (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        The word pants is short for pantaloons; they are all much the same. Our article on the subject says that the French means "without pants" and so the title in question is a reasonable search term for this and other topics. Andrew D. (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I can't quite believe we're having this discussion here, but see culottes for the difference. Note that all the sans-culottes in all the contemporary pictures are wearing trousers. It just goes to show you shouldn't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. I've amended the sans-culottes article appropriately. -- The Anome (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NEO. The actual term "pantlessness" (coined as a fashion term) hasn't been discussed enough - so most of this is WP:SYNTH with random things about people wearing no pants. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The real word here is pantless and the OED has that going back to 1858. But that's an adjective and so, per WP:NOUN, the less common noun form has been used as the title. So, in searching for sources, you should use variations such as "going pantless". It is then easy to find examples such as Vogue's "The pantless trend made a comeback this summer" or "Going pant-less has replaced the romper as summer’s most-tricky-to-pull-off look". This angle is not related to No Pants Day and so the need for a more general article is proven. Andrew D. (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: "Pantslessness" is still a neologism as it's not an accepted word. Not everything is better converted to a noun title if that noun is essentially made up, even if using the common format -ness suffix for -less words (ie awarelessness, hammerlessness, motivationalessness etc.). If you want an article on pantless you would have a better shot. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable or distinctive nor a common expression. And, for god's sake, delete the hundreds of redirects that point to this article. Can that be done at the same time? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Boom. Most of it came from a pretty bloated template. The rest is gone. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - There were just a few more links from articles left: I've deleted them too. -- The Anome (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete idiotic synthesized article. Kelly ^hi! 01:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drmies. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a combination of WP:SYN and WP:COATRACK. -- The Anome (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and trout the admin who created this article --Lerdthenerd wiki defender 15:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: they are in the process of receiving rather more than a WP:TROUT at the moment: see WP:AN/I. -- The Anome (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listcruft with no meaningful content. WP:SYNTH is also an issue. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An admin should know better than to create this bullshit. Non-notable. No meaningful, encyclopaedic content. AusLondonder (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pantlessness, pointlessness. Unencyclopedic, not meaningfully cited sub-topic of nudism, also likely a WP:COATRACK for something else. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dab to "no pants day" "Sans Culottes" and "Donald where's yer troosers" All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Being British I thought this had something to do with Going commando, but it appears this was just a random phrase somebody made up one day and attempted to throw sources at the term to make it stick. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, a huge hot mess, this article proves that one man's trivia is another's synthesis. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. sst✈^discuss 08:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, why does this trivial solipsistic article have a WP:FURTHERREADING section with 14 (yes 14) items, as if it is an FA biography of Einstein? Softlavender (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some of them despite the inevitable deletion coming. AusLondonder (talk) 10:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe redirect to No Pants Day, which seems to be the primary topic. The sources don't really establish that this is a thing. Going through Google News, I'm still unconvinced that this is a thing, but there are enough trivial mentions that someone could probably make the argument that it's worth a redirect somewhere. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge into No Pants Day per Wbm1058. sst✈^discuss 02:13, 14 November 2015 (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.