Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Going commando
per , or failing that '''merge''' into Underwear; the few things here that are not strict dictionary definitions or random etymology are  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  (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
— User:Aquillion, 06:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:DICDEF||WP:TRIVIA||WP:DICDEF (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary)