Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hairy arm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hairy arm
I couldn't find this anywhere on Google. If not a hoax, at least staggeringly obscure JianLi 20:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Delete. Unsourced. Could be made up, or it could be a neologism specific only to a particular industry. If sources are added to make this more than an obscure dicdef, I might be persuaded to revise my vote. 23skidoo 22:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- delete as what appears to be a hoax. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 23:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep for solving a long-standing mystery! This is weird, but I was watching a Roger Corman comedy film Munchies a while ago and for no reason there was a shot of a "Hairy Arm"! It was strange and none of us could work out the significance... but now it all makes sense! Thank you Wikipedia. Thank you Hairy arm article. (True story) Croxley 03:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hairy update I have added a reliable source to the article, it took a lot of searching but that confirms it's a genuine term used in film-making. Croxley 04:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, so it's probably not a hoax. But I still have concerns about notability, if you had to go through that much trouble to find it. Does anybody know the relevant criterion for inclusion? --JianLi 00:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- The article was created in 2001, when wikipedia was more lax about sources. I think it's reasonable to consider the author himself a source. -Haikon 11:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, so it's probably not a hoax. But I still have concerns about notability, if you had to go through that much trouble to find it. Does anybody know the relevant criterion for inclusion? --JianLi 00:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hairy update I have added a reliable source to the article, it took a lot of searching but that confirms it's a genuine term used in film-making. Croxley 04:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete If it were a well-recognised phenomena there would be multiple sources everywhere. But it isn't so there aren't, so fails notability. A1octopus 15:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Fails notability. In every other film term glossary I've found, there has been no mention of "hairy arm" (see [1], [2], and [3]). I can't find one reliable source about the subject, and there's even the question as to whether to reference posted on the page fulfills WP:RS. But even if it did, the page still fails WP:N as multiple (i.e. more than one) references are needed to keep a page. Rockstar915 05:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Delete, while (IMO) one reference is enough for a barely-there stub (but definitely not for anything better), I do not see any evidence that this term is in widespread use. Maybe its used within a certain section, but overall, it fails the notability criterion. --soum (0_o) 06:58, 4 April 2007 (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.
