Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handbra (second nomination)

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 no consensus to delete. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Handbra

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Handbra Articles for deletion/Handbra (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/Handbra (second nomination)
Handbra (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article was previously nominated for deletion and survived with several editors calling for further references and that the article was "well written and useful." After reviewing that debate and the article content over the past several weeks, I removed two unacceptable references (links to photo galleries of "woman using handbras") and removed the unsupported statements afterwards. I also tagged the section titled "Modern prevalence" as synthesis, since it relies not on the use of the term "handbra" in media but rather on the action of woman cupping their breasts in their own hands. This does not support a "modern prevalence" of the term in culture, but rather a loose association of incidents where women made the action described in the article. There are two sources cited wherein the term "handbra" is actually used, however only one of them described it with any real context (though poorly), quoting a photo editor describing what he calls a handbra. That same person is cited in a different source later in the article, though he doesn't provide any context for a handbra and only says "she was fired because she refused to do handbra." Again, this is synthesis. With all the extraneous material removed, this article is reduced to one sentence with a poor source that could be (but probably shouldn't be) transwikied to wiktionary. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Apparently this is the third nomination. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Addendum I want to quote from a relevant section of WP:NEO: "Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. (Note that wikis such as Wiktionary are not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.)" I believe this article fails that protocol. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This is one of those articles where something is quite possibly notable, but it is not always called the thing that is used for the article's title. Handbra is obviously a neologism and I didn't find any more sources worth adding in a search of Google Books or Google News Archive. On the other, er, hand, I think there's potentially something to be said about the all-too-common pose either using the palms or crossing the arms in front or even hiding the breasts with the knees. That might fit into glamour photography or (less appropriately) softcore but is also seen in commercial and fashion modeling. Just a thought that ther emay be an article here under a different name, or a merge/redirect if there's a more appropriate article I'm missing. --Dhartung | Talk 09:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Cut down and Merge Seems to be a real, if not widely used, term, but Cumulus Clouds and Dhartung are right. Add a mention in glamour photography and/or Wikionary. Alberon (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I expected to be voting dl but a Google search convinced me it's a sufficiently widely used term (and was fun also). Could use more sources. JJL (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Most of the returns in a Google search involve "So and so doing a handbra" or "Gallery of women using a handbra," or the occasional offcolor blog talking about how awesome handbras are. None of which is citeable material, no matter how much fun it is to look at. In addition, that same google search revealed that someone has already transwikied this material to Boobpedia. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge relevant info to glamour photography or something, seeing as most of this has already been transwikied to Boobpedia. (*snicker* Boobpedia...) Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep As I said in the last AFD: The Sarah Michelle Gellar Saturday Night Live appearance was a memorable illustration of the technique, although I do not recall her using the term "hand bra" when she did the parody of a "Holding your own boobs magazine," even though she was in fact using her hands as a bra. That parody was in turn a reference to several then-recent magazine articles with female celebrities maintaining a shred of decency by using their hands as a bra. One of the references in the article uses the term explicitly to refer to a celeb doing the same thing in a photo shoot. The article should include the novelty bra which consists of a pair of plastic hands forming a provocative novelty bra. Edison (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The SNL citation violates WP:SYN, since it doesn't actually use the term "handbra" and is being used to promote the "prevalence" of the term when, in fact, it's never mentioned in the show. Also, the reference is to NBC's episode guide, which only talks about "Holding Your Own Boobs Magazine."
I've already addressed the other reference you're talking about, where Paul Merrill says "We call that shot 'Hand Bra'..." This is another very weak reference since it doesn't define the term, Merrill isn't notable enough to carry the entire article by himself and it looks like he was making a joke anyway.
Last, I strongly disagree about incorporating the "plastic hands" bra because A) there aren't any references for it B) it will encourage editors to insert copyrighted or unencyclopedic information and images into this article and C) it has nothing to do with the term as the article defines it. Cupping your own breasts and wearing a plastic bra are two entirely different things. Adding both would be confusing and, frankly, pointless. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment "looks like he was making a joke anyway" I think you are now engaging in original research to disparage verifiable sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. There's just not enough here for a non-stub, sourced article, and nothing it could be merged into. Add to that the fact that Wikipedia is not for articles about neologisms and this article should be gone. - Chardish (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, neologism. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I notified the people at the last AfD--both those who argued to keep and to delete--including the nominator that time round. (Except the now banned Alkivar, who refused when asked to give a specific reason and just said "common sense"). I think this is the way to make a better informed decision. I did not comment that time, and am still unsure; I want to hear what they all have to say. DGG (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Missed her because her !vote wasn't in bold. got it now. I notified everyone else, both sides. I'm not 100% accurate, but I'm not a total beginner at this. DGG (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand holding your own boobs = handbra, just like Iraq War = Second Gulf War, and The Great War = World War I. Its about the concept, not the term. The article used to be about the word, but the other uses of the word have been deleted, now it is about the concept, which includes synonyms. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • How do you reconcile that with the section of WP:NEO I've cited above? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The New York Times article doesn't mention "Handbra" at all and doesn't stray much further than the Janet Jackson story. This is synthesis and therefore cannot support the article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Multiple reliable and verifiable sources from across teh globe are used to define the term and to provide examples of its use. The usages couldn't be any more straightforward, so WP:SYN is a non-issue and WP:NEO is completely and totally irrelevant, given the sources provided in the article as it currently exists. I'd suggest that some of our delete voters ought to revisit the article as it actually exists now. Alansohn (talk) 05:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you looking at the same article I am? There's only one source and it's very poor. Did you read anything within the nomination post? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Apparently not: I see the following reliable and verifiable sources:
  1. ^ a b Turner, Janice (October 22, 2005). Dirty young men. The Guardian. Retrieved on 2007-04-10. “The cover model's breast is partially concealed by her cupped hand. 'We call that shot "hand-bra",' says Paul Merrill, launch editor of Zoo and now in charge of international editions, 'We use that a lot.' He flicks to a cover showing a model whose hair extensions cover her nipples: 'This is hair-bra,' he says.”
  2. ^ Rosenthal, Phil. "Cover story so bad, even FCC sees through it", Chicago Sun-Times, February 3, 2004. "Remember the handbra on the cover of Rolling Stone in 1993?"
  3. ^ "Capitalizing On Jackson Tempest", The New York Times, February 4, 2004. Retrieved on 2007-05-04. “In 1993 she posed topless for the cover of Rolling Stone. Then, her nipples were obscured by a pair of male hands, not a silver broach.”
  4. ^ "News from Paul Merrill - Editor, Zoo", Press Gazette. “The deal has fallen through over a suggestion she do 'hand bra'.”
I've placed the usages and definitions in bold, if that helps. I count more than one, all of them using the exact term described in the article. Which one is the poor source? This is neither a synthesis, nor a neologism. Alansohn (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You'll notice that Paul Merrill was quoted twice, which I addressed in my opening post. In the fourth citation (Mr. Merrill's second appearance) he commented not on the term or its definition, but rather used it in referring to the termination of a model (something I also addressed in the first post). The New York Times article has one sentence about Janet Jackson on the cover of Rolling Stone, which does not make any mention of the word "handbra" and only refers to another person covering her breasts with her hands. Using this source in that article is unpublished synthesis. The Chicago Sun-Times article -though it uses the term "handbra"- does not define that term and only employs it in reference to Janet Jackson's appearance on the cover of Rolling Stone. Its usage in this article is unpublished synthesis. Mr. Merrill's first reference (and first reference of the article) is a very poor definition of the term for reasons that I have already addressed in my opening post. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I think this is a pure mathematical transitive relationship. The mainstay of every class in logic. Source A calls it a handbra, source B describes the same thing as covering the breasts with a hand. Therefore covering breasts with hands is a handbra, which is supported by the three other definitions. Its logic 101, or even High School LOgicunpublished synthesis is drawing novel, non logical conclusions from multiple texts. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I am greatly impressed by the circumlocutions and rhetorical somersaults you've used to ignore the clearest possible definition of the term and references to the word. That the same individual was quoted twice in two completely different contexts in two different publications -- including the most specific definition possible for a term you insist does not exist -- is irrelevant; these are two different, intellectually independent sources. Your excuse for discarding the Sun-Times reference to an iconic magazine cover using the handbra, claiming that it "does not define that term", takes the cake. Making the connection between handbra and Janet Jackson's Rolling Stone cover is not a synthesis, it's any reasonable person using their brain. Your demand that every reference to the word must provide a textbook definition goes beyond unreasonable. This is denial at its worst. Alansohn (talk) 06:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • None of the references to Janet Jackson's Rolling Stone cover are viable because they violate one of the central tenants of WP:NEO, which I've addressed in the opening to this nomination. It states very clearly that an article should not exist because a lot of different sources use the term, but instead that there are an abudance of references about the term. Please see WP:NEO for more information. I would also encourage you to read the first post in this nomination. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • And, once again, I've already covered why Paul Merrill's second reference is not a viable citation. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Dance around in denial all you want, but the sources are there to demonstrate notability. Your unjustfiable synthesis of WP:NEO and WP:SYN goes nowhere. P.S. Unless you renting a place there, Wikipedia has "tenets", not "tenants". Alansohn (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • From WP:NEO (again!), we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. Seems pretty clear. If there's ever a source that discusses the handbra and it's historical appearances throughout photography, great! Right now it's all use and no discussion. WLU (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems extremely clear that WP:NEO is a non-issue being abused here as an excuse for deletion. From The Guardian (again!), which you still refuse to comprehend, is a reliable secondary source from one of Britain's largest newspapers defining the term in the clearest possible manner (with the definition in bold, again!) quoting an individual who is a recognized expert in the field: Turner, Janice (October 22, 2005). Dirty young men. The Guardian. Retrieved on 2007-04-10. “The cover model's breast is partially concealed by her cupped hand. 'We call that shot "hand-bra",' says Paul Merrill, launch editor of Zoo and now in charge of international editions..." Please point to the Wikipedia policy that requires "historical appearances throughout photography." Making up and misinterpreting rules, and ignoring the clearest possible evidence of notability is simply unacceptable. Alansohn (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You mean that article about lad's magazines, that mentions hand bra once? The article that's not a discussion of hand-bras per se, but does use the term (once)? The article is not about the hand bra, but it does use it. This is evidence that the term is used, not that it's notable. There's no discussion. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, the page cites sources as primary sources, and synthesizes the information to make it's point. There's no significant coverage, it's all one-off mentions. Remove the OR/SYNTH and you've got a list of the times handbra is mentioned, maybe some links to pictures of handbras. There's no discussion, it's just mentioned. Wikitionary. WLU (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I mean an article in an independent nationwide newspaper. That's the source with the clearest possible definition of the term that you have chosen to ignore. At least a claim of non-notability relies on simple ignorance of the multiple reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article. The claim that the article is OR/SYNTH is a complete and total falsification. The excuses for deletion are only getting more desperate and more pathetic. Alansohn (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Calling that the "clearest possible definition" speaks volumes about the notability of the term. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki - no need for an actual article that I can see; transwiki keeps the content, allows it to be linked in the articles that currently use it, but we don't have to keep nominating it for deletion. WLU (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or transwiki - let's face it, there's no useful content that couldn't easily be placed elsewhere. This article is just an excuse for a titter. Deb (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The article as written is encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - that doesn't addres it's notability, the primary criteria for it being kept on wikipedia. WLU (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This is ridiculous. Are we to expect other articles for Handjockstrap, Handblindfold or Handearmuffs? The only reason this article is here is that it gives editors an excuse to insert scandalous pictures of seminude women from flickr. See this edit where User:Backstab55 inserted a (copyvio and since deleted) picture of girls in a dorm shower, which they justified saying that it "represented a handbra." This is unencyclopedic and should not be kept on Wikipedia. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST is not a valid argument for deletion. There are no articles for Handjockstrap, Handblindfold or Handearmuffs because there are no sources to support the term. There are ample reliable and verifiable sources supporting "handbra" (no pun intended). While I fuly support your removal of a copyvio picture, your insistence on deleting these sources from the article does not negate the fact that there are ample sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You have yet to explain how those sources pass WP:V, or address any concerned raised by WP:NEO. The best you've done is called it "abusive interpretation" without explaining why. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • All concerns have been addressed already. I like your "You have yet to explain how those sources pass WP:V". Easy: 1) Go to article. 2) Click on sources. 3) Verify that they exist. Try it. If the words are causing trouble, a picture is worth a thousand words. Alansohn (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That explanation does not address the concerns about the sources failing WP:V and WP:NEO. Please explain this disparity. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There is indeed a disparity. WP:NEO has already been addressed, In addition to sources that use the term, multiple sources are provided that are about the term. Rather unambiguous directions have been provided as to how to confirm that the sources are verifiable. As stated at WP:V, "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." The material has been challenged, and your challenge was accepted. Go to the article and click on the sources. Confirm that each source matches the quotation identified. If it does not, you have successfully proven that the particular source is not verifiable. You have not done this for any of the sources. The disparity here is that you raise issues, they are addressed in full compliance with Wikipedia policy, the clear evidence is ignored, and the question is asked all over again. Alansohn (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • A blog from a model does not pass WP:V. An article about a blog which uses the term "Three cheers for Handbra" fails WP:NEO because it employs, but not use the term the article is about. An article that uses the term (but does not discuss its meaning) as is seen in every citation concerning Janet Jackson, fails WP:NEO. A video about people concealing their breasts with their hands fails both WP:V and WP:NEO. Zoo magazine is hardly an authority (as has been mentioned earlier) in the field of photography. It is an Australian men's magazine publication. It is not an authoritative, scientific or academic citation. A website giving pointers on "nude photography" is not a source because it lacks editorial oversight and is not a published source. "Nuts sexiest pictures" is a thumbnail gallery of seminude women. This could never be considered a source because there is no citeable content on the page. The best source in this article is the editor of Zoo magazine making a passing comment about a photoshoot he had with one of his models. He does define the term there, but his definition is very weak. This is the only source in the article which passes WP:V and WP:NEO and even then it is exceptionally poor because it is one line and does not fully define it. In addition, since this is the only true source in this article, the only citeable statement is a dictionary definition of the term (attributable only to Merrill), which fails WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. All references included in the "modern prevalence" section are not about the term, but rather employ it in the body of the article. This fails WP:NEO. This also fails WP:SYN because that section is a collection of works which use the term, but never establish that it is "prevalent" in any sense. That material, therefore, fails WP:SYN because the claim of "modern prevalence" cannot be attributed to any of the sources, but is rather an attempt by editors to make that claim by way of its employment in those articles. That section could be renamed to "Handbra in popular culture," but this probably wouldn't help the case to keep it because then the article would be one sentence followed by a trivia section. If you would like any further explanation please let me know. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Under the DMCA websites are published sources. Posting a photo to a website starts the clock ticking on copyright, and all websites are copyrighted by default. An article from the Associated Press, not carried by any newspaper and only appearing on their website, is still published, when posted on the Internet. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Nowhere in Wikipedia does it say that definitions have to come from scholarly sources such as other encyclopedia and scientific journals. Lad magazines are legitimate sources, especially since they have an entry in Wikipedia. Please stop just pointing us to WP:V and WP:NEO without citing a specific sentence there. Also reread the point about synonyms, this article is about the concept, not the word. Any number of synonyms, or descriptions of the concept can be used per "Gulf War" vs "Iraq War". You wouldn't exclude coverage of the war using the alternate name. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article has improved a lot, if only for having references now using the word handbra. Garion96 (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Those references fail WP:V and this article fails WP:NEO. If you disagree, maybe you can explain why. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • My summary There are three very good references to what defines the term that establish notability from reliable surces. There are plenty of others to show the term is in use in Lad magazines that verify the usage. The entries called "blog" entries (above), are not user submitted. They are the headers to the blog forums, that are provided by the Internet site, and not readers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I think the nominator has a good reason to question the sources since they are not reliable. But I do think that the article is notable and could be improved.Chris! ct 00:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, the concept is clearly notable, even if the term might not be, but unless someone can suggest a better name (Cupping one's breasts?) then it seems reasonable to ignore any rule against this. But it streches credulity for anyone to suggest that the words "“The cover model's breast is partially concealed by her cupped hand. 'We call that shot "hand-bra"'" do not define the term "hand-bra". DHowell 04:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki -- WP:NEO is quite clear. Passing usage, even if expressed in terms of a definition, is insufficient. "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." There aren't any books or papers about the term except Wikipedia and Boobpedia, and "wikis such as Wiktionary are not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose." Anyway, Boobpedia does this subject better than Wikipedia ever will. (Btw, I had to use "Edit this page" to insert this comment, rather than the section button. What's with that?) Andyvphil 18:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Whats the Guardian? Toilet paper? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The Guardian article is an example of "books and papers that use the term"; it is not about "hand-bra". As I said, WP:NEO is very clear about this. Andyvphil 11:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Handjockstrap I believe the term of art is called "rock out with your cock out", when used by the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Anyone find any references to other names for it? [1] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete I agree strongly with Cumulus Clouds above that the only rationale for this article is that "it gives editors an excuse to insert scandalous pictures of seminude women". Incidentally, though this does not affect the vote itself, I would be very interested to know if there is a noticeable gender difference in voting patterns on this AfD. RolandR 12:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) the subject is sufficiently well verified and WP:SYN does not apply as there is no "new position" being advanced (since therm term clearly already exists. Remember just because an article is about scantily clad women and is humerous, doesn't mean it isn't encyclopedia type material.Earthdirt (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you address concerns that the bulk of this article is made up of statements referenced by sources which use the term, rather than sources about the term (per WP:NEO)? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I guess you still don't understand the difference between notability and verifiability. We have links to three definitions posted from various sources to show the exact definition. The other links verify statements that the term is in use in various publications. All the links are for verifiability of the information in the article. Notability is when the term is used by reliable sources, which we see in the Guardian and Zoo Weekly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The article cites a thumbnail gallery as a source. If this idea were that notable, we wouldn't have editors trying to cite statements with pictures from blogs. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes it does, and proudly so! Whats your beef with it? Its a perfect definition from the caption of a photo in Nuts (magazine). Since when did photo captions become worthless? The Associated Press, Getty Images, Corbis and UPI release tens of thousands of photos with captions, each year. All are reliable sources in their original form, in their archives. All are reliable sources when published in secondary and tertiary outlets in newspapers, books and magazines. If you think Zoo Weekly or Nuts (magazine) are not reliable sources, work toward having the articles on them deleted. Your also confused by blogs as a reliable source. Me writing a blog, is not reliable. Zoo Weekly creating a blog, and writing a header to that blog is reliable, the people adding comments under that header are not reliable. Blogs written by "experts in their field" are reliable. Even the New York Times has blogs from their writers. The blog by Dick Cavett at the New York Times site was used to rewrite the article on Jerome Irving Rodale. Remember, handbras existed long before the term was coined. Reread what I wrote about synonyms, and the differences between "The Great War" and World War I. The term WWI wasn't created till WWII. It would be foolish to exclude information created between 1914-1938, just because it used the older term for the same concept. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You also cited funniestgadgets.com as a source which does not contain a caption and is not a reliable reference. This too demonstrates a lack of sources proving notability. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • And this article isn't about "synonyms of Handbra" or "people cupping their breasts with their hands" its about the term Handbra which has 1 source that actually describes the term and has the rest of the article dedicated to explaining all the times the term was used (and in what capacity). This is stupid. This also contradicts WP:NEO, and you have not yet been able to form a cohesive argument to counter that assertion. The blog citation that you are trying to defend uses -but does not describe- the term "Handbra" only once, in a quote that goes "three cheers for handbra." This is not a source. This does not demonstrate notability. This is cruft inserted to bolster the length of the article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    • "three cheers for handbra." is a source for usage. It is not a source for the definition, do you understand the two types of things you can reference? There is a definition, and there is usage. Your making a poor attempt at the Straw Man attack. Your attacking the usage references, and saying they do not define the term. Your using the Straw Man to attack the definition by attacking that it comes from a caption to a photograph. All are invalid. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Sources for usage violate WP:NEO. Here is the relevant passage from that guideline: "Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. (Note that wikis such as Wiktionary are not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.)" In this case, books and papers aren't even cited, it's the tail end of a passing comment on a blog. This is why everything about Janet Jackson's Rolling Stone cover should be removed. I've cited that line several times in this AfD and you have not yet responded to it.
    • Sorry, when I hear the word "cruft", I know the argument is hollow. You have run out of bullets and are now throwing the gun at me. Me making up a word is a neologism. A word clearly and uniformly defined by three sources, under editorial control, move the word from "made up in school one day" to the world of accepted, if not common, usage. An exact definition is used consistently by all three sources. The 6 other references show the usage in Lad culture. You are trying to attack the sources as unreliable, but still have not offered any evidence that they are unreliable sources, just your personal opinion. You say the sources are not under editorial control, but offer no evidence. Also, the article isn't about the word, its about the concept. The concept originated long before this word came into usage to describe it. I get the feeling your just arguing for the sake of a good entertaining argument. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It would be impossible to discover who is at the helm of funniestgadgets.com since their about us page does not contain any useful information. That website is also a blog which fails this relevant portion of WP:V: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Beyond that, the reference you have tried to make within the article is to a picture and not to any relevant text on the website, since there is none which contain the word "handbra." This is not a source. It should be removed, but isn't, since you and Alansohn have both camped the page and are aggressively reverting any edits that alter its current form. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Keep each time we look at it, there are more sources. One source that is unreliable among many does not mean we delete the article. The concept is certainly notable, the term is now the usual one. I fail to see the basis for the objections--over literal reading of not dictionary , it does not mean we delete an article that has a definition within it . DGG (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The article has 1 source. The rest fail WP:NEO or the criterion at WP:RS calling for published or editorially reviewed sources. This article will never have that. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks like you are doing some original research. What evidence do you have that the sources listed are not under editorial control, and which sources? The Guardian, eHow, and Zoo Weekly are all well established entities, whats your beef with them? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. For goodness’ sakes, the subject is notable, and the sources, though not great, are sufficient. Richard Arthur Norton has a point, whatever the article is called, there should be an article about this concept. This is the third nomination, let’s put some of this energy into expanding needy articles like this one, instead of trying to delete when they’re not perfect. --S.dedalus (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep but cut Personally, I don't think Handbra actually merits a place on an enclopaedic site like Wikipedia. However, the article's photo has been on Wikipedia for 2 years already and this article has been in existence for at least 1 year. So, perhaps it can be 'grandfathered' but reduced in size? Just a suggestion Leoboudv (talk) 06:02, 7 December 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.