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 keep. Majorly (hot!) 21:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Handbra[edit]

Handbra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Unsourced article that is pure original research on a non-notable topic. No significant reliable sources to provide verifiability. Fails all standards for inclusion, including WP:V and WP:RS, and also violates WP:NEO, WP:OR, etc, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valrith (talk • contribs) 03:39, 13 April 2007

• Delete per WP:NEO at the very least. --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 04:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but copy any useful content elsewhere beforehand --Lukobe 06:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - never heard this before, and as any woman will tell you, hands can't perform the key function of a bra. Deb 12:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep' - The referenced article in The Guardian, if you read it, should resolve any questions of reliable sources, verifiability, and original research. I've also seen the term used in lad mags, but a citation from the The Guardian should be sufficient. True, handbra is a neologism, but WP has many articles for neologisms (e.g. going commando, upskirt, badonkadonk, cameltoe, ad infinitum but I don't want to give you to many AfD ideas}. WP is not a dictionary of neologisms, but often these terms warrant a discussion of their significance in popular culture as well as photographs. The examples of pop culture significance (especially in the Janet Jackson example, the #1 cover of Rolling Stone) and the number of articles that already link to this one show why it is a worthwhile addition to WP. H Bruthzoo
• Weak delete or merge but I'll say keep if multiple reliable sources can be attributed.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I believe the article could use a few more citations. A quick google landed on a few riskee, but interesting links [1] and [2]. The term is real and interesting. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep When I saw the nomination, I was actually half-expecting the novelty product. Anyway, the term might be real but the article really needs more sources. The Sarah Michelle Gellar picture, for example, has nothing to do with the term. I actually remember the sketch and I don't believe just went back to verify that the term was never used. I also think the article still has a problem with WP:NEO and therefore it's even more important to place an emphisis on good sources. If those are provided, I'll gladly change my vote to keep though. Seed 2.0 19:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and add two more references --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep 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. "Hand bra gets over 9,000 Google hits exclusive of Wikipedia and its mirrors. Edison 21:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Added a reference from Online Press Gazette. Finding other citations from lad mags would not be difficult and finding examples easier still. Judging from the number of articles linking to it, it seems useful. Ghosts&empties
• Keep - two sources, not the best article but it does have enough to hang on by its fingernails. WLU 01:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless reliable sources discussing the topic are found before the end of AfD. No, those two don't qualify—they're passing mentions in op-ed pieces. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Google hits are not a very good argument, and what I'm seeing on Google is A) products named "hand bra" (which is not what this article is talking about), and...blogs. There may be more in there somewhere, but I didn't find it. I will happily reconsider if more and better sources turn up—I have no personal convictions one way or the other about this one—but right now, I'm just not seeing it. Xtifr _tälk 15:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still don't understand why you all find references so titillating, but here's another from the 12 April 2007 issue of Nuts (it's not the Encyclopedia Britanica, but it has a bigger readership and you don't need to look past last week). This reference wouldn't add anything to the article, but it does establish that handbra is a widely used term for a body position, not just glamour photography jargon.Ghosts&empties 18:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We find references "titilating" (sic) because of fundamental core Wikipedia policies like Wikipedia:Verifiability which states, among other things, "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Anything which is challenged and for which sources cannot be provided will be deleted. Beyond that, Wikipedia is about notable topics (as defined in Wikipedia:Notability), so we need evidence that this is a notable topic, and references are the only way to provide that. Note that references showing that several people use this term does not demonstrate notability. You have to find references showing that the term is widely used, and that, I'm afraid, is much more difficult. See also Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. What you've got so far might be better suited for Wikitionary, if anywhere. Xtifr _tälk 11:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an AfD debate or a purity test? As far as wide usage, this article already has three references, two from very large circulation print periodicals. Some wikipedians may not have heard this term because it is used chiefly in the U.K. (all three references) and Canada, but compared to many neologisms in Wikipedia, it has a very large audience as demonstrated by the fact that the large circulation references cited use the term, often without needing to explain it. In terms of notability and usefulness, the current cover of Rolling Stone (19 April 07), last week's cover of Zoo, the "Most Popular Cover Ever" of Rolling Stone ... this body/photography position is undeniably widespread and notable. The significance of the term in pop culture is one reason the term belongs in Wikipedia not (just) Wiktionary.

This term is analagous to barechested. While barechested photos of male models are very common, they are usually not documented in print as barechested because it's obvious. The same is true of handbra. Ghosts&empties 20:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. — The Storm Surfer 07:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. -- This can be sourced, it just hasn't been done properly yet. MrMacMan ^Talk 17:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete you've got to be fucking kidding me... we have an article on how to cup your breasts with your hands?!?!?!?! whats next How to wear a fig leaf ?!?!?!? ... nuke it.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there's no actual rational for deletion there, unless you are stating opposition based on lack of notability. WLU 12:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stating delete on the grounds of common sense. Last I knew it was possible to state delete and not have to cite policy. Then again i've only been an admin for two and a half years (longer than you've been editing wikipedia).  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:30, 18 April 2007 (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.