Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hand-rubbing


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hand-rubbing

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

nonsensical article with little hope of citation; was created to supply link to Villain article. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep Agree absolutely with the nomination, and yet the article does seem to fit comfortably into the gestures category of which it is part. Ros0709 (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete since the article is a mess--it barely exists. This is one of those cases where perhaps a source could be found, but that is a very tedious business which, IMO, should have been taken care of by the writer. Once sources appear, once that book on hand-rubbing is published (it's not in my library yet), we can re-create--provided, of course, that that hand-rubbing is NOT for medical purposes, a meaning Google has plenty of references to. So really, for now, as far is I can see, this is OR. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as unsourced and notability not asserted. Bwahahahaha (/rubshands). I would have no problem with it if it has some sourcing. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Keep. I have no problem with the article in its current form. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ps. Do you think we could have an article on that thing that Howie does when he says "Open the case"? --Justallofthem (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * only if we can do one with Spock's (or McCoy's, for that matter) eyebrow lift, or Fonzie's thumbs up sign. Ayyyyyy! :D - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * update - I think UncleG is trying to fix the citational issue. I guess we will see in a few days how much success he has. I've removed it from the Villain article yet again, though; no connecting citation exists between hand-rubbing and villainy - any more between another kind of rubbing and hairy palms ;). -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  22:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to say, I am very impressed with Uncle G's work--if he can make this article work, he should even be able to wash the blood off of the hands of Orlac. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And the award for Obscure Movie References goes to... ;) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The sourcing issues seem now to be in the process of being addressed, making it a worthwhile article. I checked two of the seven sources the article presently contains, and they were bona fide and correctly cited. Jayen 466 23:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't diametrically opposed to the article staying, but it needed citation, and I didn't see how it was going to happen. I also thought the connection to villain was ephemeral. If UncleG's progress continues unabated, I will withdraw the deletion nom (tho' I am not sure how to do that). - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to withdraw the nom, you could bring it up here and, if no-one objects within say 24 hours, just close it as keep. Or just let the AfD run its course. That is just my two cents. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm of the same mind as Arcayne--I also didn't quite see how this could be sourced, but the master showed us. If UncleG's progress continues unabated, we'll all be out of a job. I'll gladly change my vote (even if this isn't a vote...) to keep. UncleG, well done, now on to Spock's eyebrows, my lad. And Arcayne, your Star Trek references are totally obscure to me--it's a cultural thing, I guess... ;) Drmies (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep non verbal communication is an active subject of academic and poplar concern, and I'm not the least surprised it was sourced. Likely there will be considerably more. DGG (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. A substantive and reasonably referenced article. GregorB (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - hand imagery is almost always notable. Bearian (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- this is a clear keep. Possibly there have been great changes in the article since it was nominated -- in which case I would encourage the nominator to demonstrate their good faith and drop their nomination.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (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.