Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handbra


 * 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 Nacon kantari  20:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Handbra

 * — (View AfD)

Unsourced article that looks like pure original research on a non-notable topic. Prod was removed without comment. Valrith 22:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Big  top  23:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete obviously Guy (Help!) 00:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep / Cleanup - quite possibly Original Research, but wikilinks imply a need for the article. Josh Parris #: 00:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Be bold and take out the WP:OR if it bothers you so much, but that's no reason for the entire article to go. – Lantoka  (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and reference. Well written, and useful. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep with better references Lixy 21:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Maybe expand the article to include other common methods of hinting at nudity similar to the handbra? Either way we wont be running out of paper anytime soon, I can see some potential here. Superslash 14:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * very weak keep. The phenomenon is well-known, but the actual use of the phrase has not bee documented.DGG 02:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Take a look at what this article looks like after removing all of the material that is unreferenced to WP:RS and therefore unverifiable original research. It's empty! This is simply a neologism, so fails WP:NEO too. Valrith 05:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, and revert to a sensible version. Deleting the content while an AfD is in process is IMO disruption. Andrewa 10:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, but I agree that wholesale deletion during AfD is unhelpful. I've restored the content; I consider it unsourced OR but it should be there for everyone to judge. JamesMLane t c 17:17, 25 December 2006 (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.