Deletion of Handbra (3rd nomination)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: as per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) the subject is sufficiently well verified and  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: that doesn't addres it's |notability, the primary criteria for it being kept on wikipedia
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: 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  is a non-issue and  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN||WP:NEO)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)