Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Handsome Man

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 delete.--Wizardman 16:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Handsome Man[edit]

Non-notable and unreferenced neologism. At best, redirect/merge to Big Beautiful Woman. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:NOT. --KZ ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 01:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference. Hardly a neologism. Why don't we just redirect male to female while we are at it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of keeping it. Most of it is covered in the other article. It also seems to be OR --KZ ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 01:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete neologism, entirely unreferenced ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Looks like somethong someone made up. At best, a neologism. Realkyhick 05:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not exactly a neologism - but it's not worthy of its own article either. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not exactly a neologism, in that it is a construct of recognised English words. But it is an artificial, constructed phrase with no wide-spread usage in reality. Certainly not encyclopedic, any more than any other phrase of two adjectives and one noun would be.--Anthony.bradbury 11:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no need for it, and there's no sources to boot. Gan fon 13:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and maybe redirect to fat bastard :o) Guy (Help!) 13:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability and no refs so failing WP:V and violaes WP:NEO.Telly addict 17:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not because there shouldn't be an article. Because this shouldn't be the article as it is unreferenced. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete barely a stub, let alone encyclopedic ZBrannigan 19:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. No sources with assertion that approaches WP:OR. Ronbo76 16:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is deleted, Redirect to Fat admirer perhaps? FiggyBee 17:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but redirect Delete stub of course. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary and in my view not really a place for such articles although these other fat fetish articles seem to prove otherwise. I would suggest redirecting to the page suggested if we must have such a page for fat fetishism. However I see the article Big Beautiful Woman exists and is quite valid. I say unless the article is expanded a bit and professional valid sources given just redirect. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 09:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 09:53, 20 March 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.