Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big (title)

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big (title)

Dicdef for a not-really-notable usage of the word "big" (Wikipedia is not a dictionary). Completely unsourced, as well. The term is used, I know, but do we need an article on this use of it? Originally tagged for speedy, editor contested it, so now it's here. Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I've never heard it used, although I guess it kind of makes sense. However, the article itself admits to it only being used at a cult level, and the title holds no importance outside of the cult world, very much unlike Sir and Doctor would (the two words which the article compared itself to.) tmopkisn ^tlka 07:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Michael 07:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's in a tiny corner of WP, but the article comports with my own knowledge and is a little more than a dicdef. Sources would be good. Comporting with my own knowledge doesn't meet WP:V.--Chaser T 07:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as dicdef. I know the term is used, but I don't think it needs an article. Tychocat 07:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced. --Huon
• Keep It is used on an everyday basis, not just in footballing circles. It is even referenced on the wikipedia article on Sam Allardyce. There are also other larger articles referencing cult followings on wikipedia, this article should not be disregarded due to it's size or due to some people not having heard of the phrase, as many other people have done.--Tommy legrand 09:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Unsourced, dicdef, colloquialism, the works. ~ trialsanderrors 09:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• The article purports to be about the (informal) title "Big" that can be seen in list of sportspeople by nickname. It purports to explain what qualifies one for the title. But the references cited do not even tangentially discuss the subject of the article, making no mention whatsoever of "big" as a title let alone discussing the qualifications for, awarding of, and revocation of such a title; and the explanation of why people are accorded the title is clearly the promulgation directly in Wikipedia of a novel hypothesis that is not supported by any secondary sources. Searching, I can find no source material that discusses this subject. It has apparently simply never been the subject of any published material. The entire article is original research. Delete. Uncle G 10:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G.--Chaser T 12:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom/Trialsanderrors. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 14:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOR Danny Lilithborne 21:35, 11 July 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.