Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big hair

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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 02:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big hair

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is basically a pseudo-article. We might as well have Ugly socks or Funny noses or Fat butts articles. There are no inclusion criteria, and to the extent that the subject matter can actually be approached in a sourceable manner (NB: the article cites zero sources), the individually named and known hairstyles that could be covered in the article, which have nothing in common at all other than that someone has a personal opinion that they are "big", have (in most cases) or could have their own proper articles. And "big" compared to what? Pretty much all non-conservative Western hair before 1995 would be considered "big" by today's standards, but will probably be "small" by standards in 2035 or whenever. Anyway, this non-article has had multiple people demand its AfDing since 2006, so I'm taking the time to make it official. I was actually shocked to find it a blue link when I ran into it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 08:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the expression is common, but I doubt it's encyclopedic. I presume we've already got articles on all the hair styles that would qualify for this moniker, so nothing lost. Rklawton (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've slightly expanded the article and added references. "Big hair" is in fact a standard general label for a wide variety of flamboyant and large hair styles, and as such the phrase has a surprising number of Google Scholar and Books references. I've cherry picked a few of them and added them to the article. Not identical or limited to bouffant styles. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep - as a "meta" hairstyle, "big hair" is definitely a cultural/class phenomenon in certain regions of the U.S. and is recognized as such; on the election of G.W. Bush, Time magazine published a silly "politics and fashion" article call "Come Back, Big Hair - All Is Forgiven", which said almost zilch about "big hair" itself. There's now a good start on sourcing and the article looks improved. Studerby (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fully sufficient sources DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets all Wikipedia guidelines --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is basically a pseudo-nomination - a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT without any basis in policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its in Webster dictionary, this a real thing. [1] Dream Focus 00:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well sourced. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2010 (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.