Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Headless fatty

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Headless fatty

Headless fatty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Completely non-notable

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete The only people actually using this term are likely crude and in newsrooms without any considerations to the subjects they're covering. This is just a long way to say '
  chatter) 04:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Perhaps search engine bubbles are to blame here, but when I search for this string I get a list of hits in articles sympathetic to fat people. Indeed, that's all I get in the first screen's worth. -- Hoary (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: On the face of it, a mildly interesting neologism. We're told that it's the creation of blue-linked Charlotte Cooper (author) ... and most of the references to the latter article are to material by Charlotte Cooper (author). -- Hoary (talk) 06:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with a broader article on fat activism discourse, perhaps
  Fat Acceptance Movement. It's an interesting and relatively common term, but I don't think it needs a stand-alone article. Clawsyclaw (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment Please tell me in what way the FAM would regard this as a term they want associated with them at all. I've never heard it in commonplace conversation and you'd be justifiably thrown out of a room if you used it.
    chatter) 01:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Suggestions. Somewhere in en:WP there may be an article about the recently ballooned use by online news sources/recyclers of uninformative stock photos. (A ten-year-old article in theguardian.com about a crime for which no photo was available will have no photo. A new article on the same will have a stock photo, very likely of "POLICE LINE DO NOT CROSS" tape strung up in some place that can't be determined from the photo.) If anyone can think of such an article, then redirect this to it. If not, delete: it's a mildly interesting term from 2007 that currently has some use, but unremarkably so. (Google Ngram Viewer gives no hits for it.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non Notable Neologism. Carrite (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/merge There are entire books which cover this material, e.g. Obesity Discourse and Fat Politics; The Politics of Size; Body of Truth and many more. The claims above that the topic is not notable are therefore quite false. Andrew D. (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]