Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senioritis

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 17:09, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Senioritis

[edit]

Please. This seems to be original research, and not notable in the least. C'mon guys and girls! Let's delete this one. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Let's not. I vote to keep. This is a nomination where I feel "not notable" means "I've never heard of it." It's quite notable in terms of American academics, and maybe Canadian, too? I'm not so sure about the latter one. Mike H 08:14, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • I would suggest a keep. It's obviously rather weak as it stands, but though not a real condition, "senioritis" is probably well-known enough to warrant at least a brief entry. RidG (talk) 08:14, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very common term in America. If the external link to the College Board doesn't convince you, 133,000 google hits might. —Korath (Talk) 08:22, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very common phrase, notable, not original research. burnt in effigy 08:41, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I wrote the original article and I respect any criticism. If the article is weak, please add your own words. But I think its a bit rash to throw it out because one user hasn't heard of a very common academic ailment. SkiMaxPower
    • If this is your first experience with deletionists, welcome to the dark side of Wikipedia! —RaD Man (talk) 11:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is well known, in the US anyway. — J3ff 09:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I had it, notable enough for me. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:43, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • You've got to be kidding, neoligism, delete--nixie 10:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It might be unknown outside the U.S., but it's not a neologism; it's been in use for at least fifteen years. (I had it also.) —Korath (Talk) 10:59, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, not a neologism but a well-known phenomenon. Gazpacho 11:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - the term gets 38,000 hits on Google. -- FP 11:14, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, well known term. Delist from vfd; invalid nomination. —RaD Man (talk) 11:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (although I'm basically a deletionist), not a neologism in the U.S. anyway. I heard it twenty years ago and had it 18 years ago. The article could stand some improving though; I wouldn't call laziness per se a symptom of senioritis. It's more a feeling of complacency, uninterest in schoolwork, and an overwhelming desire to just get these last few months over with. --Angr 12:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. This is basically an American slang expression for seniors slacking off. It is not a neologism but the article is basically a dicdef. --BM 15:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Simply because the word is "American slang" is not reason enough to have it deleted. There's precendent for this: Homie has been kept, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Homie. In addition, this article has already been expanded to much more than a simple dictionary definition and has the potential to be expanded further. — J3ff 06:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable? Yes. Neologism? No. Original research? Certainly not. Android79 15:19, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's only known in one country (the US), so it's acheived any notabiliity in the wider world. Miss Pippa 15:55, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. That something is only notable in one country is not a valid reason for deleting it. If this were the case, many congressmembers, musical artists, and celebrities would be deleted as well. I also dispute whether or not this is only known in the US, as my Canadian friend uses the term. Srcastic 07:34, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • It may be a common and established term, but the entry is still, at root, a dictionary definition (and I don't see how it can ever be more than that.) Transwiki to Wiktionary. Bearcat 16:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well, a question, really. Are secondary school students in their final year referred to as "seniors" anywhere outside the USA? Android79 16:11, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, but the precise usage and context may vary considerably. For instance, at my old school anyone in the last three years of study was a senior and had certain extra duties and privileges. Younger students were junior. Anyway, I think most non-US Wikipedia users are sufficiently familiar with US culture (via movies, TV and so on) that they understand the US usage. -- FP 23:35, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Whether or not it's notable outside the United States, it is a notable cultural concept, and is as noteworthy as any Toronto city supervisor or Pokemon trainer. As it stands, the article is very stubby, but lots of material can be added. Binadot 17:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. I don't see this article going anywhere beyond being a dicdef. Arkyan 19:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    It already is more than a dicdef. Gazpacho
  • Keep. Notable in the U.S. DaveTheRed 20:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Move either to Wiktionary or BJOAN. Martg76 21:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • What's so funny about it? It's a real term; BJAODN would not accept it. Mike H 22:24, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Yuckfoo 00:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This really is an extremely common term and concept in the United States. -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ld | talk 19:47, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It should, however, probably be cleaned up to show that it relates only to North America (or just the USA). Deleting something because it is only known in a small geographic area would slash wikipedia's content. Colin Angus Mackay 03:01, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It is a well known term and if it's only known in the U.S than that's just another reason to keep itDeathawk 20:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a legitimate phenomenon. —thames 15:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Kaldari 22:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Definitely well-known, even at the elementary school level in my area! If this isn't kept here, it should at least get an entry over at Wiktionary. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 04:23, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Reasonable topic on well-known term (even if only in U.S.). May be brief, but that's a good reason to expand it. — Jeff Q (talk) 19:23, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not only a well-known academic term, but one that has become widely used by analogy in the business world as well, for employees who're about to retire or change companies. --PHenry 22:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Could you add that in? I'm not that familiar...a source would be great. Mike H 22:26, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm really suffering from it now, in fact! Zantastik 02:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Senioritis&oldid=1138351636"