Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overachievement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Overachievement
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the article gives no supporting facts as to why it would be merited, has no sources, and I don't think symmetry could be used as a reason to keep it, so I think it should be deleted. The term also gives relatively few Google hits (about 40k, as opposed to underachievement's 320k). Reinistalk 22:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, Google Scholar and Google Books results from serious sources in the topics of sociology and psychology are sufficient to demonstrate notability. Article needs sourcing and cleanup. --Dhartung | Talk 07:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note to Admin : The article has no AFD notice, and there are no versions in the history with an AFD notice. This looks like a malformed nom. -- Whpq (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Well known term. No reasons for deletion.Biophys (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - agree with Dhartung. There's plenty of research into this, and so there is ample room to expand on this topic. -- Whpq (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I created this article many moons ago. Just checking in to say that I don't have an opinion either way. Goodralph (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Same reason as Biophys. --Tikilounge (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2008 (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.
