Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophomore

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. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 00:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sophomore

Sophomore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Do we need an article? Discussions on the talk page have proven inconclusive so I ask for a wider audience. The article is basically a dicdef (a disputed one at that) and I don't see any way it can be expanded. One possible option would be to redirect it to second year or educational stages, but it is also used as an equestrian term. Or should we just leave it as a little article and accept that it'll never be more than that? violet/riga (t) 18:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Well written stub article Rackabello 18:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This article seems too much like a definition and essentially restates what the Wiktionary entry says. Icestorm815 19:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I've expanded some of the educational bits. There's much that has been written both in terms of formal "student career" checklists and in books and magazines. It could also be reduced to a standard disambiguation page, but I think there's enough for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I think your additions might be better in the tenth grade article that already includes references to this term. violet/riga (t) 20:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. In its current form, its an acceptable article, and even if it is nothing more, at least wikipedia has something on the term. People who search for the term would prefer to see this than nothing I'd say. THE KING 21:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect to Tenth grade. Nothing substantial to say here beyond a dicdef. Unless someone can rewrite the article to actually show some sort of notability to this concept, it's just another name for your second year of school. -- Kesh 23:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Second year. Lenticel made a good point below, so I went looking. Currently, Freshman redirects to First year, which is a nicely balanced article with multiple national views. The current article at Second year is Scottish-oriented, but could be expanded to match First year. We can merge the relevant info into there, and leave this article as a redirect. -- Kesh 23:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I looked at the tenth grade and other grade levels and I think it is a little bit ethnocentric (US, Canada and Australia mostly). I got curious of these grade levels because it is rare in our country (6th grade is the last level here and then the student becomes a High School freshman). If the grade levels were discussed in a world view I'll be okay with delete if those articles stay as is then the article is worth keeping to house the views of other countries.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment it does have the feel of a dictionary definition (the first source IS the Merriam Webster dictionary). This would be a cute subsection to a theoretical article called "high school". However, I don't know if it warrants its own article, unless it gets flushed out a LOT. Mindraker 00:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, as obviously something that ought to be in WP, which can be verified and sourced reliably very easily into more than a dicdef. Bearian'sBooties 03:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I think this has highlighted the wider issue of our coverage of years in education, with second year, tenth grade, and educational stages all being rather poor. violet/riga (t) 08:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. When I (as a German) first became interested in College Football back in the 1980s, I wondered what a Sophomore is. Freshman, Junior and Senior was easier to figure out. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       08:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • If you don't understand a word you look it up in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. violet/riga (t) 09:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Actually Violet/riga, I look everything up in Wiki. whether it be during college work, or at the job. This article is an acceptable stub. Viperix 03:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I understand the Wiktionary/Wikipedia overlap debate, but we shouldn't simply give out a dicdef. The question is whether or not the article constitutes more than that, and you believe it is which is fair enough. violet/riga (t) 07:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as WP:POINT violation. VioletRiga appears to have been waging a one-man war against the use of the word "sophomore" in music articles to refer to a musician's second album. Every time I use this word in an article, Riga changes it. And I'm not the first one to notice his extreme distaste for the term, which is now discouraged at WP:MUSTARD, apparently much due to his instigation. Sorry if you don't like the word, and all, but it's a commonly used term in both education and music, and quite encyclopedic. Chubbles 18:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Silly thing to say. You might note that I initiated this to be a discussion and haven't even voted to delete it myself. violet/riga (t) 19:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Most folks consider nominating an article for deletion to be an inherent Delete vote, unless otherwise specified. -- Kesh 19:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
      • In many cases, but I think the way I worded it was sufficient to convey that it wasn't really a delete vote. violet/riga (t) 19:49, 27 October 2007 (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.