- 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. Michig (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sesh (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)
This is at best a dictionary definition--the article is nothing but a set of meanings ascribed to the term, which doesn't appear, from the sourcing, to be an important one. Note also the original research, particularly, of course, in a note explaining the results from Google searches in 2008, which can't even be accurate since the internet hadn't been invented. I think. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh come on. This article is this guy's life work [1]. I wouldn't want to see that go down the drain. That seems a bit ... vish. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. The term isn't really of particular importance to any of the groups identified to be using it within the the article. This slang should really go, as it's just a dictionary definition, even though it's well sourced (hence the weak).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is a contraction rather than a discrete topic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2015 (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.