Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idiosyncrasy

Idiosyncrasy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Idiosyncrasy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Poorly-sourced article that, when you strip out all the OR and uncited sections, is not much more than a WP:DICTDEF. First two sources are dictionaries, and most of the remainder are just passing examples of the word "idiosyncrasy" being used to describe something distinctive or unusual (in medicine, language, investments, and so on). Nothing other than the word ties together all these far-flung examples; the article is a Frankenstein monster of examples in search of a concept. The edit history is surprisingly turbulent, with frequent vandalism and sections being added (and later removed) to support someone's pet example of something idiosyncratic. The only part that seems like a well-developed and notable concept is "idiosyncratic risk" in economics, which could have its own article, but is currently a redirect to the bottom section of this article. 336 other articles link to this one, which makes me hesitate to suggest a straight-up deletion, but I think a delete and redirect to Wiktionary might be the best choice. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keep I agree in principle it should be a dict def, and furthermore it is a bit WP:OR. But the term seems to have significant, distinctive technical meanings in a variety of fields, beyond what a dict def can cover, which meets I forget which notability guideline. The article is likely to be useful to users. If the OR issue is too serious, we can draftify. But I think the best would be to keep and approve it. Llajwa (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  As a user who has just used the page, I found the page to be confusing as it was linked to me from the 2022 Buffalo shooting - Wikipedia article. I do appreciate the page however as I do find the article to have several very technical definitions, I find useful. None of them fit the use of the word from the article I was linked from aside from the loosely fitting primary definition in the article. The primary definition however is also marked as in need of citation which makes me distrust it as I believe it should. As far as deletion goes; as a plebian user I would say this page has been more useful to me than not even though it has left me more confused and in need of doing more research into the topic.

  I apologize for any misuse of this forum. 66.211.229.125 (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for this useful feedback! Llajwa (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)