Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idiosyncrasy

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 no consensus‎. I don't see a consensus here, even for draftification. Editors are encouraged to take action and improve the article or bring it back to AFD at a future date. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idiosyncrasy[edit]

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

(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)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Articles on well-established but amorphous aspects of the human experience are some of the most difficult to write, but also some of the most important to have. BD2412 T 00:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article, at present, violates WP:BROADCONCEPT; it very obviously fails the "expert" test (the same person cannot be an expert of idiosyncrasy in the medical, linguistic, and economic sense without having to be an expert in multiple fields of knowledge). If the article is to be retained, this needs to be addressed. TompaDompa (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The "expert" test—which, as it happens, I created—is a guideline, and serves as a floor, not a ceiling. It describes circumstances under which a topic is not genuinely ambiguous, not whether a topic can be the subject of an article. Glad to see it cited, though. BD2412 T 18:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOTDICTIONARY (On Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by.), on the other hand, is a policy and applies in much the same way—this isn't one topic but several different ones. One solution might be to turn this into a disambiguation page. That's what we do for e.g. Specificity. TompaDompa (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I said before, articles on concepts like these can be the most difficult to write, but are also the most important to have. That a topic is relevant to multiple fields does not make a it multiple topics. BD2412 T 15:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Surely, if you read the article, you can see that it's not about "the concept of idiosyncrasy" but various different concepts all of which use the adjective "idiosyncratic"? An adjective does not a topic make (nor does a noun or a collocation, for that matter). TompaDompa (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        The article could stand substantial expansion and improvement, but the core concept remains independently notable. BD2412 T 22:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        There is no core concept though. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        There are 120,000 Google Scholar hits for "Idiosyncrasy", with the first few pages of returns including numerous scholarly articles on the generalized concept. BD2412 T 17:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Could you then pick WP:THREE of those scholarly articles on the generalized concept that demonstrate that it is indeed a singular topic? It might help others who are not yet convinced to see your point of view. TompaDompa (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Obviously many of these will quickly resolve to examples in specific fields, but Grant Allen, "Idiosyncrasy", Mind Vol. 8, No. 32 (Oct., 1883), pp. 487-505 looks promising. A second is Heather Orom and Daniel Cervone, "Personality dynamics, meaning, and idiosyncrasy: Identifying cross-situational coherence by assessing personality architecture", Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 43, Issue 2 (April 2009), pp. 228-240. A third might be Barry Smith, "Against Idiosyncrasy in Ontology Development", in B. Bennett and C. Fellbaum, eds., Formal Ontology in Information Systems (2006), p. 15. BD2412 T 17:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        The first of those seems to use "idiosyncrasy" to mean "a unique combination of elements". That does not match our article (does not apply to idiosyncratic drug reaction, for instance). The second uses "idiosyncrasy" specifically about personality. The third uses "idiosyncrasy" only once—in the title—and is a critique of ISO 15926 (or more to the point what the author considers to a be a misapplication thereof). This does not, to me, demonstrate an overarching concept. On the contrary, they use the word in completely different ways. It's an equivocation, really. TompaDompa (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you suggesting that an idiosyncratic drug reaction is not a drug reaction that is idiosyncratic? The concept of idiosyncrasy appears to originate with personality, and have been applied to other things thereafter, which is exactly what a good article will teach the reader about. BD2412 T 22:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        An idiosyncratic drug reaction is not rooted in personality, nor is it a unique combination of elements. So no, it is not a drug reaction that is idiosyncratic in the sense(s) used by the sources you suggested demonstrated an overarching topic. Some forms of drug-induced liver injury and Stevens–Johnson syndrome are examples of idiosyncratic drug reactions. A lesson in etymology is not the same thing as an overarching topic. These are different topics using shared terminology. TompaDompa (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        The article is not well-written, but an idiosyncratic drug reaction is one rooted in the unique characteristics (i.e., idiosyncrasies) of the person receiving the drug, rather than a quality of the drug itself. BD2412 T 22:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        That's not exactly true. Idiosyncratic drug reactions are unrelated to the regular pharmacological mechanism of action of the drug, but there are still drugs such as Lamotrigine that cause such reactions at a fairly high rate. That's a quality of the drug, to use your words. TompaDompa (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        How do you square occurring "at a fairly high rate" with occurring "rarely"? BD2412 T 01:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Compared to other drugs versus absolute numbers. Another example would be Clozapine and agranulocytosis. TompaDompa (talk) 06:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There doesn't seem to be an actual topic here, rather than a definition along with a list of unrelated things that happen to include the adjective "idiosyncratic". BD seems to think there's something here to write an article about (which I remain skeptical of), but even if so, there's nothing here that's salvageable that would help in that endeavor. WP:TNT applies, if nothing else, too. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. An idiosyncrasy is a unique or specific feature, making the central topic applicable across many fields in the same way an "Error" is - which has a strong example of what this page would ideally look like. This page does not do a good job of conveying this at present, but there is a singular topic of use here. A substantial revision may be necessary, but deletion appears very inappropriate, as it is on a distinct topic. SleepyOctopus (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC) — SleepyOctopus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Split into Idiosyncrasy (linguistics), Idiosyncrasy (pharmacology), Idiosyncrasy (economics), etc. This feels like several tangentally related articles bundled into one for no reason other than their names. Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [ User ] [ Talk ] [ Contributions ] 19:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest that the primary topic of the term is idiosyncrasy in people, which is (as indicated in the source I added to the article) can be contrasted against eccentricity; everything else is an evolution from that meaning. BD2412 T 21:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure there necessarily is a primary topic, but at any rate the current scope is very different from this suggestion. TompaDompa (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Most of the topics are not called "idiosyncrasy" at all, but "idiosyncratic something". The only other article with "idiosyncrasy" leading the title is Idiosyncrasy credit, which is squarely about the human form. BD2412 T 22:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - That has indeed been a point made about why the current state of this article rests upon an improper foundation, including by me above. TompaDompa (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        The other uses still derive from the original meaning. BD2412 T 23:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure, but shared etymology does not a singular topic make. TompaDompa (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        It's more than a "shared etymology", though. Hippopotamus and Hippocampus have a shared etymology, but no one would suggest that they are related in a derivational sense. An idiosyncratic drug reaction or economic development or linguistic convention is a one that is reminiscent of human idiosyncracy. BD2412 T 23:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        We can go stricter: using the same word doesn't make it the same topic. TompaDompa (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a coatrack article then. Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [ User ] [ Talk ] [ Contributions ] 16:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus so far. Relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no coherence in the article or its sources that indicate anything beyond multiple dictionary usages of this word, not the job of a Wikipedia article. We already have idiosyncratic drug reaction; there may perhaps be scope for one or two other articles on idiosyncratic things, but this one is DICDEF or SYNTH (according to taste) and needs to be deleted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep article needs to be worked upon, not deleted. We are encyclopaedia, this is an acceptable topic for encyclopaedia rather than social media influencers, person starring in three films/tv shows, or played one game, or won a beauty pageant. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think BD2412's perspective is very respectable, and an article on idiosyncrasy could be of great value across disciplines. That being said, the current article is confusing or unhelpful for readers (per the IP comment), with an ill-defined scope that makes accusations of WP:NOTDICTIONARY very valid. I wonder if this is one of those rare cases in which draftification might be a good way forward. On the other hand, one question in the back of my mind is whether an article on idiosyncrasy could be written without violating WP:OR. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have no objection to draftification. BD2412 T 03:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for clearer consensus, which currently is split.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if people want to Draftify it and start afresh then fine, but please don't bring it back in anything like its current state; it must be a single coherent topic, as demonstrated by (future) sources. I'm skeptical that it can succeed but splitting may have some merit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2024 (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.