Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ironic precision

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. Geschichte (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic precision[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)

Original research. The references cited do not define the term, only use it. From this I conclude this is not a literary term, but a self-evident collocation. Three editors expressed the same concern in the talk page in the past. Lembit Staan (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having searched google scholar and my university library, I can't find any indication that the term is in use with any kind of specific meaning. Precisionism is a real aesthetic movement, but both Swift and Flaubert substantially predate precisionism, and I'm not convinced that the other cited writers (whom I know less well) have anything to do with it either. I think all of these works are just using irony, and being praised for doing so in a precise way (ie accurately and insightfully). Without even a definition of the term in circulation somewhere, this does not appear to be a meaningful concept for an article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The concept appears to exist, but there is nothing suggesting it is notable on its own. BilledMammal (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this type of phrase should be on Wiktionary and not Wikipedia. It's not a "style" the way the article would make you believe. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:04, 6 July 2021 (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.