Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idiosyncratic usage
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (already transwikied). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No more than a dictionary defination Joey Roe
- Move to Wiktionary. EvilPhoenix
- Keep, important topic in linguistics. Kappa 23:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Kappa's votes are idiosyncratic. RickK 04:28, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Dicdef. Quale 05:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "Idiosyncratic usage" is not a technical term of linguistics. --Angr/comhrá 06:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "Idiosyncratic" by itself is. Kappa 08:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure "idiosyncratic" is a technical term of linguistics. Linguists use the word, but I woudln't say they use it with any specialized meaning distinct from its everyday meaning. --Angr/comhrá 06:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "Idiosyncratic" by itself is. Kappa 08:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, redir to idiosyncratic. Radiant_* 09:18, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Um, at the moment, idiosyncratic is a redirect to idiosyncratic usage. (Up until eleven days ago, idiosyncratic was just a blank page.) Anyway, isn't there a policy or semi-policy that article names should be nouns, not adjectives? --Angr/comhrá 06:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as well as idiosyncratic inclusionists. :) Gmaxwell 21:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.