Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Folie de pourquoi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. Sandstein 10:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Folie de pourquoi

Folie de pourquoi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Reference given is a three word definition. Gsearch only gives a book that lists the term in a passing mention. Previous prod was contested. Fabrictramp 16:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Move to Folie du pourquoi, the correct term (note "du", not "de") and one found in hundreds and hundreds of medical dictionaries, including many found on a Google search. Alternatively, transwiki to Wiktionary. I think that if something shows up in numerous independent medical dictionaries it's likely to be notable, but it may only be a dicdef. --Charlene 17:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and move per Charlene. If this appears in medical dictionaries and encyclopedias, it is worth keeping, even if it is only a historical description of a rare symptom, and is unlikely to expand past a stub. Some subjects can be exhausted by stubs, but remain worthy of keeping, and this sounds like it might be just such a thing. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • nominator's comment: the name change sounds quite reasonable to me.--Fabrictramp 19:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep (and move per Charlene). I found a 2005 textbook reference, albeit brief, labeling it a rare subtype of OCD. --Dhartung | Talk 20:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've moved the page since this should be done in any case. Although I have to say I'm still not convinced that we can reasonably expect this article to be anything but a sub-stub. Why not simply list it in the "Symptoms and prevalence" section of OCD? Pascal.Tesson 21:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment Because it isn't a symptom of standard OCD. It's a separate form of OCD. Listing it under "Symptoms and prevalence" might lead people to think that it was a common symptom of standard OCD, which would be misleading. --Charlene 00:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwikify and delete if all that can be said is that it is defined in medical dictionaries and textbooks. That's the very essence of a dicdef. DGG (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • weak keep - I'm not convinced that there is no literature on it; is there a "Wikiproject Psychiatry" that we can get involved in this? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
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.