Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idée fixe


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Idée fixe

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Dictionary definition as is clear from the first sentence "The term..." and the multiple definitions, so not an appropriate article as per WP:NAD, WP:NOT. Seems to have been created so it can be used to describe other editors, not for any encyclopaedic reason. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 17:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The article mainly describes a notable concept in psychology which is discussed in sources such as The history of mental symptoms. The closest English equivalent seems to be obsession but that article is a dab page which does not describe the symptom in detail.  There is some scope to rearrange this material to assist our readers better but deletion would not be helpful in this and would be contrary to our editing policy.  The musical concept should be split off from the article per WP:SPLIT as it seems to be a distinct tangent.  It is also my impression that the nominator has some history of conflict with this article's author and so the discussion would be best closed speedily per WP:SK #2.2. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - This term expresses a psychological concept that merits inclusion. While this exposition isn't the best, Wikipedia is by its nature a work in progress and there is no reason to believe that this is the end of the line for this article in terms of content. Carrite (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Prior to the formation of this article, the psychiatric and the everyday uses of this term were sidelined entirely to Leitmotif, which certainly is undesirable. The page Idee fixe is now a disambiguation page, as it should be. This article can be developed further; it is not a dictionary article per se, but begins a discussion of the psychiatric implications and provides sources for further development. The article will expand eventually to a fuller discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable psych concept. Nice to see Brews diversifying the subjects of his articles. It is unfortunate however to see old conflicts continue in a new arena. Keep the article, keep the peace (hopefully). Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * comment Colonel Warden, if by "some history of conflict" you mean I was one of the editors affected by Brews ohare's disruptive editing that is correct. Since the arbitration resolution of that I have put it behind me though I am still monitoring the discussions which is how I came across this. It still looks like a dictionary definition, with a part etymological definition followed by quotes, with as far as I can see no sources that "address the subject directly in detail", as per WP:GNG. If it is not used today it should be a redirect to the modern usage as for example Horseless carriage is. Otherwise it should start with a clear statement of the definition, something like " Idée Fixe is ...", as per WP:MOSBEGIN.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 19:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a minor rewording of the first line will make Blackburne happy? I have implemented this suggestion. As for the bearing of its no longer being a technical term in active use, it was a psychological aberration greatly discussed over decades at the turn of the last century, and it is still an aberration commonly noted in everyday English. The term monomania also is in disuse today, and has its own article, as do the topics phlogiston and luminiferous aether, despite having no everyday usage at all. Brews ohare (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * On the various usages there are now three articles with different spellings and capitalisation of "Idee fixe" where there should be only one, as per WP:D. The page at "Idee fixe" should either be the primary topic, as per WP:PT, or as I suspect is needed here a disambiguation page with Idee Fixe moved to Idee Fixe (album), this moved to Idee Fixe (psychology) if it is to be kept, Leitmotif added to the DAB page and DAB lines added to all articles. This can be done at any time though.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 19:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Treatment of disambiguation
 * There are various ways to handle the four extant versions of idee fixe: (i) the album Idee Fixe, (ii) the common spelling in English Idee fixe, (iii) the French spelling very often used in English too, Idée fixe, and the musical theme Idée fixe. The present implementation uses Idee fixe as a disambiguation page.


 * I believe a sanitized version of Blackburne's suggestion would be to retain Idee fixe as a disambiguation page and use a redirect of Idée fixe to Idee fixe. On the disambiguation page Idee Fixe would become Idee Fixe (album) and the present page Idée fixe would become Idée fixe (psychology). The musical usage would remain Leitmotif.


 * Blackburne feels that some such arrangement is more in keeping with WP policy. I'd say that the present arrangement is less cumbersome because the psychological usage (which also corresponds well with the common meaning) then can reached with the link Idée fixe, which will be by far the most common linkage to this term on WP. Also, Blackburne's organization means that the huge majority of those looking for the article on Idée fixe will end up going through the disambiguation page instead of getting there directly. Brews ohare (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * comment WP:D says "There are three important aspects to disambiguation [(i):] Naming articles in such a way that each has a unique title." So we can't have two distinct articles "Idee fixe" "Idée fixe" with names which are minor respellings of each other. I've already fixed the album as I don't think anyone would argue that an obscure Polish 70s concept album is the primary topic. But the others still need to be dealt with, after which it will be clearer what to do with redirects, DAB lines, etc.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 20:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * comment looking at the article now it still looks like a dictionary definition. It uses far too many quotes: as per WP:QUOTEFARM "overuse happens when a quotation used without pertinence", that is it is not explained. The quotes are presented with little or no explanation, so the reader has to deduce their significance themselves, while "Using too many quotes may detract from the encyclopedic feel of Wikipedia" – it makes it more like the dictionary definition at idée fixe. I don't see where it gives the definition of it as "notable concept in psychology" as it was described above: all the sources seem to be on other things where "idée fixe" is only mentioned in passing, except for a rather fanciful 19th century French paper (available here) which, being in French, tells us little about the use of idée fixe in English.
 * On the comparison with phlogiston that is a notable historic theory proved wrong by modern science, i.e. quite different from modern theory. If idée fixe is in psychology just another name for monomania then readers looking for Idée fixe (psychology) should be directed to that page, as readers looking for horseless carriage end up at Brass Era car. Otherwise, if idée fixe is something different from monomania it should be clear from the article how it is different and notable enough for its own article.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 06:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've reorganized the article to better present the distinction between monomania and idée fixe. Monomania is the more inclusive term. However, the more specific idée fixe is a very much more widely used expression. The quotations are, IMO, helpful in bringing out the meaning of the term in a variety of contexts. I've made every effort to meet Blackburne's objections, and suggest that he adopt a more collaborative stance. Brews ohare (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read the section of WP:Quotation on overusing quotations again, as the changes have done nothing to fix the problems, and have if anything made it worse by introducing yet more non-pertinent quotations, including in the references. The section breaks just make it clearer, with a section which doesn't mention the topic at all, another that consists largely of random unexplained quotes, and one which only has a quote with no explanation at all. Other than that there is nothing explaining what idée fixe is. It is compared to monomania and OCD in the first and third sections, but the only definition is a dictionary one (it is pretty close to the Wiktionary one) in the lede. And I don't know what you mean that I should 'adopt a more collaborative stance'. I have given plenty of indications what I think needs to be done to fix the article, though I can't do anything myself as I don't know what the psychological definition of idée fixe is, and the article in its current state doesn't tell me, or give references to e.g. a book or article on the topic.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 19:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, John, I don't understand the article as you do, and am at a loss as to your objections. Perhaps a bit of a holiday from this article would provide a clearer perspective for all of us? Brews ohare (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Discusses the concept sufficiently to warrant an encyclopedia  article.    DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 5 September 2010 (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.