Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Service 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   delete. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 03:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Service idiosyncrasy

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Term doesn't seem to be used anywhere Bhny (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - one citation means it's essentially original research. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Original research, completely unverified. I found nothing at all for this term at Google News Archive or Google Books. The article claims, without evidence or any obvious connection, that the concept is related to "asset specificity", which might suggest that article as a redirect target; but the connection is lost on me (and I suspect most readers), and I would oppose any redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Neologism with little if any usage. WP:NEO applies.  Another term this may be "hyperspecialization" (Harvard Business Review), which got some press and spiked briefly in Google Trends for Q4 2011, then disappeared.  --John Nagle (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2012 (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.