Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eidonomy


 * 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. I have to say this is the least popular scientific term I've run into on Wikipedia, but the keeps have the strongest evidence for their case. Perhaps this ought to be a redirect, but we'll leave that to the editing process Drmies (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Eidonomy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

1) The term "eidonomy" is practically non-existent outside of this wikipedia page, a google search barely produces 2000 results worldwide few of which can be considered trustworthy sources and many that use this same wikipedia article as source.

2) The reference from "museumstuff.com" (???) isn't a reference at all is it? the page contains zero information, it makes no sense at all to quote it as a source.

3) The article also contains debatable information (based on established definitions that have been long accepted by the scientific community) such as the statement "anatomy referring to internal morphology" when most serious medical textbooks do not specify this at all. I.e. human skin is an external organ and still considered part of human anatomy. Definitions of anatomy: Furthermore a distinct division between "external morphology" and "internal morphology" is dubious and lacks specificity.

In any case, I found different quotes:

The eidos or eidonomy is defined by Bateson (by opposition to ETHOS or ethonomy) as the norm of thought of a structured cultural group, i.e. the type of mental operations governing that group's common structure of thought.

which of course has nothing to do with external morphology, but also:

Morphology breaks down into two main areas: 'eidonomy', taking stock of the external appearance of an organism, and 'anatomy', which looks at the structure of a creature's internal organs

and this:

Other specialists regard morphology as a study of only external body structure, and anatomy as a study of internal structure, separate from morphology (e.g. Zakhvatkin, 1986).

and yet a different definition:

The description of insect skeletal system (eidonomy) is, as in most of the recent textbooks, too short, but clear and instructive.

but once again, considering anatomy as the study of internal organs is something that the vast majority of scientific community does not contemplate (hence the few/obscure results on a global search) and the discrepancy of definitions (see quotes) is the proverbial nail in the coffin. In my opinion the article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roastpenguin (talk • contribs) 12:24, 20 October 2013‎


 * Comments I think the article may just be poorly written, which doesn't necessarily warrant its deletion. I'll admit eidonomy is an obscure term to me, but it surfaces occasionally (~85 hits on Google Scholar), is mentioned in current works and seems to be rather popular with European authors in reference to taxonomy and nomenclature. This quote from Dubois & Jean Raffaëlli 2009 may help: "Taxonomy consists in two rather different subfields that use largely different methods and concepts. The first one, the ‘‘science of species’’, was called microtaxonomy by Mayr & Ashlock (1980) and eidonomy by Dubois (2008b,d). Its duty is to define, recognize and describe taxa of nomenclatural rank species." See also  So perhaps eidonomy is equivalent to the alpha taxonomy, the describing of species as entities, regardless of evolutionary studies. Dubois apparently gives a better definition in a 2008 French paper, but the term precedes that. It's possible that entomologists use the term somewhat differently than other taxonomists, maybe akin to "gestalt" or simply external morphology. Pending a better, clearer resolution, the article could be potentially be merged with alpha taxonomy and/or anatomy. --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article topic doesn't seem to exist outside its wikipedia page. Jordanee155 (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The above account has been indefinitely blocked as a sock abusing multiple accounts to influence a (different) AfD. A pattern suggests this !vote was made to hide the editors tracks and true intentions as a SPA. -- Green  C  16:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 26.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 16:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The scholar results clearly show that the claim this term does not exist outside Wikipedia is false.  There may well be some variation in how the term is used, possibly even two different meanings, but this book gives a definition virtually identical to the Wikipedia definition.  In any case, variation in meaning is not in itself grounds for deletion of an article—it might, however, mean that we should have two articles. Dubois discusses the subject at length under Taxonomic categories so this is definitely capable of expanding into more than a dicdef.  It may not currently be a fashionable means of categorising taxa, but it is still encyclopaedic and its scholarly status can be explained in the article.  Spinning  Spark  13:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep per Animalparty and Spinningspark. GScholar shows the term exists in the academic literature and as noted, the term is discussed in depth. An article on this topic can be developed, which is good enough for a keep. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge, as it may be better discussed in the context of various defns of taxonomy, but I see no reason to delete. --Mark viking (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 06:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)



Merge I think combining with a different context would be more appropriate for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XjiGsawyouthx (talk • contribs) 19:32, 14 April 2014 (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.