Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endogenous


 * 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 with no prejudice against further editorial solutions.Tikiwont 12:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Endogenous

 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; etymologies belong in Wiktionary (note that the article's only category is Category:Etymology, and that the article title is an adjective, not a noun). Powers T 16:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The level of detail in these pages goes beyond a typical dictionary definition. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Endogenous has only eight sentences. That's not much detail.  Powers T 16:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; Just a stub article, but still more than a dict-def. A quick search on wikipedia turns up several related topics that could be included. &mdash; RJH (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per RJHall. Stifle (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename Endogenous to Endogeneity (current stub paragraph in Endogeneity not worth keeping) and rename Exogenous to Exogeneity, and replace with redirects, in line with Naming conventions (adjectives) - "adjectives be redirected to nouns". Gandalf61 12:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Endogeneity seems to be a neologism unique to Wikipedia. I believe the proper noun form is Endogeny (and thus Exogeny).  Powers T 12:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm ... I can see the parallels with autonomous/autonomy, but counting Google hits gives endogeneity:830,000, endogeny:12,600, exogeneity:244,000, exogeny:558. That's not a reliable source, but those figures do look rather one-sided. Maybe we need an expert opinion - I'll ask at the Language Ref Desk (mostly out of curiosity). Gandalf61 14:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if we're talking Google, then it usually links to a definition for recognized words. "Endogeny" is recognized as a valid word but "exogeny," "endogeneity," and "exogeneity" are not.  Also, dictionary.com shows the American Heritage dictionary listing with "endogeny" as the noun form of "endogenous".  Just for extra-special confusion, though, dictionary.com's own "unabridged" definition shows "endogenicity" as the noun form.  No mention of endogeneity anywhere.  Powers T 19:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked on the Language RD, but only got one response:
 * "According to the OED, endogeneity is the word for "the fact of being endogenous"; endogeny is a synonym of endogenesis ("the production of structures or bodies within the organism"). Wareh 17:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)"


 * So both words are apparently in the OED. I don't have a strong view on which is the more appropriate noun form for an article title. Gandalf61 09:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment We also have an article endogenic and exogenic, which seems to be describing the same concept as endogenous and exogenous, although specifically in the context of geology. Gandalf61 14:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. These are both significant and notable concepts in biology, regardless of the current state of the articles.  No opinion on renaming.  Someguy1221 21:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Agreeing with Someguy with regard to biology. Hordaland 18:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep/Merge Keep per RJHall and merge all the articles into one possibly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthdirt (talk • contribs) 03:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Combine and rename. I note that if one searches for intrinsic or extrinsic, one is redirected to Intrinsic and extrinsic properties.  That makes the title a noun and may be a good way to combine endogenous and exogenous, avoiding all the noun-suggestions starting with endog- - . Hordaland 09:13, 10 November 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.