Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odology


 * 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   redirect to hodology.  Sandstein  06:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Odology

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Spotted a link to here from the AFD for Roadology. The article as it exists seems to be a candidate for deletion owing to that it seems to exist merely as a dictionary definition of the word with little to no reference, other than a dissertation and somebody's homepage related to the subject - in short, lacking notability. It either needs fixing or should not be here.  Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 06:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - appears to be a neologism with little use. --NE2 07:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO - it is little more than a dic-def, and there does not seem to be an agreed meaning or evidence of widespread use. Wiktionary don't have it; curiously, they do have an Italian word odologia, which uses "odology" in the definition, and gives it as "study of roads, or of the fibres of the nervous system." Scholar hits all seem to derive from the word "meth -odology" being broken. Academia.edu shows just two academics who list this as a research interest - in the first case, it's probably the "nervous system" meaning. The Oxford English Dictionary has it meaning "The branch of science that deals with the hypothetical force called Od" which is "A hypothetical force proposed by Baron Karl von Reichenbach as pervading all nature and accounting for various physical and psychological phenomena"; it's marked "obsolete" but one can still find this meaning on the web. Conclusion: not enough agreement on meaning or evidence of use to pass WP:NEO. JohnCD (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an argument for a redirect to Odic force, surely? Uncle G (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Golly, how all-encompassing Wikipedia is - when I found that in the OED I thought it was really abstruse. This encyclopedia linked from that article looks a useful reference work. If anything, "Odology" is starting to look like a disambiguation page; but I don't think any of these three meanings is really solid enough for an article. JohnCD (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't oppose a DAB, but there doesn't seem to be much use of the word in the first place, John. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 15:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I agree, my !vote is still delete - the remark about a DAB was really in jest because of the number of different meanings that were turning up, but none of them is solid enough for an article, so there's nothing really for a DAB page to point to. Wiktionary-fodder, really, but I don't think it would meet their attestation criteria. JohnCD (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * John, I didn't catch that part. Blame me for not having sufficient caffeine in my system at the time of that post. And you'd think I'd know better.... -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 16:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have done some work for scientists who studied such things as the spontaneous formation of paths through landscapes through uncoordinated human activity, and they called their specialism "hodology". --Lambiam 02:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transport-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/REdirect to Hodology, which has the correct aspirate. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Marge/Redirect to Hodology, Although there really should be a specific term for such a science, this one doesn't pass any of the tests for an article. It's basically the same as Hodology which is the more prevalent term. Also, per above. --Triadian (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2009 (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.