Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hodology

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. Catchpole 21:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hodology[edit]

The article itself claims this is a not-yet-notable neologism. Deville (Talk) 17:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be genuine scientific terminology, not just made up. Not everything is in the OED yet. See Google scholar. Leibniz 17:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the headache-inducing and jargon-filled results I got from a google search. Srose (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srose, google finds all sorts of stuff. Google Scholar (see above) is better for this sort of thing. Leibniz 17:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Yes, I realize that. I had several sources coming into this debate: one of them was the Google Scholar search that you did (except that I capitilized the term). I also had the result of a dictionary search and an inconclusive Google Books search. I chose to use the plain old google search because it does, in fact, illustrate my point. I wouldn't want to use the same source twice; I wanted to provide another one. I can provide the rest if you like, but it appears to be unnecessary. If you would look at my google search results, you'd see that my source confirmed the notability of this subject just as well as yours did. Srose (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were not aware of google scholar and therefore wanted to point out its usefulness, that's all. Leibniz 19:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Ahh, thank you, then! I find it very useful for history in particular. ;) I'm sort of trying to figure out why your astericks aren't computing into wikicode... hm... Srose (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Leibniz. It looks like the term is actively being used by the scientific comunity. The article needs expansion though. --- The Bethling ^(Talk) 19:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to [1] the term "Hodology" was created by psychologist Kurt Lewin (1890-1947) from the Greek hodos, meaning "path". Pavel Vozenilek 19:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I removed the (false) neologism remark and added a bit about Lewin (thanks to Pavel Vozenilek for the pointers). I still don't see how to classify the page. Michael Kinyon 20:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Especially after the addition of the Lewin cite this looks notable enough, though I would like to see it expanded to more than just some definitions. —David Eppstein 23:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above commentary. RFerreira 23:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.