Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exogenous factor

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge. Article has been tagged for merging. Joyous 19:48, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Exogenous factor

An article already exists for exogenous. Exogenous factor is not a special term used in biology — it's just a factor that's exogenous. Brim 06:33, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep and expand. Exogenous is a disambig page with a brief description of exogenous factor. This article has the potential to be expanded. --Deathphoenix 07:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Then it should be expanded in the Exogenous article, but not here because Exogenous factor has no special meaning. If we have an article on exogenous factor, then we will need to have articles on exogenous hormone and exogenous Cushing's syndrome and exogenous virus. Exogenous is just an adjective that's used commonly in biology for a lot of things—and most of those things are not factors. Also, it's confusing to have the page named Exogenous factor since it sounds like it's a specifically-named biologic entity like Intrinsic factor. I suggest we either move the article to exogenous or come up with some other name for it, like exogenous (biology). — Brim 10:54, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
• The title is too specific, the majority of the article is just a restatement of exogenous, and the rest just comprises further examples of the use of the adjective "exogenous". Merge with exogenous until it becomes large enough to break out to exogenous (biology). Uncle G 18:45, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
• Keep, in definite need of expansion. Megan1967 02:19, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak merge of additional examples to exogenous. —Korath (Talk) 08:56, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Brim. Exogenous and endogenous are just English words. They happen to be used frequently in economics and biology, but there is nothing preventing anyone from using them in any context. We already have an article for exogenous, which mentions some of the economics and biology uses. This is bad enough, since it is just a dicdef. Tacking on 'factor' and creating another article just compounds the issue. Both this and exogenous should be deleted as dicdef's --BM 18:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to exogenous seem more appropriate. It can be broken out to a separate article when it's grown. (I note that it's an orphan so there is no complication about inbound links.) BM's argument that it's a mere dicdef is compelling, however. I will not object if the decision is transwiki. Rossami (talk) 22:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.