Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common conception

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 delete. Kevin (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common conception

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod contested by article's creator. As I said in the prod template: "Mere definition of a transparent juxtaposition of two English words. No possibility of expansion into an encyclopedic article." Every combination of words does not constitute a valid topic (although the creator felt it necessary to automatically link every occurrence of the words "common conception" in Wikipedia to this article). Deor (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- This term is a well known, common, and notable term in philosophy, especially metaphysics. One can hardly have any discussion without first getting a grip on what is being discussed. I think this proposal for deletion is consistent with a popular belief that everyone knows what is and is not important just from first impressions, whereas philosophers actually do look beyond first impressions and intuition to analyze what is and is not appropriate. The article is a stub, and not that great now. However a belief that it cannot be expanded is very presumptuous (It is presumptuous to assume that its creation is just an instance within "every combination of words". That is the type of statement we might expect from someone with no expertise in the field at all.) Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article creator is Pontiff Greg Bard. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 02:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on this source (Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy) I think the concept is worthy of a Wikipedia article. This wiki doesn't seem to have an article on preconception. Pcap ping 02:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But we do have an article Prolepsis. Deor (talk) 02:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a dab in disguise between 4 different concepts under that name, so an article appears justified. Pcap ping 02:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per above keeps Madmaxmarchhare (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom and ~~possible WP:NEO~~ patent failure of WP:NOTDICTIONARY (first line says WP is not a jargon guide). [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 02:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is philosophical jargon, (just like Prolepsis) but not a neologism since it dates back to the Stoics. Pcap ping 02:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, koine ennoia "dates back to the Stoics"; common conception doesn't. Deor (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't speak English. The translation is from a source. Pcap ping 02:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that even if it is philosophical jargon as you say, Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide. Even if it's not a neologism, it still patently fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 15:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a bad habit to write articles about jargon-per-se. If I had my druthers I would also delete articles from the math domain like well behaved and if and only if; I haven't yet bothered to take on that battle and content myself with removing wikilinks to such things. --Trovatore (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe! I believe you would meet with unexpectedly strong opposition about trying to AfD articles like if and only if! They are indispensable parts of modern science. Maybe it's not only a feat of tolerance or laziness ...? ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 19:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linking (indiscriminately) is one thing, but do you really contend that if and only if shouldn't have an article here? Pcap ping 02:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Of course it should be mentioned in logical connective, but it should not have a standalone article. --Trovatore (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "philosophical jargon." Philosophers always attempt to identify the terminology that all reasoners should be using. There is a long history of terminology entering into common use which was first clarified by some philosopher. Philosophers do not use terminology solely for the benefit of its in-groups, unlike other more technical fields. The idea is always that the terminology is for supposed to be for everybody. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then there's even less reason to have an article. --Trovatore (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Whatever the noble goals of philosophers, terms used with certain meaning mostly by them are jargon nonetheless. Pcap ping 02:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Solely by them"? So then which is it? Inappropriate linking or appropriate? I think people need to cool it. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a tricky one. There's the Stoic philosophical term "common conception" which has reliable sources (e.g. Routledge mentioned above and The Sceptics By R. J. Hankinson). But the article has nothing to do with all that and seems to be just a definition of the two words. (And the article's definition is significantly different from the meaning of the Stoic's "common conception".) I'd say delete the existing article, but without prejudice against creating a future article on the historical philosophical term. Billgordon1099 (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If there's a genuine, specific encyclopedic notion to discuss, coming from historical Stoicism, with sources and everything, then we don't need to delete the article, just rewrite it. However in that case Greg absolutely needs to back off on the wikilinks. There's no way that any noticeable percentage of occurrences of the phrase common conception in WP are talking about the Stoic notion. The wikilinks need to be restricted to the ones specifically discussing the Stoic notion. --Trovatore (talk) 07:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Delete I am torn on this one. Most of the time, articles such as this are simply WP:NEO or Jargon, but I can't decide whether or not sources such as this are discussing a finite term or using the words together because they are both so common in philosophy. [this. If it is a concept, then the article can be written, but as it stands, the article does not make a claim to notability. Mrathel (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this article is actually talking about there being a philosophical concept of "Common Conception". If an article were created with that purpose and cited with sources that may or may not be there, then I would suggest keeping it. Mrathel (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Trovatore. And the contention that there is no such thing as philosophical jargon is the very height of absurdity. 65.46.253.42 (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the encyclopedia entry listed earlier proves the concept exists and has been written about in an encyclopedia before means I'd be happy to have an article about this topic. But before I vote in favor of that, this needs improvement. Right now, it is a dictionary definition. I need evidence it can grow to an article. =- Mgm|^(talk) 14:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as beneath dictionary definition-- probably anyone who can figure out "conception" as meaning something outside of reproduction can figure out what the phrase (as defined in the article) means without having to be told. Mangoe (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2009 (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.