Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Received view

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 Conventional wisdom. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 12:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Received view

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This has remained an unreferenced dicdef for nearly twelve years. Possibly redirect to Received view of theories. bd2412 T 00:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom as a valid search term, this doesn't seem like it can ever be anything more. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~leaning keep~~ but suggested redirect is definitely wrong. Most usages of "received view" follow that given in the article, which is not the same thing as the positivist notion. It is rather pointless to say that references to the received view on a topic in a field don't mean anything, which is in essence what the redirect implies. Possibly there is some other redirect/merge which would be better. Mangoe (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: Did you find any references supporting this use of the term though? Because that's the main issue, that this article has been a bare-bones nanostub since forever. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: I said "leaning" because I'm finding a lot of uses of the phrase that match what the article says. Not having the time to search further at the moment it is certainly possible that it ought to be deleted as a DICTDEF, but it's also possible that it should be merged/pointed somewhere else. The suggested redirect, however, is definitely a problem. Mangoe (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Received wisdom points to Conventional wisdom. bd2412 T 01:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to conventional wisdom, which is roughly what the term means in plain language. I can't find any epistemologists specifically looking received views as a WP:BROADCONCEPT. The process by which views gain consensus and start seeming obvious and being passed down as received is of course the primary focus of sociology of the history of science, but that's pretty vague; if we had an article on scientific closure mechanisms in Pinch & Bijker's classic sense [1], I might argue for a redirect there, but we don't. I don't think received view of theories is appropriate; there are (classically) received views for all kinds of fields and philosophical questions, and that just happens to be the one for the question, "what is a scientific theory?" FourViolas (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to conventional wisdom per FourViolas. XOR'easter (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (to Conventional Wisdom). There certainly are usages of this term, both in general and scientific literature (interestingly usually in modern articles, referring backwards in time), however there doesn't seem anything beyond direct usages or it, rather than discussion of the term. Thus I think the DICDEF justification is valid (and sound). Nosebagbear (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to conventional wisdom per above discussion. Mangoe (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2018 (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.