Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good sense


 * 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. WjBscribe 06:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Good sense

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

There seems to reason whatsoever to regard this as a topic distinct from common sense, and the article gives no support for the notion that reliable sources exist showing an established and notable distinction or concept here. Wareh 18:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This article I made major improvements on April 27th from what it was as a stub previously. One day later it is then nominated for deletion with no discussion as to what the problems might be. There is no Talk or comments by any editor in Discussion of this article, so I can not know what seems to be the objection to the improvements. If there were specifics and some Talk perhaps then corrections could be made. Shouldn't there be steps made to improve the article instead of just nominating it directly for deletion. I noticed there are steps for deletion of an article, however there is also a policy to be bold in updating pages. There was no attempt by the person that nominated it for deletion to make improvements - he just wanted it deleted directly. Seems like there should be steps taken to improve the article before directly deleteing it. There was no time given (one day) for any other editors to work on the article before it was nominated for deletion. Other editors should be allowed to work on the article to get Third Opinions. The nominator for deletion should assume good faith and try to improve the article instead of just directly deleting an article, just because it doesn't meet their style or what they like (personal preference). When it was a stub it was not nominated for deletion, so apparently the nominator didn't like the improvements I made and went directly to deleteing it instead of trying to make any improvements or even discussing what improvements could be made or even allowing other editors to work on the article. I would think other editors should be allowed to work on the article and there should be "Third Opinions" from several other Editors before deletion. Just because a person does not like the improvements made by a certain editor shouldn't be an "excuse" to delete the article totally. The policy of improving an article should be done FIRST, instead of just jumping directly to DELETE and bypassing all Policies set up. If an editor can get away with that, then they will always just DELETE the article TOTALLY when any improvements are made that doesn't meet their personal approval (therefore regulating its design and regulating the improvements made or if any improvements could be made to a particular article). They could then do this to ANY other articles as well. This could then be taken a step further and this original editor could solicit other editors to help in deleting an article that is not within the taste of the original editor, therefore "stacking" votes in his favor to delete an article, like in these examples:  and  and  and . Up until now no other editors have found anything wrong with this other article I improved of Nous, which this same editor is soliciting other editors to help in deleting that article I worked on. Then the next step would be a version of "sock puppertry". --Doug talk 17:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply to accusations. I have not canvassed for the deletion of Nous (or this article).  I think Wikipedia should have a quality article on nous, and the postings of mine Doug links are quite obviously (unsuccessful, by the way) calls for knowledgeable editors to assist in cleanup.  I've now explained this, and the reasons why the article needs cleanup, at Talk:Nous.  This seemed appropriate to point out; I won't address the ludicrous insinuation of "sock puppertry" (sic) here.  Wareh 18:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There are several definitions for common sense and this article is just showing a "relationship" to one of its definitions. One of the definitions to Common Sense is:
 * what people in common would agree: that which they "sense" in common as their common natural understanding.
 * This article is not of this characteristic and is not defined as: that which they sense "in common" as their common natural understanding.


 * Good sense is defined in the first line as:
 * from the viewpoint of a practical application.


 * The article is not what people in "common" feel but is related to "good". The point being that "Good sense" is different than "Common sense". It is therefore unique! The article on common sense relates to what people in "common" feel. This article is unique in that it relates to what is "good" or "practical" - not of that which is "common". The idea as it relates to "good" has been much referenced and there are many sources provided showing this in the article. While good sense has common sense in it, they are not one and the same. Good sense has one definition (related to practical knowledge), while "common sense" has several definitions. Good sense is not necessarily what people "in common" feel; otherwise we wouldn't have rules and Laws. I have shown that Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1971 definition of good sense is sound judgment often instinctive or unlearned. The article on common sense gives several other definitions, many pertaining as to what people in "common" feel. Good sense could be a minority of people (i.e. those educated in practical applications). People in general (in "common") don't necessary have practical knowledge; otherwise we wouldn't have so many fat Americans. It is good sense to be within your correct weight range for your height, however apparently it is not "common" as the average American is at least 20% overweight. It is good sense to not smoke, however it is "common" that people in general do - even though they realize it is not practical and can lead to early death and many illnesses. --Doug talk 20:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is about something established, notable, and unique. In other words, there is no good sense (practical reason) in deleting this article. Lately I have made several major improvements to the article to address some of the issues brought up (i.e. delete dictionary definitions, better references). Had there been discussions I could have made the improvements before this article was just nominated for deletion directly right away (one day after initial improvements made from it as a "stub") because the nominator didn't like the improvements made (didn't meet their personal approval). A nominator should work on improvements, not work on just deleting work done by someone. --Doug talk 13:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominator. My entire point is what Doug says above: definitions in terms of "sound judgment often instinctive or unlearned" or "practical knowledge" are not, under any established or reliable definition, outside of the scope of common sense.  Wareh 20:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is not if these definitions are within the scope of that for "common sense"; the point is if this term is a previously shown term by another source (established) and if it is unique and notable. This term fits all three:
 * The article shows that Antonio Gramsci established the term.
 * The article shows that the term is unique: several definite definitions with references for good sense.
 * The article shows that the term is notable by Diana Coben who wrote several books and articles showing the difference.--Doug talk 13:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete with the overall article being a mixture of OR and dictionary definitions. The part worth preserving somewhere is the list of references. Possibly a good article could be constructed based on these sources;  this phrase may or may not be distinguishable from common sense, and I can't tell that without knowing what the sources have to say. The article itself provides no evidence. DGG 21:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So why not read what the sources have to say? That's what source citations are for, after all.  I suggest starting with the paper by Coben that is cited in the article. Uncle G 01:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The phrase defines it as being from the viewpoint of a practical application:
 * The article shows Gramsci explains it as implicit in practical life in his "philosophy of praxis".
 * Continuing it says: .....when applied with prudence (wisdom with regard to practical matters):
 * The article shows the Catholic Encyclopedia in item 3 as the ability to judge and reason in accordance with those principles ("recta ratio").--Doug talk 13:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. No opinion, but if the article is not kept, it should redirect to common sense instead of being deleted. YechielMan 04:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete dictionary definition--Sefringle 04:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Dic def, eh?  Let's look in the dictionaries then:  from the OED good sense is the same as one of the defs of common sense, and from websters thesaurus they're the same thing (couldn't find that one online, though).  Someguy1221 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The point isn't if certain dictionaries have the same definition for each, but is if this article is about something "notable" and "unique". The article is! --Doug talk 23:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The argument that dictionaries give the two as entirely synonmous with one another is an argument that the concept here is not unique, and not distinct from the concept of common sense. Your counterargument is to point to a reliable source that demonstrates that there are two distinct concepts here. Uncle G 01:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The article itself points this out with Diana Coben's books (some are with ISBN numbers) and articles about Gramsci and Paulo Freire papers talking about the differences of the two. In # 3 under The term "common sense" designates it references the Catholic Encyclopedia and the meaning of "good sense" (also being of the "right reason"). In the article I pointed out that good sense is closely associated with (synonmous) common sense - however it is unique in that it is an established and notable separate term and expression; which is associated with the word "good" and the word "practical". It points out common is to a particular period and a particular popular environment. Good sense is associated with 'practical consequences' or real effects - where "common" means it is mutual and a belief = where good or practical are not an issue or not a part of the belief. I gave the example that smoking is quite common (a large population smokes and it is quite common in a crowd of people of the general population), however it is not good sense (meaning it is not practical or good). The article points out Gramsci says good sense goes beyond "common sense" to become a critical conception.--Doug talk 16:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In the Article under FootNotes: - The Study of Philosophy it defines good sense as practical and empirical as defined by Antonio Gramsci. He further defines "common sense" meaning the incoherent weight of generally held assumptions and beliefs "common" to any given society. Key: "common" verses "practical".--Doug talk 21:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article doesn't establish that "good sense" is a notable concept in the history of philosophy and significantly different than common sense. The two concepts seem to be different in the thought of Gramsci, but the place for that material is Antonio Gramsci--unless it can be shown that his concept of "good sense" has had a significant impact on the development of philosophy (or critical theory, political theory, whatever). In addition, the stuff in the first few paragraphs that aren't about Gramsci seem to be original research, specifically a "synthesis of published material serving to advance a position." --Akhilleus (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Reference Diana Coben's book "Radical Heroes" (Gramsci & Freire) ISBN 0-8153-1898-7 and The Study of Philosophy Colorado College.--Doug talk 19:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Doug, it might be helpful if you explained why those references are relevant. If they demonstrate how the concept of good sense is important outside of Gramsci, it will not be difficult for you to give a relevant quote. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia item (3) first paragraph of the definition of Common Sense says:
 * (3) the ability to judge and reason in accordance with those principles (recta ratio, good sense). --Doug talk 19:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem to have much to do with Gramsci. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the work that Doug cited (the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, by the way, not the "New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia") presents the two as synonymous. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Clicking on the link in the upper left had corner it says "New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia" - that's all I can go on. Is that not correct?--Doug talk 23:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Look at the section entitled "publication information" on that page. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What I was going to say. Also, New Advent is the name of the website that has republished the encyclopedia online, now that the copyright has expired. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:47, 2 May 2007 (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.