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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDIC. This article is not about one coherent concept, but rather is a grab bag of concepts that happen to use the words "acceptable" or "acceptability". The first paragraph is a generic dictionary definition. Then it jumps into a very technical definition from formal logic (which might or might not be separately notable). Then it jumps to a philosophical concept invented by a Hungarian mathematician. Then it talks about the applicability of the generic dictdef concept to negotiations, but by way of an extended technical quote from a computer science paper? Then it goes on to talk about some other concepts that have "acceptable" as part of their name.
This (4 year old) article originally had 4 incoming wikilinks. Two of them I removed because they were just referring to the generic, everyday dictionary definition (e.g. "It maintains flavour and acceptability of traditional soul foods"). The other two were referring to social acceptance, so I retargeted them accordingly. The article is now an orphan, and I can't see any contexts where the article would be legitimately appropriate to link to. (Per MOS:OVERLINK: "Everyday words understood by most readers in context (e.g., education, violence, aircraft, river)" should not be linked). Colin M (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. This is a WP:BROADCONCEPT article, which means that it is fundamentally difficult to write, but also very important to the encyclopedia to have. Acceptability is an important philosophical and societal concept, one that is inherent in subtopics like acceptable level of violence or acceptable risk. Note that this article was created because prior to its existence as an appropriate redirect target, acceptable was a disambiguation page drawing links that could not be fixed because there was no article in the encyclopedia addressing the concept. BD2412T 04:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your last sentence: couldn't such links be fixed by unlinking them? As I said in my nomination statement, I can't think of any contexts where it would be appropriate to link to this page. Could you identify some? Colin M (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not think this would fall afoul of the provision I linked above from MOS:OVERLINK? What could we put at Acceptability that would enhance an average reader's understanding of an article like Acceptable level of violence? For that matter, should we also have a broad concept article for "level" that we could link to from the same article? Colin M (talk) 05:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would not consider this overlinking where relevant, as the link would contribute to the readers specific understanding of what acceptability is as a concept. The problem here is that it is big and so ubiquitous of a concept that it's like Air. People can't see that it is all around them all the time, and therefore fail to perceive its existence at all. That is why it is particularly important to have an article on it. "Level" as used here is merely a synonym for Quantity, which does have an article. BD2412T 05:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The big difference between this and Air (i.e. Atmosphere of Earth) is that there are hundreds of reliable sources that give significant coverage of the latter topic. Can you furnish any that have significant coverage of the broad concept of acceptability? AFAICT, none of the sources currently cited in the article do this, in that they either deal with unrelated technical concepts which happen to have been given the name "acceptability" (as an analogy, sources on Interpretation (logic) would be irrelevant to an article about the broad meaning of the word "interpretation" - i.e. the act of interpreting or making sense of something), or with topics that have "acceptability" as part of their name. Colin M (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't really accurate to refer to "unrelated technical concepts which happen to have been given the name", as if these were purely coincidental terms like the country, Turkey, and the bird, Turkey. Each of these concepts is a specific approach to the dichotomy between acceptability and unacceptability. The article could obviously be improved, but examinations of subtopic types of acceptability are inherently examinations of acceptability. For example, Acceptable loss is clearly a kind of acceptability. It would therefore be as odd to have article on the subtopics with no article on the supertopic as it would be to have articles on painting, sculpture, and lithography, but no article on The arts. BD2412T 22:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Acceptability (linguistics). As per WP:NOTDIC, notability of this general term is inherited from the various forms of the word acceptance, whereas the linguistics term is a specific concept. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous specific concepts of greater primacy than the one in linguistics. BD2412T 02:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which of these do you think the article should be redirected to? MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, you're asking which subtopic should the supertopic be redirected to – it's like asking whether "Music" should be redirected to "Classical music" or "Pop music" or "World music". If we had no article at Music, we would need at least a set index of kinds of music, and barring that the logical redirect target would probabty be Music genre. If there is no article on acceptability, we would need to create some kind of list of kinds of acceptability. BD2412T 03:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the other articles or disambig page do not currently exist, then the linguistic one would be the most appropriate at this point in time. However, I don't mind if the article is deleted instead, my suggestion was intended as an WP:ATD. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not think that such a thing as Acceptability exists? Or that it is not a notable thing? BD2412T 03:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No I do not, as per the reasoning above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But classical music, pop music, and world music are all a kind of music. The topics you've described do not have that kind of taxonomic similarity. It would be like trying to make an article about "classicality" and bringing together topics like classical music, classical antiquity, classical economics, and classical mechanics. Sure, there's some vague similarity among these topics that led to them being named with the same adjective, but you're not going to find any RS that discusses them as a group or a natural class of concepts. I noticed you recently added a "Further reading" section that includes a book about Acceptability (linguistics). I don't think you understand the degree to which this is a specialized term of art. Chomsky could just as easily have chosen another name for the concept like "naturalness", or "appropriateness", or "consonance", or "frumiousness". Colin M (talk) 03:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add a "Further reading" section. I would also note that a quick Google Scholar search returns over 1,400 hits for the "concept of acceptability", some of which are fruitful for their being a notable coherent concept by this name. BD2412T 04:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I guess Lightburst added it. Context is important when evaluating those search results. e.g. you recently added a quote saying, as a blanket statement, that acceptability "is a subjective construct that varies between users and in time". But the paper you took that from isn't talking about acceptability as an abstract concept. In context, it's talking specifically about the acceptability of assistive technology for the elderly. Colin M (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Irrespective of the context in this case, it is still making a general statement about the concept of acceptability, one that is made to identical effect by dozens of other sources on dozens of other areas. We are a general purpose encyclopedia. We can inform readers that what is acceptable to one person, or in one time, or for one purpose, may not be acceptable to another person, in another time, or for another purpose, without finding a source solely dedicated to the general abstraction (just as we can note that a Speckled hummingbird has a pointed bill without needing to source it from a book titled The Pointiness of the Bill of the Speckled hummingbird). There are, as it happens, books and articles that more directly address the concept of acceptability as an abstraction, but they are written in convoluted philosophical language, and I'm trying to make this article more accessible. BD2412T 05:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are, as it happens, books and articles that more directly address the concept of acceptability as an abstraction. Which ones? Vexations (talk) 11:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I cited, for example, the Frederick Schmitt article, for example, but only a snippet because most of the discussion of the concept in the article is densely worded (e.g., "Now, it might be urged instead that the model characterizes, not our concept of acceptability but the property of acceptability. But it is unclear just what property this would be, if not the one fully characterized by our concept"). There were snippets in works on logic that were clearly promising, but not enough could be viewed to gather a complete quote. I have also just added a reference to Alex C. Michalos, "Acceptability and Logical Improbability", The Popper-Carnap Controversy (2012). BD2412T 19:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For any other significant uses, the standard practice would be to include a "for..." at the start of the redirect target. Nonetheless, my !vote is to redirect or delete (just re-iterating, I don't mean to !vote twice). MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely room to improve here. We have Perfection, essentially the opposing end of a spectrum with this, so they balance each other. Brings to mind that old myth of the tall Spanish ships approaching South American natives, where, it was told, the ships being outside of the native experience, they simply could not see them. I see this, but understand those who might not. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per your point, I did a quick search for literature contrasting acceptability and perfection, and found a few interesting things:
Revista de la Lengua Inglesa: Volume 7 (1976), p. 44: "It is necessary to differentiate acceptability and perfection (or near-perfection). Either of these can be the goal. In secondary schools perfection is nearly unattainable, so their goal is acceptability".
Thomas S. Greenspon, Moving Past Perfect: How Perfectionism May be Holding Back Your Kids (And You!) (2012), p. 22: "Perfectionism is a combination of the desire for perfection, the fear of imperfection, and the conviction that perfection is the route to personal acceptability".
I expect that a more serious search would uncover discussions along more philosophical lines. BD2412T 05:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added two sources in which acceptability is discussed by philosophers: JSTOR25655305 and [1]. We can always WP:SPLIT off into Acceptability (philosophy), Acceptability (risk), etc, if/when this page gets unwieldy in size, but this top-level overview works fine for the moment. IMO, articles on concepts (one precedent I recall is Success (concept)) demonstrate the notability of the concept by showing that it's been discussed in multiple different contexts. Unless a sense is so technical and specific that it truly is distinct from the general concept, as Acceptability (linguistics) seems to be, there seems no reason a priori to think that "acceptability" as used in context A is fundamentally different from "acceptability" as used in context B. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Work has been done on the article since it was nominated. [2] Reading through the article as it is now, this seems to be a legitimate thing. Philosophers have talked about it and there is information in the article not found in related articles. DreamFocus 00:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete or draftify The original point of the nominator is still valid as of now, as is that of MrsSnoozyTurtle. The article lists many examples in which the term is applicable, but it doesn't follow from applicability that it's a broad abstract concept necessitating more than a dictionary definition to clarify its general meaning. The sources don't seem to to support this. Take, for instance this one, posted above: it discusses primarily logical premises, which inherently require acceptability, and so the term is discussed in that context. In the Machine Learning in Healthcare Informatics source, "acceptability" is simply one of several requirements for a practice in a critical field: again, no evidence that it's a special concept. Whether each specific instance of or concept involving acceptability is notable or not is another matter, but the general aspect of acceptability still amounts only to a definition. Avilich (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Avilich: What is the difference between acceptability and perfection (which was raised in a previous comment)? I am not asking with respect to the specific articles, but with respect to the concepts themselves. How do you know whether something is "acceptable" or "perfect"? How do you know what these concepts mean when applied to literally any random category of things? BD2412T 21:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to guess that perfection means meeting all standards of a given set of standards. Acceptability means satisfactoriness, or being close enough, by some arbitrary standard, to perfectiom. But this all concerns definitions, I fail to see the point. Avilich (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose you work for a company, and the boss gives you $20 to get a flower arrangement for the conference table for an upcoming board meeting. When the flower shop owner brings out the potential options, you can see right away that some look fine and some look awful. If "acceptability" is only subject-specific, and not a broad concept, then you can not deem any of the arrangments to be "acceptable" or "unacceptable" absent some source describing how acceptability applies to flower arrangements for board meetings. If "acceptability" is indeed a broad concept, then you don't need a source on the subject to be able to say that a given flower arrangement is indeed "acceptable". In this context, if one of the flower arrangements is "perfect" for the purpose, then perfection is merely a degree of acceptability (ergo, perfection is a subtopic of acceptability, as are Necessity and sufficiency at the opposite end of what is acceptable). The fact that acceptability is most commonly defined by reference to specific cases of acceptability does not diminish its breadth. It is the opposite—this is a fundamental topic, difficult to write about precisely because of its universality. It is as important to have an article on this topic as it is to have one on Beauty or Ephemerality or Notability. BD2412T 01:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At no moment did I say acceptability was subject-specific, only that the fundamental, non-specific aspect can be summed up in a definition; and that, as the nominator argued, this article is bound to be a simple definition followed by specific applications (more like mere examples), rather than an intricate analysis of what "acceptability" really means. Universality doesn't necessarily imply a large scope of philosophical or encyclopedic discussion: as a general principle, something can be defined by what it's not, and broad concepts tend to be lots of things, with no more than brief and superficial definitions that don't comprehensively describe what they aren't. That way, the more specific "perfection" can be the subject of much more discussion than the broader "acceptability", even acknowledging, for the sake of the argument, your contention that the former is a subtopic of the latter.
I also don't think "acceptability" can be compared with "beauty", "ephemerality", or "notability". Like "perfection", these are standards to be achieved, and so are more comparable to (say) "desirability" than "acceptability". It's easier to associate the latter term with mediocrity: a near-equivalent with regards to broadness and subjectivity, and likewise lacking in potential for a full article ("mediocre" is in fact a dab page containing a simple definition). Incidentally, wikilinking "mediocrity" would create the same problem as the one the nominator mentioned for wikilinking "acceptability"; given this, a dab page may well be the best solution for the issue here. Avilich (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental, non-specific aspects of beauty, perfection, and notability can also be summed up in the linked definitions. In fact, acceptability can also be a standard to be achieved when beginning from a given base position that will inherently be unacceptable (think of a chef with raw ingredients that would be unacceptable to serve as is). Whether mediocrity constitutes a subtopic of acceptability would depend on whether mediocrity is acceptable in a given circumstance. The function of acceptability does not change either way.
Disambiguation would be highly improper, however. We don't falsely disambiguate clearly unambiguous terms out of laziness. BD2412T 00:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I actually find the comparison with Notability apt, in that that page is also more or less a WP:DICTDEF followed by some tangential examples or concepts which are only lexically related. IMO, it should also be deleted. Apparently there was even consensus for deletion in a 2006 AfD, but it was later recreated for some reason. Colin M (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Articles on broad topics are hard to write. It's easier to throw one's hands up and declare that it can't be done and point readers to another wiki or confound them with an unhelpful disambiguation page than do the work. That, however, is the opposite of building an encyclopedia. BD2412T 07:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Split. I'm seeing plenty of coverage for acceptability in philosophy; in linguistics; and a few other fields; but pulling it together without sources covering it at the broadest level is a serious problem, falling foul of WP:NOR. If no primary topic can be established, this should be turned into a DAB; if not, this should confine itself to the primary topic, and the other material should be spun off. No opinion as to which the primary topic should be: that requires more analysis than I'm able to do in an AfD. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If anything is split out, then the philosophical concept remains the clear primary topic of the term, both by longevity and by historic importance. The linguisitic term is a relatively recent coinage and is obscure. All other uses are variations of the philosophical concept, and should at least be mentioned in the primary topic article. BD2412T 04:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A Google search for "Acceptability" returns over 80,000,000 hits; a Google Books search returns over 3,000,000 results. Obviously it is impossible in the span of time allotted for an AfD (even a relisted one) for these hits to be reviewed to any more than a superficial degree, but I have found Dov M. Gabbay, Odinaldo T. Rodrigues, Alessandra Russo, Revision, Acceptability and Context: Theoretical and Algorithmic Aspects (Springer, 2010), which seems very promising as a source. BD2412T 20:40, 23 November 2021 (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.