Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (4th nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 keep. No consensus to delete, strong arguments were made in favor of keeping. This was somewhat the outcome of the previous AfDs as well. Tone 08:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of common misconceptions

AfDs for this article:

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

List of common misconceptions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a list of trivia by definition; it has inconsistent and sometimes very poor sourcing. Despite being AfD'ed previously, sourcing has not improved mostly because the broad variety of subjects and mass-appeal nature of explicit sourcing rules out many academic and high-quality sources. Article is highly unlikely to reach a workable state at any point in the future, and well-sourced entries can be moved to the appropriate article.

Tell me all about it. 22:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like many other problematic Wikipedia 'list' articles, this suffers greatly from having no clear criteria for inclusion. To my mind, if the criteria for inclusion aren't evident from the title, and instead have to be fought over repeatedly, one has to conclude that they are not only subjective (as deciding what exactly 'common' means for example clearly would be), but more generally subject to the whim of whoever currently wishes to make the most fuss over them. Which ultimately means that the contents of the article aren't decided by Wikipedia policy (e.g. on notability), but instead by popular vote. Which would seem to me to be contrary to the stated objectives of this project. I know that "it isn't encyclopaedic" is generally considered a poor argument at AFD, but in this case I have to suggest that an amorphous collection of random poorly-sourced trivia gathered together by people who can't agree what exactly it is they are compiling makes for poor encyclopaedic content. 86.149.219.138 (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. It's had well over a decade to correct the issues (check the first AfD and prepare to experience deja vu), and yet it's never done so. If 12+ years of editing can't fix it, it can't be fixed.
Tell me all about it. 23:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Is it more reasonable to prevent the community from coming to a decision over what to do with an article just because a few people are edit-warring over it? I think not. It would seem to me to be a most inadvisable precedent to set. 86.149.219.138 (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: I'm only suggesting that this deletion discussion be put on hold until the protection expires. I have no objection to it reopening at that time. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that protection is due to expire in less than 24 hours [1] that would seem rather unnecessary. 86.149.219.138 (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It expires at 14:50, 28 September, or about 40 hours from now. That's almost 1/4 of the normal 7-day length of an AFD. This article has been around since 2003; a 40-hour wait isn't going to do much harm. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the article can be improved to avoid deletion, then deletion is not warranted even if no improvement happens (cf. Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state). Regards SoWhy 09:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, yes. In practice, people will !vote based on the current state. I've stuck my !vote anyway because the article is now unprotected. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a huge fan of this article as it's a magnet for POV and OR edits, but it passes
    WP:LISTN. There's tons of sources out there describing common misconceptions. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 23:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
This AFD was more controversial than I thought. A simple Google Scholar search [2] reveals plenty of sources that discuss common misconceptions. Given the quantity of academic sources, I'm quite sure there's even more non-academic sources. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 18:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The google scholar result is not impressive. It's mostly articles that use a "common misconceptions" title as a catchy introduction to an article by experts in topic X, providing solid correct information on topics within X, chosen based on the authors' subjective impression about what misconceptions in that field are common. Ccrrccrr (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that could be a reason to redefine the inclusion criteria rather than delete the article. Maybe we want to specify that the source must prove that they are common rather than just labeling the misconception as common. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 06:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In broad terms, what kind of criteria did you have in mind, FenixFeather? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 07:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@142.160.89.97: I didn't realize that the article already has pretty solid inclusion criteria. However, if Ccrrccrr doesn't like the fact that expert opinions on common misconceptions should be allowed, then that could be an amendment to the current inclusion criteria. Here's the current criteria just for reference:
  1. The topic the misconception is related to has an article of its own.
  2. The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception.
  3. The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.
  4. The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete.
– FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 17:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@John M Wolfson: Uhh, what does its quality of organization have to do with whether or not it qualifies as trivia? (Note that I'm not asking whether its quality of organization is relevant to it being kept or not.) 142.160.89.97 (talk) 07:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I misunderstood
WP:TRIVIA to extend to articles and not just trivia sections within articles, which are as it states unorganized lists of miscellany. --John M Wolfson (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I lean keep but I don't find this statement credible. The big tan box actually says that there's no clear consensus about the criteria! Also, the use of reliable sources to attest that it's a common misconception is weak. Often an article will use that as a way to frame an explanation by an expert on the topic who has done no research to actually determine how common the misconception is. And the editors who are vetting that content (for the reliable source) are likely vetting only that the corrected story is correct, not vetting whether the misconception is in fact common. Ccrrccrr (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
this is an exceptional list article having unambiguous and rigorous criteria for inclusion, as described in the big tan box at the top of the talk page. I would like to assume good faith here, Anachronist, but given that literally the first sentence of the tan box to which you're referring reads "A rigid consensus on inclusion criteria for this list has not been reached", it is self-evident that you are lying to us. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote that there are unambiguous and rigorous criteria for inclusion. Nowhere did I address any lack of consensus. Don't lie about what others have written. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the criteria lack consensus, then there are no criteria. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Contrary to nomination, inclusion criteria are not ambiguous. Rracecarr (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Seriously, this again? The article obviously has lots of good, well sourced information, and to suggest that it should be deleted simply because it's contentious is ridiculous. Furthermore, in my opinion, this article is particularly useful to the mission of Wikipedia, to spread knowledge. Benjamin (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The question isn't whether the content is true or verifiable. It is. The question is whether this list, as an article in one place on 191 or some other topic is encyclopedic. Wikipedia spreads knowledge about misconceptions by correcting the misonceptions in the articles. Has anyone identified these as the misconceptions most in need of correction? No, and they won't. It's just
    Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - Trivia, any information here can be put into the article with little or no disruption. Incredibly questionable citations as well. In short, it's a mess. I'd rather see it nuked and restarted than try to salvage a clearly broken page. --Tarage (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong/Speedy/SNOW keep The fact that the article has poor sourcing is basically irrelevant. If there were poor sourcing on Donald Trump or Life or book cover (as indeed there is) would you be advocating that page's deletion? Of course not. If there are respectable and reliable pieces of literature in existence on this very topic, which indeed there are, then why on Earth should this article not exist? The article is wholly encyclopaedic, not to mention very interesting. I have learnt much from it over the years. JZCL 01:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:SNOW be applicable? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
SNOW per my above points. Speedy because at the time of my writing this the article was fully protected, so editors could not improve problems addressed in the article. It doesn't specifically come any of those criteria. JZCL 21:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How hasn't it already failed the snowball test? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, the nomination has not given any
    don't chuck out the notable, well-referenced stuff with it. Also, I find it deeply troubling that the nominator first started an ANI discussion about an editor's behavior on this list and then, when that editor was not immediately sanctioned, started this AFD instead of waiting for the ANI or talk page discussions to conclude. Regards SoWhy 07:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@
WP:DELREASON? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
This meets SKCRIT #1b: " fails to advance any argument for deletion". All the arguments brought forth in the nomination are fixable by editing and the reasoning was merely that this has not yet happened. NOPAGE does not fit here because the list meets
WP:LISTN as pointed out multiple times. Regards SoWhy 10:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:LISTN
provides no criteria per se.
Regarding
WP:DELREASON. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep: There are stringent criteria for inclusion and there is a rigorous editorial process. By its nature this list is contentious and open-ended, but I think it is a worthwhile project.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep A notable topic! The entire article should not be deleted just because of a content issue. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable topic, stringent inclusion criteria, and mostly well sourced. (Not that bad sourcing is a valid argument for deletion.) The criteria that the misconception is mentioned in the main article means that it's not an indiscriminate collection of facts. Sjö (talk) 11:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    WP:LISTN is not met, as there are no traditional encyclopedias or general purpose sources that talk about a list of common misconceptions (as opposed to individual ones) as a significant topic. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment LISTN says nothing about traditional encyclopedias or general purpose sources, it says "independent reliable sources". That criteria is met. See the sources, external links and further reading in the article that discuss common misconceptions as a group.Sjö (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
LISTN also only requires that a set of topics "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". There are plenty of sources that list misconceptions as a group rather than individually (e.g. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] etc. pp.). It's not our job to decide whether RS should do that, just that they do. I mentioned
List of films considered the best above as an example of a list that has routinely been found encyclopedic despite clearly being subjective. OSE aside, the same reasoning applies: If source 1 says "A, B, C and D are common misconceptions" and source 2 says "E, F, G, H and A" are common misconceptions, we can include A to H in a list and point to the sources that list them together without having to have a source that lists all of them together. Regards SoWhy 16:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep, per above discussion. It's a common misconception that this interesting page should be deleted. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the 12 years since this article was first brought to AfD for the exact same reasons, nothing has changed. Normally, I wouldn't think that the problems I described were a rationale for deletion. But 12 years?? That's a lot of time for us to fix it, and we're not doing that. Instead, we have individual editors all trying to fix it, while fighting each other. We have irrational inclusion criteria (seriously; a criteria that requires content be in a different article first is ridiculous) being written up and posted to the edit notice, we have editors mass-reverting every addition, we have nothing but battles on the talk page. It's a hot mess, with no signs of getting better.
At what point to those !voting to keep this article plan to actually help by replacing bad sources with good, trimming bad entries and adding good ones? Because I don't see that happening at the article. Instead, I see occasional editors showing up to "fix" it and only making things worse, or else editors just completely ignoring it. So if editors here don't want to get in the mud of fixing this crap, then please don't !vote "keep" just on principles. Principles are good things to have, but they don't actually do any work on their own. If we can delete and rebuild this article, we might have a chance to make it worthwhile, but if we just keep pretending that just because it could be fixed that it will be fixed, we're just damaging this project.
Tell me all about it. 13:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
So you are basically saying it's too much of a hassle to have this page even if it is encyclopedic? How is there anything that can be achieved by deleting and recreating that cannot be achieved by editing without prior deletion? Plus, if you start citing time as a reason for deletion, when does it stop? After 10 years with no improvement? 5 years? 1 year? Wikipedia is a work in progress and will always be. And this includes having lists that might never be "perfect". That does not mean they should not exist. Regards SoWhy 14:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you are basically saying it's too much of a hassle to have this page even if it is encyclopedic? No, I'm saying that no-one is taking on the hassle to make this non-encyclopedic article actually encyclopedic. I'm pointing out that in 12 years, we've yet to deal with the hassle of this article. Also, I never suggested anything needed to be "perfect", nor can any reasonable person interpret what I said as meaning that, so please stop mischaracterizing what I said.
Tell me all about it. 14:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Case in point: It's an extremely common misconception that an
Tell me all about it. 14:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I see that most of those who !votes Delete gives raitonales like Utter trash and a bunch of opinions etc. That is POV and not guideline based. per WP:GNG. You sure don't see that in this AfD. The Delete !votes for the most part give
Tell me all about it. 16:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
--David Tornheim (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC) [revised 18:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)][reply]
@David Tornheim: In what world is that a list? It's a navbox, existing solely for the purpose of navigation. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a summary article. References are not an issue as each fact is taken from another Wikipedia article. See the "official" criteria for inclusion on the talk page (and which also appears when you edit the article): "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources." If the associated article doesn't also include the misconception with references, then its associated entry in this list should be removed. Besides which, there are a ton of references: the list contains some 476 references itself, 10 items under "Further reading", and a host of editors hawkishly protecting the article from misinformation. If this article is deleted for "very poor sourcing" then you might as well delete 98% of Wikipedia. For those who find "common" to be too subjective, it's no more or less subjective than "notability", the primary test to decide whether a topic warrants its own article on Wikipedia, so it's hardly an issue. You could even remove the word "common" from the article title and it would still be implied. —Pengo 00:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to Pengo: The editor edit warring over keeping entries in the article (the same one that nominated this article for AfD, go figure) and at least two others at Talk:List of common misconceptions are interpreting "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources" as "there's a mention of people not knowing some fact" and claim it does not mean that the "common misconception" its self has to be stated in the linked article (actually they don't think there should be any article linked at all re: "(seriously; a criteria that requires content be in a different article first is ridiculous)"). Up for taking the ambiguity out of that criteria? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, he finds it too difficult to get a demographic misconception listed so he nominates the whole article for deletion. Reeks of a bad faith nomination merely to make a
    point
    .
    By the way, if demographic / statistical misconceptions were listed, basically every single statistic would need to be listed, e.g. see this TED talk. Although there's no perfect rule for what should or shouldn't be included, over time there's a fairly strong consensus of what counts as common, notable, and well sourced enough for a sensible list, so I don't think there's a need for completely unambiguous criteria (much in the same way "notable" is a totally subjective and ambiguous but remains a cornerstone of Wikipedia). Regardless, this nomination is ridiculous. —Pengo 04:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This whole back and forth is 100% bullshit, and I'm not going to bother correcting any single part of it. Bryn: get the fuck over it. I reported you at ANI because of your behavior, and then I went this route because it fixes the article without having to deal with the bullshit that popped up at ANI. I promise you that if I actually went out and notified everyone who's already accused you of bad behavior at that article (which is not canvassing, BTW) and refocused on the ANI, you would find that it quickly turns against you. Hell, there's already at least two other comments on your behavior there. Seriously, grow the fuck up and stop going around whining about everything, or it's going to blow up in your face. I'm literally making an effort to work with you here, and your reaction is to throw a hissy fit.
Tell me all about it. 12:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I will skip responding to MPants since its really getting to be
WP:DNFTT. Thanks Pengo, I noticed off the bat that it was a summary List article (and edited it as so) and you can't blame a list just because it indexes other Wikipedia articles that have a certain attribute (such as have a referenced statement about a "common misconception"), that's the bailiwick of Lists. The problem is human nature and the tendency of some Wikipedia editors to think this is the place to do OR and come up with your own facts. It kinda makes me think we should skew one point towards the "delete side" to compensate for that... but there is probably not a guideline on that :/ . Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Do you even know what a troll is? I know you don't know what "name-calling" means, already.
Tell me all about it. 14:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • It is a common misconception that this page won't end up being one of the most interesting RM discussions in recent history. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Poor sourcing is not a reason to Delete a page- I feel like we're skipping a few steps, going from Wrenches to just sending in a Apcache and bombing it. Plus the article has surived mutliple AFDs in the past. Geartooth Friendship is Magic! 05:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article has survived three AfD noms before this one. This is an insightful article, refs looks good. ccaldarella (talk) 05:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Shouldn't it be "List of common misPERceptions"? Someone who creates an idea conceives it, and someone who interprets that idea perceives it. Everything in this list is an error by the perceiver. Just sayin'. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Topic is clearly notable and
    AFD is not cleanup. It's also somewhat disingenuous to complain about poor quality and simultaneously prevent users from improving it. Smartyllama (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
It's also somewhat disingenuous to complain about poor quality and simultaneously prevent users from improving it. I'm sure you think this was about me, but you've actually stolen the words right out of my mouth.
Tell me all about it. 14:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Tell me all about it. 18:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@
MPants at work: I looked at Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions#Criteria, which is a discussion of changing inclusion criteria. I have not looked into what are the current or proposed changes to the criteria--that is another matter, and there will be room for disagreement because of the uniqueness of how this article treats the subject. What I am asking you instead is for specific examples of sections (or sentences) that you see that are in the article that you think are a problem and/or how the existence of this article has somehow made the problem with those sections worse than it would be if those same sections were in a standalone article on the subject (or a section of a bigger article). I haven't seen evidence of multiple problems like that that are exacerbated by the existence of this article yet. But I might change my vote if I did. You seem to assert that there are multiple examples. I will trust you that Argument of Authority is no better here than at the article page, but I need to see more examples. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't have the time right now, or in the immediate future to go through and evaluate all the sources again. I've done it once before and found the sources on average to be quite weak though the content itself seems to be easily sourceable, I've also made some points in the nom as well as in other comments here about practical problems that don't have to do with sources, but which reflect on the fundamental nature of this article. If you look at the discussion I pointed you to, you should be able to see how the outcome of that discussion will affect anyone examining the sourcing in this article, so going through it now with an eye to the sources would be somewhat pointless.
Tell me all about it. 19:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Okay. I'll try to spend some time with your entry on criteria. I've done it once before and found the sources on average to be quite weak though the content itself seems to be easily sourceable... That to me is a strong reason to me to keep. I would only vote to delete if I felt it contained misinformation or non-notable and unsource-able material.
That said, I do understand that the criteria for inclusion might be more editorial judgment on our part than on the basis of secondary sources. I don't actually have a big problem with that any more than the judgments about our decision on what to cover in "Today in the news", list of Philosophers, important dates, etc. On the other hand, for our Landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases article, I do think we have a problem with how those are chosen and have stated so. I do think those should be chosen by reliable sources and not editors. I'm guessing you are making that argument here.
I could see an argument for the a requirement that there is some evidence (in at least one reliable source) that the asserted misconception is "commonly held". Proving that a particular belief is wrong and what is correct might be easy, but perhaps is not enough. But proving it is a "common" misconception is a bit tricky, because then we have to ask what is meant "common"? If 10% of people believe it, is that common? What if only 1% of people believe it, but make serious mistakes because their strongly held mistaken belief? If the RS says "some people mistakenly believe X", would it qualify? If that's what this is about, I might be in agreement about adjusting the requirements to show at least some evidence that the RS says that some people are confused, but not about deleting the article--unless I saw flagrant violation of reasonable rules. Still, I'm staying with my keep vote until I see there is a clear problem. Will look at your criteria section another time. Thanks for discussion. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@
MPants at work: After writing the above, I looked at your criteria discussion as promised, which did indeed have to do with what is meant by "common". Seems the main thing you wanted to require is that an "expert" must assert the misconception. Although I am not presently in agreement, I can see an argument for that. In the meantime, without strong evidence of any particular problems in the article, I'm staying with keep. If you or anyone else wants to hat this discussion, it's fine by me. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
To be clear: I'm not trying to convince you to change your !vote. Whether the article is deleted or improved doesn't matter to me. What happened was that I started an ANI thread about an editor using some of the poorest logic I've seen come from any experienced editor to justify edit warring to keep any new entry from being added to that article. When I did so, the response from the usuals at ANI was to exclaim about how low-quality the article was, and several of them opined it should be deleted. With that discussion absolutely derailing almost any discussion of the editing behavior, I decided to refocus on fixing the article, however necessary. So I filed this, to see how the dice fell, since I was unable to edit the article myself at the time. I later (the next day) started a discussion about the inclusion criteria. I'm wide open to participation there, if you would care to do so. So far, the quality of that discussion has not been much better, with one editor opining that defining a simple, binary criteria by which we judge something to be "common" or not would somehow increase arguments about whether an entry was a "common" misconception or not, and the editor I initially filed the ANI against opining that changing the existing criteria would somehow permit
WP:OR at the article, an assertion so insanely illogical that I can only assume it's due to a desperate attempt to rebut anything I say. So if you would like to continue this discussion, I would be happy to do so there. But since, as I said, I don't have any particular desire to push this to a "delete" close, I don't think this is the proper venue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@MjolnirPants: Illogic on Wikipedia?!? [link redacted "Holy haberdashery, Batman!"] Say it isn't so! --David Tornheim (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AFD is not cleanup. Article ownership and sourcing issues can be dealt with elsewhere. shoy (reactions) 19:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies LISTN. NOT is wholly inapplicable. Any other problems would appear to be SOFIXIT. The essay LISTCRUFT is WP:CRUFTCRUFT and has no value. In view of the scope of this list, SPINOUT of daughter lists is probably appropriate. For example, List of common misconceptions in mathematics is likely feasible: [9]. James500 (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has been argued that it does not meet the threshold of
    WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems that can (and should) be solved by regular editing, not reasons to delete the page outright. Considering I don't see any reasons for deletion that I think hold water, I am of the opinion that the page should be kept. I would however not be opposed to splitting the page into subarticles. TompaDompa (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy Keep The article clearly and easily meets
    WP:GNG. And as Shoy points out, AFD is not cleanup. Shame on the OP for wasting the community's time with this frivolous AfD. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
With the article having been nommed for deletion four times over 12 years (and at least once before that) with the same exact problems being cited each and every time, any editor claiming "shame on the OP" really looks like someone who should get off their ass and help fix the damned thing instead of engaging in ignorant recrimination here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's an ad homenium criticism of an editor's !vote, and a violation of the policy
WP:TIND. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
That's not an ad hominem, I didn't say anything about their !vote, and I haven't violated any fucking policy. Jesus Christ, do you know what anything you said even means? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "nobody can say X unless they do Y", you're saying an opinion's validity is dependent on who is saying it. You're saying only editors who have worked to improve the list are allowed to criticize the WP:POINTy nature of this AfD. The AfD is either
WP:POINTy, or it isn't, and anyone can argue that it is or isn't without every having worked on improving List of common misconceptions. When you start saying, "Editors who want to hold this or that opinion (keep the list, this AfD is POINTy, etc) are obligated to go edit the list", you're saying they have to go do volunteer work. Wikipedia is always voluntary. Nobody is obligated to do anything.

If this AfD is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, anyone can argue that it is regardless of what articles they have or haven't ever worked on. Ad homenium arguments are fallacious. Also, stop bludgeoning. There's plenty of other editors who can represent the significant point of view here. You're not the only one who wants to see this list deleted, so you're not the only one who has to refute every !vote. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, except I didn't say any of that shit you just claimed I did. And even if I did say that, that's still not what an ad hominem is. We have an article about the subject, you should probably read it before you go wash the taste of foot out of your mouth. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Best of luck to you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this is an extremely useful article for those who have less background knowledge and are wanting to question what they consider to be true, and find places they have made assumptions of truth where really there should be questioning. It is all the the quest for knowledge. This article has a lot of value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EngineeringBabe (talk • contribs) 20:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do sympathise with anybody who feels that this article is more trouble than it is worth but it does cover a genuine topic. I feel that better inclusion criteria could help keep the list under control. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    WP:NOPAGE, 86.149.219.138, and the nominator. Regarding those who argue that the list merely needs more stringent inclusion criteria, I cannot conceive of what any set of adequate criteria could look like that wouldn't pose a huge {{globalize}} issue. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Globalisation is something that the criteria will need to address. At the moment it is far too focused on the English speaking west. I don't see why it can't be done though. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What might such criteria look like? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of something along the lines of "Entries should not be restricted to small geographic areas. Generally, only misconceptions referenced as being common across multiple countries are eligible for inclusion. Misconceptions which are only common in a single country, with any believers elsewhere consisting mainly of its expatriates, are generally not eligible. Misconceptions common in only one country may be eligible for large countries with high populations but such exceptions must be referenced as very common throughout that country. Editors of the English Wikipedia should take care not to give undue weight to the misconceptions common in English speaking countries. Examples: Misconceptions common across the English, French or Spanish speaking world are equally eligible. Misconceptions common across West Africa, South Asia, North America or Eastern Europe are equally eligible. Misconceptions specific to large individual countries such as China, Russia or the USA are eligible only if very common throughout the whole country but generally are not. Misconceptions specific to smaller countries or to specific regions of large countries are not eligible. (This means that misconceptions common in only a few states of the USA are not eligible.) This may mean that many interesting and/or amusing candidate entries are excluded. This is intentional. It is necessary to avoid trivial and excessive entries." I'm sure that that is far from perfect. It might be that other people have better ideas for a starting point. I just wanted to show that it can be done. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to elaborate on how
WP:NOPAGE applies here, in your opinion? TompaDompa (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
NOPAGE's point is that a standalone page may not be the best way to present something. In this (unusual) case, "common misconceptions" are not best presented by gathering all this minutiae together into a worthless slagheap, but presenting the correct information wherever it naturally belongs throughout other articles. Honestly, you can't dip in anywhere in this page without finding strained triviality. Here's one:
Benjamin Franklin did not propose that the wild turkey be used as the symbol for the United States instead of the bald eagle. While he did serve on a commission that tried to design a seal after the Declaration of Independence, his proposal was an image of Moses. His objections to the eagle as a national symbol and preference for the turkey were stated in a 1784 letter to his daughter in response to the Society of the Cincinnati's use of the former; he never expressed that sentiment publicly.
Shocking! "Franklin did not propose that the wild turkey be used as the symbol for the United States". No, no. His "preference for the turkey were stated in a 1784 letter to his daughter...; he never expressed that sentiment publicly." So you see, private versus public. That's a really important distinction. You know what this page is? Ripley's Believe It or Not!. It's for twelve-year-olds who think interrupting people to tell them that Big Ben is a bell, not a clock, makes them look like a smart grown up. (I'm taking bets on how long before someone adds that to the page.) EEng 11:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think Big Ben may have been there in the past although I don't feel like trawling the history to check. I'm not against it being included but I certainly don't feel the need to add it myself. It is a misconception and it is common, even in the UK. The turkey/eagle thing is not one I had heard of anywhere else. Probably it is of little interest outside of the USA. If it is a truly common misconception in the USA then maybe it is worth including. I think the annoying 12 year old issue only comes into play when coverage of these less than earth-shattering misconceptions is overdone. What we want in each case is just one sentence to set them up and one sentence and a link to knock them down.
Sure, the article can be read by kids in a "believe it or not" way. So long as that is not its only purpose then that is OK. If it encourages kids to read an encyclopaedia then surely that is no bad thing. It wouldn't be the only article that can be read out of context for pure entertainment. My personal favourite is List of fictional works in Gargantua and Pantagruel, which is what actually persuaded me to read Rabelais. Anybody who says anything against that will have two very angry, and very drunk, giants to contend with. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSINTERESTING may not be a reason to keep, but it's certainly not a reason to delete either. If that were the only argument to keep, sure, but it's not. And for what it's worth, I heard the turkey myth presented as fact when I was in elementary school. And it often makes its rounds in Facebook memes around Thanksgiving. Smartyllama (talk) 12:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
But that's the point: it's not a myth. He apparently really did write his daughter that he thought the turkey might be a good idea. Whether he formally "proposed" it, or "expressed that sentiment publicly" has little to do with it -- thinkers of the time primarily expressed themselves in letters. It's a great example of the kind of half-baked semi-educated stuff this page is full of. EEng 13:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. You are convincing me that that particular entry is not up to standard and I have no problem with other similarly poor entries being removed. I'm not seeing how this invalidates the whole article though, unless you feel that there would be nothing left? --DanielRigal (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it seems we don't have an essay called WP:CRAPMAGNET. EEng 13:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How is the need to {{
WP:BEANS and hand wringing about hypothetical future problems which we can solve when they arise.

We keep circling back to one simple thing: this list is a large endeavor, broad in scope, dependent on many, many other Wikipedia articles, requiring many diverse and skilled editors, and it will take years if not decades to reach perfection, if ever. So what? Arbitrary deadlines, impatience, and lack of imagination. Wikipedia itself was widely panned and scorned by doubters who similarly lacked the imagination to see how such a thing could ever work. Turns out, it's possible, in time, and Wikipedia as a whole's lack of perfection is not a fatal flaw. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Hear, hear! Well said. I must admit, to my own happiness at finding such a page, that I did not know this page existed until a couple of days ago, 28 September. Until then I was unaware, wandering the halls of Wikipedia without going up this avenue. I haven't read much of the page, and have just done a couple of edits, but am enjoying the page itself and this discussion. Big Ben isn't the clock? Who would have known. I'll keep the article in mind, and do some polishing editing from time to time, and want to add in somewhere about catnip, if it's not in there already (that the effects of catnip do not work on one out of three cats, but two substitutes exist). Randy Kryn (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think
WP:NOPAGE. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Dennis, that is absolutely not the case. Brynn has removed a large number of entries, with very little pushback. He didn't experience any real conflict until he started lying about what sources said and making ridiculous claims (including the startlingly illogical claim that something isn't a "common misconception" unless everyone, everywhere believes it) in order to prevent other editors from adding well-sourced content to the article. Furthermore, his claim about the "current move" is completely hysterical, as you can see by actually following that link. I suggest you not bother to engage Bryn, as they have demonstrated a complete unwillingness to engage with anything resembling reason at the page. It's his way or the highway. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Here's the diff for the last year. The following entries were in the list a year ago, but no longer:
  1. A standard cup of brewed coffee has more caffeine than a single shot of espresso.
  2. Placing metal inside a microwave oven does not damage the oven's electronics.
  3. "Golf" did not originate as an acronym of "Gentlemen Only, Ladies Forbidden".
  4. Meteorites are not necessarily hot when they reach the Earth's surface.
  5. The Sun's color is white
  6. Guglielmo Marconi did not invent the radio, but only modernized it for public broadcasting and communication.
The following were entries that were added some time in the last 12 months, but are now gone:
  1. Whether, or how frequently, a woman wears a bra is not a factor in the likelihood of developing ptosis, or sagging breasts
  2. While the
    Australian referendum, 1967
    was a crucial step blah blah blah blah
  3. The video game crash of 1983 was not solely caused because of bad games.
  4. The term "Polish death camp" is contradictory to historical facts and grossly unfair to Poland as a victim of Germany.
  5. The popular ideals of dinosaurs have many misconceptions, reinforced by films, books, comics, television shows, and even theme parks.
  6. It is unknown whether pi is a normal number
  7. By modern convention,
    one is not a prime number
  8. The
    axioms
  9. self-similar
  10. It is often more convenient to describe a rotating system by using a rotating frame--the calculations are simpler, and descriptions more intuitive
  11. Though the exact cause of homosexuality is unknown, it is believed to be biological as it does not only manifest in humans. See
    homosexuality in animals
    .
  12. Contemporary studies(e.g.
    kinsey report
    ) on human sexuality have shown that sexual interest exists on a continuum of frequency of interest rather than being binary
  13. The US home mortgage interest deduction was not created by Congress to encourage home ownership
  14. Most artificially fruit-flavored food products use the same formulas, regardless of the fruit flavors advertised.
  15. The average serial killer does not have a mental illness by a legal definition, nor are they highly intelligent, nor are all or most serial killers Caucasian males.
  16. Another misconception holds that chocolate makes a woman's period milder or less painful. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Bratland Wow. Those all got deleted? Nearly all sound like "common misconceptions" worthy of staying in the article. I'll bet an RfC on some of them could have saved a few. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was thinking the same thing. With a little work many of them could be kept. It’s compelling evidence that this list has not been indiscriminate, and clearly we have generally upheld a high standard. There’s no truth to these dismissals calling the list trivia or cruft or anyone’s pet factoid collection. It deserves some respect. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
THat looks about right. If you dig through, you'll see one editor responsible for the vast majority (if not the totality) of the removals. This all started when I started an ANI thread about Bryn's
ownership of the page, and the response wasn't to discuss the behavior, but for several editors to clamor for the article's deletion. Myself, I don't really care whether the article is deleted, or whether this AfD merely results in more eyes on it, so that it can be sorted out. If Bryn can be "shouted down" at the article, that's just as good as having them sanctioned. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
until he started lying - It should be noted Pants bogus ANI went no where and they actually questioned Pants behavior, so he started calling those editors "lairs". And he seems to have just admitted to starting a bogus AfD. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes. Let the hate flow through you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really a problem unique to this article. It's much easier to add than remove content everywhere on Wikipedia. People will be unhappy any time you delete their pet misconception entry, article, article section, etc. That's a fact of life and not a reason to delete this article. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 03:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you reading every word above, or only every fourth or fifth word? Because you completely missed where I pointed out that I only opened this because people were calling for it at ANI. Please stop arguing with stuff nobody has said. Also...
It's much easier to add than remove content everywhere on Wikipedia. Wanna bet? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down, please. I was replying to Bryn's assertion that this article is bogged down by other editors. I didn't indent over enough. Also, if you only made this AFD to make a point, and not because you actually want this article deleted, then that sounds a little problematic. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 18:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if I sound a little too prickly. Having an editor (not you) do nothing except cast aspersions on me and go to ridiculous lengths to disagree with anything I say for several days in a row can have that effect, sometimes.
And as I said, I AfD'd it because other editors opined at ANI that the article was more problematic than Bryn's behavior in it, and should be deleted. It wasn't "my idea" per se, though I'd have been okay with it getting deleted. It's clear now that it won't be deleted (and that doesn't actually bother me even a little), but there were enough people !voting to delete that it's clear that the article needs serious work. If you wouldn't mind adding your thoughts at article talk (in the subsection "Summary thus far", specifically), that would be immensely useful.
Tell me all about it. 18:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment: never-ending dispute between two editors
FYI. I looked at the "bogus ANI" which was closed without consensus that seems to be part of the reason for this AfD.  What I see there, as here, as at the article is two editors locked in what appears a never-ending dispute, accusing, alleging, calling names, etc.  My guess is that other editors--like me--have limited patience to read the lengthy back-and-forth, where there is some merit to what each is saying and some questionable argumentation tactics by each.  I'm sure each sincerely believes they could make the article better, if only they would get their way.
It's clear neither will convince the other, but because there is little room for anyone else to talk, the discussion is dominated with just two editors arguing back and forth ad nauseum. I'm confident that's why the AN/I produced no finding of fault.
To solve such logjams, it would help to invite other editors to a quantifiable dispute, and make sure to break disputes down into bite-sized questions.  (This AfD will at least answer the concrete question: Is this article worth saving?) Some positions are argued as being more black-and-white than they actually are, and other less-invested editors might be able to find middle ground that would get wider support than the status quo situation. Important is asking other editors questions that don't make them feel they need to read the lengthy back-and-forth in order to make an intelligent and informed answer.  I have a feeling I'm not alone. I believe Smartyllama will back me up (see [10]).
At this point, I'm far less interested in holding either accountable for behavioral indiscretions such as name-calling (which I see on both sides) and instead focusing on this question: What can be done to improve the article? --David Tornheim (talk) 08:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC) [revised 18:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)][reply]
P.S. If you look immediately below, you will see what I am talking about. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well first, you absolutely don't see any name calling coming from me. I'm not going to go any further into that beyond saying that the AfD was an idea that would provide a way forward that didn't involve perpetuating a dispute with Bryn. But of course, it takes two to drop it; as long as Bryn continues to vent his spleen about getting reported to ANI, it'll never truly die down. As for focusing on the details: that's what I'm doing at article talk. The criteria are one such detail. Once that's sorted out, we can take a fresh look at the entries, both deleted and existing to see what belongs and what doesn't. After that, I plan to start a discussion on format, as it's my opinion that we should be able to get each entry down to 1-2 sentences.
Tell me all about it. 12:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Well first, you absolutely don't see any name calling coming from me. Well, this isn't an ANI and we are getting well of topic. Lets just say Pants is less than truthful, I have never seen an editor more likely to comment on the contributor instead of the content and his violating WP:NPA and WP:TPG has been noticed before. He not only does this with me[11][12][13], he has a go at other people[14][15][16][17], so i don't feel left out. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@
Tell me all about it. 16:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
LOL. Your two replies shows exactly what I am talking about! --David Tornheim (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(
Tell me all about it. 18:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
As for focusing on the details: that's what I'm doing at article talk. The criteria are one such detail. I understand that is the goal. My advice here is to break it down into more bite-sized discussions with simpler questions, which could go to an RfC such as "Should we require that all misconceptions have RS stated by an expert?" I think you will get more progress than you did at the Criteria discussion that asked for too many changes. And then make more space for new editors to talk rather than disappear with TL;DR.  :) --David Tornheim (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your advice would be worth a lot more if you were to head on over there and add your thoughts the discussion
Tell me all about it. 18:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I did. I was the first editor to respond.  :) --David Tornheim (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I was too subtle. Read my above comment (and the next-higher comment of mine) as "Commenting here is pointless, inflammatory and somewhat hypocritical, but commenting at the article talk is just all around helpful. Please stop doing the former and do more of the latter." I can phrase it even more bluntly if you like, though I suspect you catch my drift by now.
Tell me all about it. 18:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I hear you. My comment is also directed to editors who (like myself) may have come here unaware of the "ridiculous squabble.". Whether you want to take my advice is up to you. I can't see it making much difference which of the many forums this dispute is occurring should make much difference. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I was too subtle. It's not literally about the forum, it's about the topic. If you want to chastise other editors from a high horse (which is what you're doing here); you're not being helpful, indeed, you're helping perpetuate the dispute far more than I am with my dismissive responses to Bryn and continued mentions to you of what you could do to help. If you want to be helpful, there's a discussion that could always use more input (which is over there). You tend to be a very thoughtful editor when you're discussing content, so your voice might well be one of the more useful ones, there.
Tell me all about it. 19:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
(IMHO) Right now would be an excellent time for an admin to step in and warn both MPants at work and Fountains of Bryn Mawr that the battleground behavior needs to stop now. Take it to an appropriate venue, and don't keep bludgeoning this AfD. I predict a topic ban and interaction ban for both. Now is probably the last opportunity to let it go and avoid sanctions. You both have definitely made your respective cases. We heard you. We get it. Go and bicker no more. Don't say nobody warned you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who feels the need to keep responding to my comments saying "I'd rather talk about the article, let's go talk about the article" to give me shit for doing what I'm making a point of not doing really needs to either learn to shut their pie hole or learn to read; because you're failing at one or the other.
Tell me all about it. 21:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Strong Keep It is very useful to have all these collected on one place. Removing the article would be a disservice to our readers. Note that everything in the article is (supposed to be anyway) included in other wikipedia articles so there should be not content-based reason for deletion. Granted, the entries can be problematic at times and many individual items have been removed over the years. Agree that it can be a magnet for POV edits, but so can thousands of other articles; that's not a valid reason for deletion. The normal wikipedia rules for editing should suffice to keep the article within reason. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. A very interesting and enjoyable article to read. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to learn and for the learning experience to be enjoyable. I found that article is a quick and enjoyable way to learn of many common mistaken beliefs that many people believe to be true. It is the type of article that could be very popular with our readers - so why on earth delete a cool and funky educational article? I also agree with pretty much all
    WP:GNG because many high quality sources exist for this topic. Finally, this article has survived three previous ‘articles for deletion’ community discussions, it would be terribly unfair - outside exceptional new information/justifications with large consensus - for the previous three discussions to be overturned, in my view.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment In fact, so cool is this article, I think I shall read and discuss all the interesting factoids with my girlfriend, and have a laugh, so long as noone deletes this wonderful article before then. :p
    lol.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
This is a pure
WP:ILIKEIT vote, not a valid justification to keep. 🔥flame🔥talk 13:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
If you bothered to read the !vote, you'd see he said "I also agree with pretty much all
WP:ILIKEIT vote? Smartyllama (talk) 14:20, 2 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_common_misconceptions_(4th_nomination)&oldid=1088094900"