Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of words and phrases alleged to be derived from misunderstandings
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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of words and phrases alleged to be derived from misunderstandings
More listcruft; overlong title. Add an note to each of the entries' pages if needed, but there's no need for a list. Hirudo 19:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. -- Grafikm_fr 19:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- weakest of keeps. Could grow into an interesting list. Needs a better title, though. Grutness...wha? 00:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete the title says it all alleged, i.e. unverifable nonsense. How about a list of big list of alleged facts ? Megapixie 00:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fluit 01:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AbstainYucatan on the list references the Yucatan article-- in other words, to the extent that any item on the list is unverifiable, that's because the source article is unverifiable. Furthermore, the purpose of this list is to gather together instances of words sharing a particular characteristic of folk etymology. Finally, I have no problem whatsoever with changing the title of the article.[reply]
Further comment: There seems to be a consensus that this article, in this form, must go. It seems to me that the logical follow-up question is: is the information that this list presents not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia at all, or should it merely be presented in another form? For example, is there a better way of presenting this information, such as in the form of a list entitled "Lists of folk etymologies"? Spikebrennan 12:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article was titled List of words and phrases derived from misunderstandings - I might change my vote to neutral. The problem is with the Alleged — it's going to attract cruft. If they are verifiably derived from misunderstandings then it's borderline wiki-worthy IMHO. Megapixie 14:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem is, the intent of the list is not to list words derived from misunderstandings, but to list words that are erroneously thought to have been derived from misunderstandings. Assuming that such a list meets Wikipedia standards in and of itself, I agree that a word should be listed only if it can be verified that there exists an erroneous belief that the word was derived from a misunderstanding. For example, the article on List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects-- that's a list of information where the common element is not that they were all Jack the Ripper, but that they were all regarded as suspects.Spikebrennan 18:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Mmmmmm. In that case it's definately not wiki worthy. To take your example - all of the Jack the Ripper suspects have been proposed in various places before they were included on the list - and he is noteworthy. What the list would contain is a list of guide books (or some reputable source) that 'the name of the area is often said to come from the.... but in actual fact it was taken from the ....'. I'm just not sure it's noteworthy - where as Jack the Rippers possible identity is. The list you propose would be like List of people who have allegedly been mistaken for a US President (but haven't in reality). Megapixie 02:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I'm convinced. Thanks for the debate. Spikebrennan 10:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Mmmmmm. In that case it's definately not wiki worthy. To take your example - all of the Jack the Ripper suspects have been proposed in various places before they were included on the list - and he is noteworthy. What the list would contain is a list of guide books (or some reputable source) that 'the name of the area is often said to come from the.... but in actual fact it was taken from the ....'. I'm just not sure it's noteworthy - where as Jack the Rippers possible identity is. The list you propose would be like List of people who have allegedly been mistaken for a US President (but haven't in reality). Megapixie 02:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem is, the intent of the list is not to list words derived from misunderstandings, but to list words that are erroneously thought to have been derived from misunderstandings. Assuming that such a list meets Wikipedia standards in and of itself, I agree that a word should be listed only if it can be verified that there exists an erroneous belief that the word was derived from a misunderstanding. For example, the article on
- Keep, interesting aspect of folk etymology, the fact that these terms are alleged to be derived from errors is easily verifiable from third-party sources. Kappa 10:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete says alleged right in its title. San Saba 10:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Eusebeus 14:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, wrongly deprodded by chronic de-prodder ]
- Delete, this article name is the most convoluted, unlikely, unprofessional rubbish yet Appropriate Username 05:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per ]
- I hate to sound so argumentative, but should we really be citing Wikipedia essays in these discussions? Ardric47 01:19, 26 April 2006 (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.