Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (2nd nomination)


 * 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. I've read through the discussion, and from what I've observed, the primary arguments for deletion include WP:IINFO, WP:OR, and the fact that the list is too broad in its scope to be a valid article. Original research and vague scope parameters can be addressed through editing, not deletion. Moreover, the list is not indiscriminate; to quote User:Neurolysis, "we can define common misconceptions by what reliable sources are calling common misconceptions". And there are, indeed, reliable sources to be found. As such, there is no consensus for deletion. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  19:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

List of common misconceptions
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

While this page does contain some interesting information, unfortunately it is exactly two of the things that Wikipedia is not: a random collection of information, and a directory. A direct quote from Wikipedia is not a directory: "Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons.". This is precisely the content of this article. Consider these two list items on the page:

1) "The Pilgrims did not dress only in black, nor did they have buckles on their hats or shoes";

2) "Mount Everest (pictured) is, indisputably, the highest point of land above sea level (8,850 meters / 29,035 feet) which, according to traditional measurements, means that it is the tallest mountain in the world."

It is hard to see how these two statements are associated through any particular subject. They are exactly the ''List. . .of loosely associated topics'' that is prohibited by what Wikipedia is not. Furthermore, the entire content of the article is these sorts of unrelated facts; no amount of editing could repair this problem. The article should thus be deleted. Any facts of particular interest in the list should be added, as appropriate, to the article on that topic. For example, the first quote above could be added to the article on pilgrims if it is not already there.

A final analogy in favor of deletion: this article is not logically different than an article titled "List of commonly held correct conceptions" or "List of surprising facts": all of these are lists of essentially unrelated information that are subjectively claimed to be related based on an unverifiable claim of knowledge, interest, or lack thereof by some undefined segment of the population. These other examples would probably be deleted without argument; the fact that lists of misconceptions are often grouped together in non-encyclopedic media should not be allowed to bias the essential conclusion that, although interesting, this list is something Wikipedia is not.Locke9k (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that according to the rules, this list should go. However, I think that before it is deleted it should have the information transferred to the relevant articles. If the information is inappropriate for the articles, then this page has a place. —  Jch  thys  15:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the information should be transfered to a related article, where it is appropriate and will improve the quality of the article the information is being transferred to. However, if there are some facts that cannot be added to an associated article in a helpful way, I don't agree that that would justify the existence of this article.  If there are some facts that cannot be transferred, we have to ask why that is.  Most likely, it is because either the subject of the fact is not notable or because the fact itself is not of sufficient interest or value within the relevant subject.  Either way, there is no reason to keep it here.  Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information indicates that random information that does not fit into an appropriate article should not just be collected into random information clearinghouses such as this page.  Finally, the transfer of info from this page to other pages should not delay deletion of this page.  People can just copy this page to their sandbox (the appropriate place to keep random information you haven't decided what to do with yet), and add it to appropriate articles as they have time.Locke9k (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge as much as possible as per above--Moloch09 (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC) - after great explanation and advocacy below, change to strong keep


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Locke9k (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Locke9k (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Locke9k (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Locke9k (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Locke9k (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Locke9k (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Locke9k (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, if sourced snippets can find their ways into articles fine. But, misconceptions come in all sorts and which are "common" is debatable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not leave in this form It's mostly well sourced, but there's no clear guidelines for what gets included or excluded. It could be merged into the articles most germane to the misconceptions, but that loses the visibility.  Maybe it could be broken into topic-based articles ("List of common misconceptions in religion") of manageable size, with this article remaining a list-of-lists?  Maybe a category "common misconceptions" would be better, breaking the individual notable/verifiable bullets into their own stub articles.  I don't think this information should be deleted from the encyclopedia, but I agree with the nom that it should not continue to exist in this form. Jclemens (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge per Moloch09 and nom. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article should be up for FA, not AfD. This is one of the best-written, well-sourced collection of scientific and historical common misconceptions. While the individual facts can be gathered, labouriously, from the individual topics mentioned, no "Category:Common_misconception" will ever be able to arrange and present them in a useful way. This article is a gold mine to every history of science researcher. Owen&times; &#9742;  16:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Question - What, exactly, have false beliefs about the hats of Puritan immigrants into North America got to do with the history of science? Whilst these are important facts, the commonality of the misconceptions about them do not appear to be well-sourced. Take, for example, the very first source, for the very first fact, about gunpowder. The source relates, albeit in a slightly quirky manner, the facts as I understand them relating to the history of this technology. However, it does not support the article's assertion that there is a common misconception to the effect that Europeans were the first to make military use of gunpowder. The same problem exists with many of the 'misconceptions' listed; the facts are related correctly, but the existence of the misconception is unsourced and highly debatable. To a sociology researcher, it's useless. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is useful information. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response - The San Francisco telephone directory is useful, but we don't keep that here. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Further Response: Usefullness is not sufficient to justify inclusion in Wikipedia.  A how-to manual for fixing my toilet, for example, is also useful.  However, it does not belong in Wikipedia, because  Wikipedia is not a manual.  There are other Wikimedia pages for that. The same goes for this. 72.177.53.89 (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)  Locke9k (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Locke9k's Sockpuppet? Locke9k already posted the same thing on the talkpage. --Armchair info guy (talk • contribs) 18:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies - I accidentally wrote the above statement while signed out. Apparently my computer had signed out of Wikipedia without my realizing it.  I'll resign with my correct signed in signature. Locke9k (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. --Armchair info guy (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's an atypical article, but it's still an asset to the encyclopedia.  The criteria for what items get included on the list could be made more definite, and the sourcing improved, but that's about it.  WP:NOTDIR is there to keep material with no encyclopedic value out of the encyclopedia -- this list does not qualify -- and WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not a deletion catch-all.  Claiming that an article is "indiscriminate, delete" is a non-rationale and an abuse of the AfD process, as far as I'm concerned.--Father Goose (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Question - what authoritative source could be used to demonstrate the relative commonality of false beliefs, worldwide? AlexTiefling (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A reasonable way to address this would be to require that a source be provided with each entry that actually identifies it as a misconception. "Common" is a poor choice of titles; "notable" would be more to the point, though maybe "noted" would be best of all: "List of misconceptions [that reliable sources have actually noted as misconceptions]"--Father Goose (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response: What do you mean that WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not a catchall? This is not a particularly broad use of WP:INDISCRIMINATE.  This is exactly what is described in WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIR.  Its not different than a list of quotes.  How could a list of facts be more unrelated than this one?  Would you then be ok with a "list of common correct conceptions"? Locke9k (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not have any language to that effect. It's no more meaningful to call something "indiscriminate" than it is to call it "unencyclopedic".  Articles in general and lists in particular do need some kind of discriminating criterion to be something other than an unsorted list (the kind discouraged by Trivia sections).  This particular list article could use a more stringent discriminating criterion, to keep questionable entries out, but overall, it's a good article.--Father Goose (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it doesn't have any language to what effect? I may have missed your point.  What do you mean its not meaningful to call something "indiscriminate".  That is a description exactly laid out in WP:INDISCRIMINATE. In fact it means quite a lot to call something that.  Furthermore, WP:DIRECTORY explicitly speaks against lists such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional).  I am arguing that both of these policies clearly exclude this article from what Wikipedia is.  Its incumbent upon those who want to keep this page to show how this is both a discriminate collection of information and not equivalent to one of the things listed under WP:DIRECTORY.  We have made several arguments to the effect that the article is excluded by these policies.  Simply responding vaguely that the article is "Useful", "Interesting", or 'makes Wikipedia a better place' doesn't really address any of these policy arguments. Locke9k (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, but maybe not in this form. I don't know which policies to cite, so I'll just give you my reasoning.  First, the premise of the article-- debunking popular misconceptions-- is encyclopedic. Second, a large part of the list is sourced, and the rest of it can be.  Third, a list like this is a better format than trying to use a category to accomplish the same thing.  Now, here are the problems I see with this list.  First, what are the criteria for inclusion?  How do we define "common" misconception? Second, misconceptions are tightly tied to culture.  In the US, we often think that you lose a disproportionate amount of heat via the head (you don't), but in areas of South and Central America, people think you lose a disproportionate amount of heat via the feet, not the head.  In Mexico, many people have the misconception that you should cover your mouth when you go outside at night because the cold air will make you sick.  In Korea they think that leaving a fan on all night will cause you to dehydrate and die. etc.  So we need some well-defined criteria for inclusion, including defining what is common and marking what culture the misconception comes from.  The list has a misconception about gunpowder, which is obviously a western misconception and is not shared by the Chinese. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Second thoughts further to Appleyard and Father Goose have checked sources and yes, these are from creditable and diverse sources. The problem is the title. Common misconceptions makes it seem these are common corrections too (a la QI Book of General Ignorance). Some rescue needed. Some retitling too. Will ponder--Moloch09 (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

- 	delete -I saw this the other week. List which is unmaintainable, could probably contain hundreds of these misconceptions many of which are WP:OR. Sources do exist but numerous things have been called a misconception in reliable sources. Giving the solutions in the article is essay-like. No, debunking popular misconceptions is not the role of an encyclopedia- unless it's an "encyclopedia of popular misconceptions." We deal with specific topics themselves, not this sort of overarching meta topic of a specific type. These misconceptions are not notable enough themselves to be in a list- otherwise they'd have their own specific articles devoted to the misconception. It is atypical because it's not what we do. If it's going to be a list, shrink to be solely a list and contain only those misconceptions worth their own article. And I still think it's unmaintainable and what's left in or out impossible to decide upon. Sticky Parkin</b> 17:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC) You are also exactly right that I assert that we should ignore policies when they get things wrong: in fact, we have a policy that counsels us to do just that. And for a very good reason: policy must reflect consensus, not the other way around.--Father Goose (talk) 07:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep with a limit for those statements that are sourced to published works that describe misconceptions. People will differ on their views of what an encyclopedia should be, but I think that the main goal of an encyclopedia is that it should be a reliable reference-- and one of the strengths of Wikipedia is that it can be updated instantly by editors who spot and remove untrue information from its pages.  For all its criticisms, Wikipedia is the place people turn to when they ask the question "Is that really true?" Mandsford (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A fair point; but if someone wants to know whether Christopher Columbus thought the earth was flat, aren't they going to go to Christopher Columbus, flat earth or discovery of America, and not to this article? AlexTiefling (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's likely they would, if they were looking for Columbus specifically; on the other hand, if the flat earth topic led to an interest in other historical myths (and that's basically what these are), they would search for a category or a list, depending on which research method they were comfortable with. Mandsford (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Mandsford - Thats a fair point. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to have a page specifically about modern historical mythology, for example.  This might or might not be best done as a list; I'm not sure.  It would, however, probably have a clear subject area and would probably satisfy many of the issues raised here.  Locke9k (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response: I agree with AlexTiefling here. Whats more, why are we having a debate about whether this material is insteresting or useful?  Its a straw man argument.  No one here is arguing that it is uninteresting or not useful.  We also don't have to have a wide ranging debate about what 'an encyclopedia should be'; we only have to address this issue of what Wikipedia is and whether this is consistent with that definition.  The issue of what Wikipedia is is already set by the five pillars and policies and guidelines.  In this case, Wikipedia is not a random collection of information, and Wikipedia is not a directory.  Whether we personally think it is valuable is not relevant.  The point is that Wikipedia has policies that specifically exclude this sort of thing from allowable content irregardless of whether it is interesting or useful. Locke9k (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The question of what Wikipedia "is" and what it "should be" are one and the same: we who edit Wikipedia determine what it should be, and consequently what it is. An article like this brings up questions of "what Wikipedia should be", though to me, it's not a terribly difficult question to answer in this case: Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia with this article than without it.  <br/ >List articles are easy targets for deletion, if one adopts a rigid interpretation of WP:NOTDIR, even if the deletion of said article would be a detriment to the encyclopedia.  The value of this article in particular is not to redundantly store facts found elsewhere in the encyclopedia, but to compile related information that would not be encountered by someone randomly browsing the encyclopedia.  The relation of these facts to each other -- common misconceptions -- is not as hard-edged as some lists, such as Rivers in New Jersey, but not so indiscriminate that it has no place in the encyclopedia.  It could be more discriminating, yes: I've been watching the article for a while and the question of "what qualifies as a common misconception" could be more rigorously answered.  However, I do not accept the assertion that it is impossible to answer that question via reliable sources.  Nor do I accept that the article should be deleted instead of simply trying to tighten its discriminating criterion.  The bottom line is that Wikipedia has some quirky articles that are nonetheless an asset to the encyclopedia.  Trying to have them deleted because there's some rule somewhere that can be narrowly interpreted to suggest that "this article is illegal" is foolishness to me.  Our rules don't do our thinking for us.--Father Goose (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, just wow! Thanks for sharing your wisdom on this matter, Father Goose. You masterfully articulated not only why this article should be kept, but the essence of what wikipedia is and should be. (And I'm not writing this just because we agree on this issue. I genuinely did enjoy reading it.) --Armchair info guy (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Father Goose, I contest your assertion that the argument for deletion here is "a rigid interpretation of WP:NOTDIR". An exact quotation from this section of what Wikipedia is not is "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)".  This article is very close in spirit and practice to a list of aphorisms.  It really only takes a fairly narrow and weak interpretation of this policy to conclude that this article does not belong in Wikipedia.  I will note the fact that this article includes sections on History, Politics, Cooking, Law,  Science, Religion, Technology, Sports, and Other, most with their own subsections.  With such a broad scope that appears to randomly touch on widely dispersed areas over all human knowledge, how can you argue that this does not violate the prohibition against directories and indiscriminate collections of information?  Its hard to see how an article could be more of an indiscriminate collection than this one.  This is exactly the kind of article that this policy covers.  It seems to me that you are basically arguing that we should ignore the policy in this case because you feel that the article is useful.  From my perspective, that is an inadequate justification.  The correct approach would be to push to change the policy on excluding directories and indiscriminate collections of information rather than attempting to override them by 'jury nullification'.Locke9k (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this case makes clear that some policy tweaking is in order. In fact, just about an hour ago, I rewrote the first point of WP:NOTDIR to better match what I understand to be communal practice regarding lists.  What was there before was in many ways inaccurate or unclear: we do indeed have hundreds of lists of persons, and even some of aphorisms that are perfectly well suited to an encyclopedia -- for instance, List of Latin phrases (which was pretty resoundingly "kept" at two prior AfDs).  And furthermore, the policy did a really poor job of explaining what we use lists for on Wikipedia, and why.  I hope you agree with much, if not all, of the rewrite; if not, you can always tweak it further, or revert and discuss.

Speedy Keep Why is this up for AfD instead of FA? T-95 (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response: For the reasons listed in the nomination: it is the exact sort of thing meant to be excluded by Wikipedia is not a random collection of information, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Locke9k (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you yourself don't dislike the content of this article, and wouldn't want to see it deleted, and don't have a suggestion at hand of where to transfer it so that it doesn't get deleted, trying to get it deleted simply because it "breaks a rule" (which is debatable anyway) is thoroughly wrong-headed.--Father Goose (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons Mandsford gave and the fact that I've LEARNED some useful info I otherwise wouldn't have if this article wasn't the way it is now. --Armchair info guy (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: Could you suggest Wikimedia site where perhaps this could be moved? That way it could be kept available online somewhere without the Wikipedia community essentially overriding Wikipedia policy. I would personally enjoy having a place where I could read this nice compilation of information, I just don't think Wikipedia can be the place.Locke9k (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, it belongs right where it is now. Gets an average of over 1,000 pageviews a day so plenty of folks out there like me and the others voting "Keep" value it as is. I don't mean any disrespect, but I think perhaps you are losing perspective of the big picture and just how many English-speakers all around the world value useful info at wikipedia. No other wiki comes close. Just how it is, and valued pages like this one should be kept. --Armchair info guy (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * When the Wikipedia community overrides policy, that means by definition that the policy is wrong (either broadly or just applied to a specific case). All policies must outline a consensus position.  If there's consensus to not apply a policy, it's the consensus that's correct, not the policy.
 * Father Goose, just because I think that an article is useful doesn't mean I think it belongs in Wikipedia. There are lots of things that I would like to be available somewhere on the internet that I don't think belong in Wikipedia.  My previous point was that I would be interested in a Website that included this list, not that I don't want to see this article deleted.  In fact, I do want to see it deleted within Wikipedia, because I think it is an indiscriminate collection of information that is not encyclopedic and violates one of the core principles of what Wikipedia is.  It doesn't just "break a rule", it is an extension of Wikipedia into one of the things it is not as laid out in the five pillars.  Finally, just because a bunch of people like this article doesn't mean that there is a "consensus" to overturn or change any part of What_Wikipedia_is_not.  If you really believe that such a consensus exists, you should suggest a policy change so that we can truly see what the community consensus is, rather than selectively overriding the policy because some proponents of an article think its a good idea. Locke9k (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggestion - Go and read WP:USEFUL, please. It's, er, a common misconception that an article's utility has a bearing on its survival. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don’t think the article resembles San Francisco telephone directory and it is not a indiscriminate list as well. All the list items have something in common that they are misconceptions! Salih  ( talk ) 18:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response: Why is having in common that they are misconceptions any more of a unifying subject then if I were to claim that a list was of "conceptions"? Can I then create an article called "Things people think"?   I also don't think that this article resembles a telephone directory: it more closely resembles a list of aphorisms, one of the things that is expressly prohibited by Wikipedia is not a directory.  I understand that the wording of this policy on its face makes it sounds like only "directories" are included, but please look at the list of things and corresponding examples covered by this policy and see if it changes your mind.  Locke9k (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional response - I still maintain that as well as being indiscriminate, this article in no way justifies that the mistakes it seeks to correct are common mistakes, or that they are commonly reified as misconceptions. There are an infinite number of ways to be wrong; who says these wrong things are notable? AlexTiefling (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Split into separate articles, such as (for example) List of common history-related misconceptions, List of common law-related misconceptions, etc., turning this page into either a disambiguation page or a category. That way, the facts in each article will be more closely related, alleviating (or nearly alleviating) the WP:INDISCRIMINATE problem. I also agree that a more narrow set of criteria for what constitutes a "common misconception" should be defined.--Unscented (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete while the information contained in this article is decent and well-cited, the criteria for inclusion in this article is nearly completely arbitrary (ie what is a "common" misconception and what truly construes a "misconception"), making it an indiscriminate list, similar to what List of commonly liked foods or List of common things you'd find in a subway station. -Drdisque (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete All of this information is available elsewhere, so worries over content loss are needless. And this is a poster child for a largely indiscriminate collection of information and is patently unencyclopedic. Also, frankly, it borders on WP:TRIVIA. Eusebeus (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. An extremely interesting and informative article, collecting together a lot of information of a particularly important kind. I would like to see better sourcing of the fact that the misconceptions documented are common (many of them only document that they are misconceptions without any form of attestation of their commonness), but this should be possible for many of them, and others can be removed as necessary. JulesH (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggestion for focusing the article "Common" is admittedly gauzy.  Better wording is possible: "notable", "noted", maybe even "oft-noted", with the stipulation that every "misconception" on the list must be noted by at least two sources.  (And noted in the sources specifically as a misconception, though not necessarily using that exact word.)--Father Goose (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is not a random list, nor is it a directory. That said, it needs work. Firstly we need to insist on notabliliy, the misconception must be widespread and not limited to a small industry group or special intrest group. Secondly, proof that it is a misconception (a misconception can be wrong too) must be added, with at least 2 references.  But there is still a dispute, it should be removed until settled. (We're not Mythbusters or Snopes).  Thirdly, I think it should be split in to History, Sport, Geopgraphy, etc. --Dmol (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please note that the things covered under WP:DIRECTORY include, for example, "quotations, aphorisms, or persons". I am not arguing that this is literally a 'directory' but rather that it is one of the things that falls under the (poorly named) policy WP:DIRECTORY.  In particular, this is very similar to a list of aphorisms. Locke9k (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. When I read the article, I thought this nomination had to be a joke of some kind.  The article is excellent—well-sourced, NPOV, informative, beautifully-written and all kinds of fun.   Re: directories—all lists serve as directories.  All categories also serve as directories.  They're good ways of organising and grouping information to make it easier to find.  Wikipedia can and should contain directories in list form of content that Wikipedia covers, and any rule that says otherwise needs to be taken outside and summarily shot.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  23:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response If you feel that way then you should go and propose a change to WP:DIRECTORY so that the entire community can debate that policy, rather than just going around trying to nullify the guideline on a case by case basis. Locke9k (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be the judge of what I should do, Locke9k.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  23:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies S Marshall, I meant that as a polite suggestion rather than an implied command. In retrospect I worded it brusquely and it probably came across rudely.  Locke9k (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. It seems common sense to me that this article is a useful part of an encyclopedia. XenonEngine (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per all other delete votes above. This is a directory of (basically) indiscriminate information. —  Jch  thys  00:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I’m rethinking my position. This page doesn’t really do any harm, as long as the ‘misconceptions’ are agreed on all hands; that is, that anyone should be convinced of them. (For example, no ‘misconception’ such as ‘Jesus was/was not an historical person’ has no place.) The article probably does need a little cleanup, but there’s no point really throwing out the entire article—I find it quite useful for an encyclopædia to have. —  Jch  thys  21:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is a great article; and don't we have rules that if there is a great article, well written, well sourced, that all other arguments are null? Ks64q2 (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response: Usually, but only if the material is part of what Wikipedia is. For example, a great, well written, well sourced list of quotes would not be kept in Wikipedia; it would be moved to Wikiquotes.  Similarly, an amazing news article or how-to manuals also wouldn't be kept.  If an article is something Wikipedia is Not then its quality is beside the point. Locke9k (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete per list guidelines. This list is just far too broad in scope, it's already too long imo and has the potential to be infinite in length. Of course a split might work. The idea of 'misconception' is worrying, all we are essentially talking about is differing POVs, so is suggestng that one is a 'misconception' non-neutral? It seems a number of the entries are based on alot of synthesis with no evidence of misconceptions being common at all.--<span style="font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: underline; color:black; border: 1pt solid white; padding: 0pt 4pt; background-color: white;">neon white talk 08:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not a directory of indiscriminate information. Personally, I think it is very useful. This is exactly the same thing wikipedia is for: helping the user.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The information list popular misconceptions, and corrects them.  Fascinating.  Does WP:IAR apply here?  I think it does.  This adds to the wikipedia greatly.    D r e a m Focus  13:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree that WP:IAR applies here for the interest value of the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete (with any appropriate merging of content to respective articles) due to the fact that the qualities of associating what is a "common misconception" is not well shown on this list. Some sources that are given do assert that "Fact X is a common misconception"... and limiting it to those would be fine, in much the same way List of Internet phenomena requires an RS that asserts popularity to include on the list. But there's several entries here that lack any source, or in the spot checks of sources for that are there, do not seem to assert the fact as a misconception.  Furthermore, there's no potential bound on this list, as there are lots of potential misconception facts. The list might be worthwhile on another Mediawiki sister project (which one, I don't know) but because the list membership is vague and can be indiscriminate, is not appropriate. --M ASEM  (t) 16:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as fails WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I agree with Masem, as "common misconceptions" are not defined; most of this radom trivia is somewhat uncommon in my view. This list might make an interesting "factoid" on the back of a cereal box, but it is a common misconception that this type of list has any encyclopedic value. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Gavin, what's "encyclopaedic value"?  Surely something that contributes to the purpose of an encyclopaedia.  What's the purpose of an encyclopaedia?  To encapsulate human knowledge; to filter it for brevity and clarity; and to collect information in a way that's easy to find; and to help readers educate themselves.  I think this article does that admirably.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  17:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I think you already know - there has to be some form of context, which a list of "factoids" does not provide. How would you feel if there was a List of common misconceptions about S. Marshall? If there is no context provided, how would you know what is a misconception and what is urban myth? The answer is you don't know. I concede that this list has entertainment value, but it seems to me most of the support in favour of keeping it are actually thinly veiled arguements along the lines WP:ILIKEIT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I rather think they're not-at-all veiled arguments along the lines of WP:IAR. I maintain there's sufficient context for encyclopaedic value, but accept your good faith position is otherwise.  (I did try making an article called List of common misconceptions about S. Marshall; it lasted less than 60 seconds.)— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  02:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete it's basically indiscriminate and impossible to categorize. I also agree that it's a list of trivia. What's the bar for a "common" misconception, for instance? How many people must hold the mistaken belief for it to be included here? What about all of the "misconceptions" that were common at one time or another but have been corrected by science and reason. I commend whoever did the work on it; it's handsome enough with some fun bits, but not the stuff of which encyclopedias are built.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy/strong keep per WP:LISTS as it is a list of discriminate, useful, interesting, verifiable, important, and encyclopedic information that gets over 20,000 page views a month. The article serves a great purpose as a spinoff or sub-article to our coverage of misconceptions by illustrating examples, much as an encyclopedia or almanac article on a country lists cities with that country or on the Academy Awards lists award winners for illustrative purposes. The article also serves a navigational function as a means for those interested in these common misconceptions of having a gateway to our other articles that deal with the reality of the items listed. In any event, it is what editors and readers come to Wikipedia for and is thus consistent with what Wikipedia is. Calling it "indiscriminate" is patently dishonest as it is clearly discriminate, i.e. only miconceptions and only miconceptions that are common and on top of that only miconceptions that are common as verified through reliable sources per WP:RS. Calling it "trivia" is pure subjectivity as it concerns items that are studied and discussed by millions of people throughout history and in many diverse fields. Dismissing their academic interest is trivial borders on insulting. Some calls to delete and merge should be reminded per Merge and delete that we cannot delete and merge per the GFDL. Thus, no reasons beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT has been presented for deletion. Any appearance of policy are guideline based reasons are and have been easily refuted. The truth is that the article clearly meets all of our policies and guidelines with flying colors. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep with all due haste Contrary to many delete "votes", this meets the requirements of WP:LISTS and its inclusion improves wikipedia and its servicibility to all readres. I see some editors are confused, so help fix it.... not delete such a worthy article. Any disagreement with style can be addressed on the articles talk page and through WP:CLEANUP.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is neither random nor a directory. The relevant policy is WP:NOTLAW which forbids a fussy insistence on following rules rather than considering the quality of the topic.  Of course, there is scope for refinement and other improvements but this will not be achieved by deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NOT. Inherently a list of trivia. Also, those calling above for this to be taken to WP:FLC should be aware that this is not even remotely close to FL-quality. — sephiroth bcr  <sup style="font-family:Verdana;">( converse ) 18:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Then please improve it to make it featured quality. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, no. I have zero obligation to do so. In addition if you were even remotely aware of the FLC process (which you're not in any fashion and I am) you would realize that it would be a crapload of work, would probably fail FLC for the same reasons brought up during this AfD, and ultimately would be pointless. So stop spouting lame requests when you have absolutely no idea what they entail. — sephiroth bcr  <sup style="font-family:Verdana;">( converse ) 19:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because you don't like it and don't want to work on it is not a valid reason to prevent others from improving it as they obviously can. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So you ignore the substance of my post entirely and go back to one of your staple arguments. Typical. — sephiroth bcr  <sup style="font-family:Verdana;">( converse ) 19:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is that neither you, nor anyone else, have provided any actually valid reasons for redlinking this improveable article. Whether or not it can be a featured list doesn't matter.  The whole point of having featured lists is that they are exceptional.  If everything was featured then, why call them featured?  The article is if nothing else "good enough" and for those who don't like it or don't want to work on it, they can and should ignore it and work on what they are interested in as this verifiable and notable subject is relevant to many of their colleagues.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually we have provided multiple valid arguments referencing Wikipedia policies and explaining why they apply in this case. And in point of fact, Sephiroth above is not mainly making the point that it is nt FA quality, he mainly makes the point that is is "inherently a list of trivia".  That is a valid reason, under Wikipedia policy, to delete.  We are saying that this article cannot be made acceptable because by definition it is inherently something wikipedia is not.Locke9k (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Any rationales for deletion have been discounted as they are not subtantiated by the actually text contained within the policies and guidelines. This list is inherently encyclopedic and is a valid reason under Wikipedia policy to keep.  This article is acceptable because by definition it is inherently something that Wikipedia is.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is factual in a way that a list of selected aphorisms could not be. There are also many published books on the specific topic, worded variously as "widespread misconceptions" or "modern myths".  Sure, the criteria can and should be tightened, and maybe the article name should be changed, but the concept is recognized and notable. Kestenbaum (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response: Lists of aphorisms are not excluded due to limits on how factual they can be. They are excluded because the kind of content is inherently unencyclopedic.  That is pretty clear in WP:NOT. The fact that there are many books doesn't help the situation.  There are also many how-to books, yet how-to content is not allowed in Wikipedia because it is one of the things that Wikipedia is expressly not.Locke9k (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This list is not a how to, however, which is why it passed what Wikipedia is. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That was just one example of things wikipedia is not. The point is that just because there is a book on something doesnt mean it should be part of an encyclopedia.  This particular article fails on Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.Locke9k (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As it is undeniably a discriminate collection of information and can in no reasonable way be labelled a directory, it is thus not an example of what wikipedia is not. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Massive violation of core WP:NOT policy. The topic is way too broad for any meaningful encyclopedic coverage. And, frankly, anyone who doesn't get that would be better off leaving Wikipedia to create Triviapedia.org or Wikilistomania.org or something that would be more in line with their goals. DreamGuy (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is consistent with Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable topics with importance in the real world). Thus, it meets our core policy while failing none of them.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't say it fails none when it fails WP:NOT and WP:ENC. And the claim that it's consistent with a specialized encyclopedia is just nonsense anyway. No encyclopedia, specialized or otherwise, works this way. DreamGuy (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can because it passes both. Saying it is not encyclopedic is nonsense, because many specialized encyclopedias and almanacs typically contain such lists of this nature and it is essentially what Wikipedia is, which is why there is no valid policy based reason for deletion.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What encyclopedia is a list of common misconceptions?  There are books that are lists of common misconceptions, but they are trivia books and not encyclopedias.  Also comparing this to a specialized encyclopedia seems particularly inappropriate considering the absurd breadth of this article.  It has sections on law, science, history, and cooking, among many others, and you are claiming it is specialized?Locke9k (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All of these encyclopedias cover common misconceptions. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks you for making that point. Actually it appears to support my argument.  These encyclopedias address misconceptions within the text of the appropriate subject.  They do not contain indiscriminate lists of misconceptions out of context at the end of the book. What I am proposing is exactly that.  Someone should move this material to their sandbox and add it on a line by line basis to the appropriate article in cases where it improves that article.Locke9k (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We are not a paper encyclopedia; we can do what they do and more. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The information is encyclopedic where it is noted that a fact is a common misconception on the article on that topic, but this as a standalone list, without strong entry requirements, is not an encyclopedic presentation of the information, as it could allow for any trivial misconception (for example, where is the "Kiss this guy" misheard lyric? That's a misconception....) --M ASEM  (t) 19:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a wikipedic presentation. :) Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is an Encyclopedia of Popular Misconceptions. The assertion that such works do not exist is therefore false. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Simply because this calls itself an encyclopedia doesn't mean it is one. It looks to me like a trivia book that has in a tongue in cheek or salesmanship way called itself an encyclopedia. The question is whether by the Wikipedia definition of encyclopedic, this sort of list fits the definition.  I would argue that it does not.Locke9k (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see No true Scotsman. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge and delete - Merge the specific entries into the specific wikipages they relate to. Nonfiction cruft derived completely from whatever bathroom reader any editor happens to have on hand. WP:TRIVIA applies, this is nothing but a list of trivia; that it's a separate page instead of a section makes the problem worse, not better. No way of determining what content is appropriate or hiving off content if it gets to big. No way of determining due weight. This is a prose version of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, point four. Horribly biased to specific parts of the world, and no definition of "common". Sources justify that specific entries are factually correct, not that they are common misconceptions. We are not MythBusters or Snopes. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup Symbol keep vote.svgImbox style.png AFD is not cleanup, if there are extraneous items on the page, remove them! I think we should trim entries without citations and ones whose citations don't explicitly mention the fact that it's a common misconception.--Ipatrol (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or whatever is compatible with the GFDL - the sourced information is fine, but there is no encyclopedic reason to organize it like this. Note: I worked on this article for a little while some time ago, but decided that it is unmaintainable. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Mgm just pointed out that this is a merge rationale. Where relevant to the main articles (which common misconceptions generally should be), the material should be included there. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP Nomination is flawed. Nominator states: Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. The 5 criteria under that section are: 1. Frequently Asked Questions. 2. Plot summaries.  3. Lyrics databases. 4. Statistics. and 5. News reports.  This article is neither. This is another case of misunderstanding of wikipolicy to delete a well referenced article. Ikip (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response: Actually I brought up two points. Wikipedia is not a random collection of information is only one of them.  The other is Wikipedia is not a directory, and if you look at the text of that it is clearly meant to cover things like this.  Also Wikipedia is not a random collection of information is not necessarily limited to just those things.  If I just make a list of fact that have been deleted from other articles that is clearly a nondiscriminate collection of info even though it isnt on that list. Locke9k (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is not a directory, but a list of encyclopedic and verifiable subjects. A directory is a phone book.  This is not presented in a phone book style, but with section headings and paragraphs contained within.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, the (poorly named) policy WP:DIRECTORY actually includes things than in laymans terms are not a directory. The relevant subpoint is "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons".  I am not arguing that this page is literally a "directory" but simply that it is one of the items excluded under the policy called WP:DIRECTORY.  Please take a look at the set of things discussed on that page under this policy - as I said its poorly named and you might be surprised. Locke9k (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It clearly passes that page. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't help to make those sorts of bald assertions with no justification. It apparently is not 'clear' that is passes that policy, or the present debate would not exist.  I have repeatedly given a reasoned argument as to why it fails that policy.  Simply stating that it "clearly" does not is no rebuttal and is an (unintentional) insult to the intelligence of the people making an argument on the other side. If you wish to rebut me, please address the point I have specifically made.Locke9k (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It plainly is not a directory and there's no way it can be justifiably called as such. Someone can declare that a bananna is not a bannana and how I am supposed to refute that by anything other than saying, yes, it is a bannana.  Well, the article is a list, not a directory.  It is list consistent with what we are and as such it passes our guidelines and policies, which is why over two dozen editors have provided arguments to that effect. Why does it matter so much if something that is obviously relevant to many of your colleagues is permitted to continue develop?  An active interest in this article clearly exists for further improvement.  Why not see where that goes?  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the actual policy on WP:DIRECTORY if you have not. It is poorly named: it covers more than just 'directories'.  The very first point in it specifically covers lists: "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons."  This does apply to this article.  You are free to dispute that, but please don't do so by just linguistically disputing whether this is a 'directory' when that (poorly named) policy actually covers a lot more.  Secondly, you keep stating that so many people have argued supported keeping the article, but Wikipedia is not a democracy; the mere fact that a bunch of people like this article isn't a valid argument for keeping it. Locke9k (talk) 04:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * After looking at the policy on directory, it is clear that this article passes that page. These subjects are not loosely associated, nor are they just quotations or persons.  Yes, Wikipedia is not a democracy and as such by strength of arguments, the article will be kept.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Cruft" is never a valid reason for deletion and per Merge and delete, we cannot delete mergeable content (also per WP:PRESERVE). This is not a list of trivia and it is insulting to say as much as it is noteworthy items relevant to many readers and contributors.  It is obviously discriminate as well as pointed out above.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean it is "obviously discriminate"? If you really believe that could you please actually logically explain your basis?  As I have mentioned, it seems to me that a list containing sections on Law, Science, Cooking, History, and OTHER, among others, is prima facie notdiscriminate.  Also I don't see how its insulting.  No one has said that the page contains uninteresting trivia.  They are just labeling it as 'trivia' because of the fact that it is all gathered in one place despite being of unrelated subjectsLocke9k (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted, changed to merge and delete. This is very much a list of trivia, with a series of useful sources that could be easily placed in the appropriate articles.  Unfortunately not a one of those references are for these being "common misconceptions".  The only reason I say "merge and delete " is because I can't think of where you would redirect the article.  Perhaps trivia?  Incidentally, how can the page be further improved?  There's already citations, what "improvement" can be done? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, we cannot merge and delete, we can only merge and redirect with edit history intact. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean we can't merge and delete? No one here is saying to have a general merge of this article into one other article.  They are saying that there are hundreds of lines of trivia here, each of which needs to go into a separate article.  Its not really a merge so much as just adding the info in this article to hundreds of others.  I don't see how that prohibits a delete.Locke9k (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Deletion is an extreme last resort per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. If we merge ANY of the article, we must redirect with the edit history intact per the GFDL, but given that over two dozens editors have argued to keep in this and the earlier discussion and like half of the deletes are really okay with merging, there's no way we're going to have a consensus to delete anyway.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your point still makes no sense. It is not possible to redirect a page to multiple other pages.  No one is suggesting that this be merged in the technical wikipedia sense, which is the combination of one article into one other.  They are suggesting that some individual lines of info be added to dozens or hundreds of other articles, as appropriate.  Just because an article happens to contain some lines of info that belong in another article doesnt mean it can't be deleted.  Finally, there are several days left on this, so lets not make pronouncements yet.  No one is suggesting a wholesale merge in the Wikipedia sense.  You may be missing their point - they are simply saying that some info can be preserved in many other articles, but that this one should be deleted.  I understand that people can stonewall this even if they are not making any reasoned arguments, but time should be left for a reasoned debate.  Locke9k (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We would have to redirect it somwhere, maybe to Common misconceptions or Misconception as we cannot delete the edit histories of merged content. There are already sufficiently strong arguments to keep that regardless of what happens in the next few days, no admin could honestly and unbiasedly close as anything other than "keep", "no consensus," or "merge and redirect."  So, at this point, we are really just wasting time keeping it going and should discuss either how to improve further on the talk page or how to merge or split into smaller articles as there is no reason beyond "I don't like it" for deletion.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For all you know five hundred people will comment on this page in the next 3 days and could easily create a consensus. It boots nothing to prematurely squelch debate.  Look, why would we have to redirect it somewhere?  No one is suggesting to actually merge this page into one other page.  Thats what the redirect you are talking about is for; to redirect to the one page into which that page was merged.  The rule you are bringing up doesn't actually have anything to do with this situation.  I don't accept your argument that "we cannot delete the edit histories of merged content" because I don't agree that anyone is actually suggesting a merge in the wikipedia sense.  They are suggesting a delete, but that some of the content that happens to be in this page could be profitably added to other pages.  You can't possibly merge this page into any other one page because this page has no one subject.  Thanks- Locke9k (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll grant that I am not a telepath, but in the hundreds of AfDs I have commented in, none had 500 participants. In any event, if we merge anything, we have to keep the edit history public because per the GFDL, which is not my argument, but the policy we go by an based on my experience with such situations in many AfDs, we must keep the edit history public so as to keep the attributions visible.  See Merge and delete for more explanation.  If we merge even the references that other editors added elsewhere, we have to acknowledge who originally added that content to Wikipedia in the first place.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep notable topic, is defined and categorised. is only a directory in the way that any article which has a list of anything can be a directory. Has teh potential to be very large, so can be split into subarticles, not grounds for deletion. And easily referenceable with 2nd party indep sources, as there are books on the topic I am sure. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as a comment, I would suspect most of these facts can be sources. There's no WP:V issues here.  What needs to be sourced better is the qualification that these are "common misconceptions".  That is not consistent through the list, and thus a cause for concern if there's discretion or not in the makeup of this list. --M ASEM  (t) 21:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know, that's what I mean, I am sure there are books discussing common misconceptions as a subject. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * cmt. The article now has 37 tags, and i've only gone through half of it. Some of it's patently absurd ("many people believe koalas are actually bears") some maybe more borderline, but lots of it will need citations to reflect something along the order of "common misconception." (don't get me started on the religious stuff).  There is some stuff having to do with scientific beliefs that became outdated (i.e. stuff on chromosomes that is NO LONGER a misconception -- at any rate, most people don't think about this stuff), other scientific issues that people commonly don't think about at all (A common misconception about the Crookes Radiometer? Really?) etc... Most of this stuff will have to go no matter what happens at AFD absent sourcing.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Indiscriminate list of trivia, fails WP:NOT. Some of the stuff can be merged in relevant articles. This is Wikipedia, not Snopes.--Sloane (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This particular list is discriminate which is why it passes what Wikipedia is. We cannot delete when we merge per the GFDL.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal: Look, this is just a disingenuous argument. That may apply when a page is being merged into one other page.  You cannot create a redirect when the specific points on this page are being added separately to dozens or hundred of other articles.  It is obviously technically impossible and doesn't even make sense.  People here are obviously not saying 'merge' in the sense of a wholesale merger of this article and another.  They are simply saying colloquially that the specific lines of info on this article can be added (or colloquially 'merged') into other articles as appropriate.  Locke9k (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, what is the big deal here, to be blunt? It is a discrminate list that your colleagues can verify and that our readers want to edit and improve.  Looking at the article's edit history, editors are actively working to improve it.  We gain absolutely nothing by deleting this obviously encyclopedic article.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Again I will point out that it is not obviously encyclopedic, or there would not be such a debate over it. These 'whats the big deal' arguments totally evade the point.  There are things Wikipedia is not, and saying 'whats the big deal' doesn't eliminate the need to comply with those things.Locke9k (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is to the tens of thousands who come to Wikipedia looking for this article, the scores who have volunteered their time to edit it, and the dozens defending its inclusion. This article is consistent with what Wikipedia is and complies with that scope of coverage as has already been pointed out it is consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on common misconceptions and yes, such books exist.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs more references and a well-defined threshold for "common" but it would be silly to delete this interesting article. Rracecarr (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as an indiscriminate trivial list without a clear encyclopedic topic, as required by WP:SALAT. Wikipedia isn't a dumping ground of anything you can think of tangentially related to a topic.  Them From  Space  23:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:SALAT is itself not precise but concludes by saying, "If you create a list like the "list of shades of colours of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge." In this case, we have no such bizarre category.  Instead we have a topic which has clear educational merit in that it lists common errors or misunderstandings.  These are worthy of listing so that our general audience may have their misconceptions corrected and, in this way, they will be educated.  As noted above, this topic is suffiently notable that an encyclopedic book has been written about it.  I doubt that we will find books about shades of apple sauce and so the distinction is clear.  Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A trivia book with the word 'encyclopedia' in the title has been written about it. That doesn't mean its encyclopedic by Wikipedia's definition.  Whether this is a 'bizarre category' is totally subjective.  I personally find it pretty bizarre. Locke9k (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a trivia book, however. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Is it not inherently flawed, relying as it does on a point of view of what constitutes a "common misconception"? pablo hablo. 00:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is an indiscriminate list. Properly sourced information can always be added to the relevant articles, but there is no need to collect these snippets randomly in a single list article. --DAJF (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a discriminate list and if we merge the other material we cannot delete per the GFDL. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I will rebut by pointing out that this is absurd. No one is suggesting this be wholesale merged into another article.  They are suggesting that individual lines in this article be added to other articles as appropriate.  It is technically impossible to redirect a page toward multiple other pages at the same time, so this clearly is not what they had in mind regarding merge / delete policy.  People are using the term 'merge' colloquially, not in the technical Wikipedia sense.  Also, you keep baldly asserting that this is a discriminate list, with no justification.  We have repeatedly given reasoned arguments for why it is not.  It would be more helpful were you to do the same rather than using argument by repetition. Locke9k (talk) 04:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, from my perspective wanting to delete verifiable and encyclopedic content is absurd. There is not justification for calling this discriminate list indiscriminate.  It has a clear inclusion criteria: only misconceptions called common in reliable sources.  And to be truthful, most of the deletes just repeat "indiscriminate" even though that inaccurate claim has been refuted several times already.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The justification is clear. There is no subject actually linking these varied facts.  The claim that the fact that these are 'misconceptions' is a linking subject is no different than a claim that facts could be linking by being conceptions - just things that people think.  This is logically no more 'discriminate' than a list of things people commonly believe are true that are correct, and few people would argue in favor of that.  Its no different than linking facts by saying that they are "commonly debated," and that would pretty clearly be unacceptable.  Just because lists of misconceptions are popular on the internet and in trivia books and smalltalk doesnt make it any more of a truly unifying subject. Locke9k (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The subject linking these varied facts is that they are common misconceptions, i.e. items referred to in published books as common misconceptions. The comparisons you make are apples and oranges.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd respectfully disagree. They are not apples and oranges.  What they have in common is an attempt to call a vague abstraction a subject.  "common misconceptions" is not a subject, it is a vague abstraction.  Same for "common correct conceptions" or "subject of common debate."  Honestly, I can conceive of hundreds of 'subjects' that are nothing more than that - a vague abstraction.  I don't think that things linked by vague abstractions qualify as discriminate lists of information. Locke9k (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * They are, because here we are talking about something that is the title of at least one published encyclopedia. I know you see it as a trivia book, but arguably any encyclopedia is in effect a collection of content deemed trivia by someone.  "Common misconceptions" is indeed a subject, one many authors have addressed as a topic and the examples on this list illustrate that concept.  And hey, a "subject of common debate" would be okay by me too, to be honest.  My feeling here is strongly Editors matter as clearly, we should be able to agree, a good deal of our fellow editors and readers want to develop this article and find its information relevant to them.  Sure, it's useful, interesting, and helpful may not be the strongest arguments, but they do have some validity in the sense that so long as the concept is also verfiable and it undeniably is, why not allow our fellow editors and readers to make of it what they can?  Articles can easily be ignored by those who aren't interested in them.  But here we have a number of editors, several far more respected than I, who see value in it.  We know it isn't a hoax, copy vio, or libelous, so yeah, it's really harmless and in fact beneficial to a good segment of our community.  We would be doing them a disservice by just scrapping it.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This list is clearly indiscriminate in its scope and the lead is hardly unambiguous about the list's membership criteria. The list is mostly made of of trivia that is better off incorporated into their individual articles. There really is no purpose to this list other then to have a list. See also WP:LISTCRUFT --Farix (Talk) 02:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the parameters of the article's title, the list is obviously discriminate and it serves a clear navigational purpose in addition to the purpose of supplementing our main articles. See also WP:ITSCRUFT.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep But it should be deconstructed into several articles. 90K-plus bites! Fascinating topic. Let's have a gazillion well-sourced articles like this on many topics and make a category out of the overall concept. Why is there such a need on the part of some people to make Wikipedia boring? There is nothing inherently unencyclopedic about this. -- Noroton (talk) 04:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Aside from the OR, synth and bias? --<span style="font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: underline; color:black; border: 1pt solid white; padding: 0pt 4pt; background-color: white;">neon white talk 04:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Content cited in published books is not original research. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So what research are you citing to show that these misconceptions are especially common, worldwide? No-one is debating the truth and accuracy of the rebuttals; it's the commonality of the false belief that concerns me. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Many published books list common misconceptions, and yes, even Encyclopedia Britannica cites common misconceptions within its articles. Moreover, we can use such books as this for citing the religion section. I am not opposed to having separate articles, i.e. Common misconceptions about Catholicism et al, but we absolutely can cover the subject in some manner or other and per WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE, we should be considering these options, but discussing them on the talk page rather than a page for redlinking only. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Salvage Per Farix, the list is completely indiscriminate. What qualifies a misconception as "common"? Common is a completely subjective term, and victim to huge systematic bias. E.g. "Napoleon Bonaparte (pictured) was not especially short." how is that misconception common? I'm sure it could be merged into the relevant articles though.-- Patton t / c 11:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He is portrayed in the media, from old paintings, to modern movies, as being short. I thought he was short until reading that information.  It is a common misconception many of us had, and thus a valid fact to have on the list.   D r e a m Focus  14:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes something common? I';ve never heard of him being short.-- Patton t / c 16:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because some people haven't heard something doesn't make it any less common. I have been familiar with the stereotype of him being short for a long time and most people I've ever come in contact with who mentioned Napoleon thinks he's short. Anyway, please see page 11 of Napoleon for Dummies, which has a box titled "Speaking of short," that reads "Lots of people, probably including you, think of Napoleon as that short fellow..." and then goes on to debunk the common misconception about Napoleon's height. Please see also Napoleon, which additionall addresses how British propaganda added to the height myth that has perpetuated ever since.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You still don't seem to understand that common is a subjective term, so it's unclear what belongs in this list and what doesn't. Btw by definition, the fewer people who know something the less common it is.-- Patton t / c 19:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We are not going by our personal definitions of what is common, but rather what is define by some authority such as multiple published books as common. I would say that most people who have any mental image of Napoleon would have that stereotyped image of him as short, which is why many authors have written on the subject.  Not everyone is going to know what a majority agrees is "common knowledge," but that doesn't make it any less common knowledge.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * cmt 52 of the articles claims are now tagged as unsourced/uncited. Not done reading all of it yet. Bali ultimate (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are now 128 references given for information in there. I just added one for the vikings, as well as a link to the official NASA site for the seasons, to confirm that yes, the seasons are caused by the tilt of the planet, and not the distance from the sun as they incorrectly me back in elementrary school.  Glad I cleared that up.  The rest can be referenced in time, so that hopefully isn't something anyone sees as a valid reason to delete.   D r e a m Focus  15:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The citations added in both cases failed to establish that these things are "common misconceptions" so i restored fact tags (while leaving the crufty citations in). I've explained over there in edit summaries and on the talk page. The vast majority of the citations on that page establish only basic facts -- i.e. "the earth tilts on its axis" without determining that there are "common misconceptions" in this regard (that's just a "for instance"). Most of the entries that do not have citations with regard to the specific claims of this list's definition (leaving aside the fact that "common" is far from defined) will have to go. There is resistance to removing unsourced material at the moment. But eventually, absent specific sources supporting A. what is uncontroversially the truth of a given matter and, B. That this truth is "commonly" misunderstood, they will have to go.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. This appears to be an indiscriminate list of facts with no correlation to each other than the unsourced claim that an unmetered amount of undefined people were previously unaware of them.  This is functionally the list of random information I think some people didn't know.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 17:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It actually is a discrim,inate list of facts that have a clear correlation to each other, i.e. common misconceptions that are soruced through reliable sources. The comparison is apples and oranges.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But, as pointed out by, the article provides no evidence for misconception or commonality, only a string of variably sourced indiscriminate facts. Since there is no explicit definition of "common misconceptions" for this article, each entrant needs to reference a source, each of which needs to individually define its information as a "common misconception".  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 18:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Only items that are referred to as a "common misconception" in a published book should be included and becasue so many books cover the topic we easily cite the items accordingly and provide a definition from these works. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Will you remove the ones that don't to meet The Heymann Standard? As is stands now, none of the entrants specify who/what has defined that factoid as a "common misconception", only a collection of facts.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 19:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to and am willing to help with a dramatic revision of the article that in its lead first defines common misconception by using the definitions of the phrase as found in published books and then we include only items covered in published books devoted specifically to common or popular misconceptions, such as this, i.e. we see how these kinds of texts define the terms in their leads and then go from there, but again, I am wondering if a split would be more appropriate in this case? Should we have separate lists on or religion, world regions, etc. and perhaps only include those that are cited in multiple texts.  If say something labelled a common misconception only appears in what of the aforementioned books, we don't include it, but when we have something labelled a common misconception in multiple books specifically about common misconceptions, then they merit inclusion in either a master list as we have or in separate lists?  My strong belief is that some kind of list of common misconceptions is worth covering.  26 editors have argued to keep this list now and a good segment of the deletes seem okay with some kind of a merge or split as an alternate solution, so what I am asking is essentially what needs to happen to the article to make it acceptable to those who are willing to include coverage of the subject in some capacity?  I and others here will indeed work from the advice of our colleauges to get something that most of us are happy with or at least willing to tolerate.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Indiscriminate listing of trivia. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Which you know is not true as it is a disrcriminate list of non-trivial items. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't see any evidence that states that these are common misconceptions. Who says these are misconceptions? Who are they held by? "General populace" is a vague peacock term that does not address this question suitably. Without being able to verify that these are misconceptions with reliable sources, the basis for this article is invalidated. Seraphim  &hearts;  18:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please type in "common misconceptions" and any items on Google books and most will indeed get hits in reliable sources. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: Is there a list wiki? I have been working on a list in my userspace of articles to transwiki (see User_talk:A_Nobody/Deletion_discussions) and for articles such as this one, where while there is no consensus to delete, it still might also be nice on a list specific wiki as well. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I think there could be some kind of article about misconceptions, how they get started and become common knowledge, and that might include some in-depth and well-sourced examples. But a big, sprawling list of random trivia like this is far too much what Wikipedia is not. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep well sourced and well written. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and split The problem is the indiscriminate nature of the list; one can introduce discrimination into this topic by defining the subject matter of the list.  Someone way back there came up with this solution, and I liked it.  I agree with the people who say that THIS article in its current form should not stay as it is; but deletion is not the only option in dealing with this.  Insofar as information at this list is referenced, the solution would seem to be to move these ideas to subject-specific articles of common misconceptions, and remove any unreferenced entries.  Those two solutions should help address the problems of the nominator, without removing otherwise well researched and referenced information.  Again, this article in this form needs to go, but the problem can be solved by means other than deletion.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  21:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to other articles. While more or less each item on this list is sourced and so on, putting them together on the list is a bad idea. The problem is a definition of a common misconception. Those items belong to their separate articles, like in the case of the Great Wall of China, where there is a section in the article iscussiong the misconception about visibility from the Moon. --Tone 21:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * cmt to tone: I'm not aware of any of the sourced items that are not already mentioned in one form or another in the relevant articles. So while i'm not opposed to "merge" as a principle, in practice in this case the merge half has already been done.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If the content has been merged, there is no need in keeping this article then. --Tone 13:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I liked the phrase "a string of variably sourced indiscriminate facts. " And of course, not a directory. I think Tone's suggestion above is actually delete and put anything useful in the appropriate articles, which is fine if it's sourced. dougweller (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Misconceptions do exist, and the list looks like a collection of useful information with sources--Caspian blue 22:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Few of these entries have substantiation that the misconception is "common". --EEMIV (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But that's the problem - it's not fixable without a survey of the world's population that lists what beliefs they hold about matters like Napoleon's height, Pilgrim footwear, the first computer and the Council of Nicaea. If you know where such a survey is published, you fix it. not sure what the "best" bit means so I haven't addressed that. pablo hablo. 23:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is fixable by simply citing from multiple books that describe the items as "common misconceptions" or by splitting into separate articles that deal with specific misconceptions as suggested above. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well good luck with finding them. pablo hablo. 23:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks, but just checking Google, a number of books provide lists of common misconceptions. As they cover a number of topics, I am starting to lean towards some kind of split into separate articles with the clear criteria that to be listed it has to be described as a "common misconception" is multiple published books.  Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 23:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of them express one POV that isnt necessarily 'common'. --<span style="font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: underline; color:black; border: 1pt solid white; padding: 0pt 4pt; background-color: white;">neon white talk 01:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm concerned about a nomination that seems to ignore POLICY and GUIDELINE in an eager wish to remove this article. I am also concerned by the number of deletes that state the article is imperfect and so must go. That would mean its time to fix it, not trash it. The most basic threshold for inclusion has been met, and everything here is simply quibbling over who thinks what is importanat enough to include or meaningless enough to toss... and this out of out of a paperless encyclopedia. Let's improve wikipedia and not spend so much time trying to diminish it.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * An arguement that such a subject can never be neutral is a perfectly valid reason for deletion. --<span style="font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: underline; color:black; border: 1pt solid white; padding: 0pt 4pt; background-color: white;">neon white talk 01:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't know which nomination you were reading, as that was not a claim made in the nomination, nor one being refuted by me. My own concern is still valid. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and then clean up the article some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.38.54 (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC) — 70.188.38.54 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. What makes a misconception "common", "oft-noted", or similar?  When does a misconception move from "uncommon" to "common"?  Criteria for inclusion are much too fuzzy, making this list rather indiscriminate and of somewhat limited usefulness.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Anything covered in published books as a "common misconception", which is a clear inclusion criteria for this discriminate nad useful list. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 15:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. A number of respondents here have claimed that there is no way to distinguish "common" from "uncommon".  This is untrue: if reliable sources characterize some fact as both a "misconception" and "common", then it belongs on the list.  It'll take some time to provide sourcing for all the items on the list, but we don't delete articles on the basis of transient imperfections.--Father Goose (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * cmt this article is five years old. How much more time does it need for these elusive sources to be found? When do transient imperfections become "untransient." I would argue, we should remove everything that doesn't meet these sourcing requirements now. That would at least make the article better, and less objectionable in light of existing policies.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * question: With respects, are you no proposing that Wiki now institute a deadline? I ask because editing policy begins with a very important instruction "Even the best of our articles should never be considered complete", it instructs that "Perfection is never required", and explains that "There may be times when material that has some potential value is so poorly written that it is unlikely to be improved any time soon", and of course dictates that "editors should strive to preserve material". Whether it takes five years or 55 years, Wiki is a work in process and is never expected to ever be completed. Your perhaps impatience at how slow the improvements to this article are progressing is perhaps understandable... but there is (currently) no deadline nor expectation for perfection. A belief that everything has to be perfect within an arbitrary timeframe could easily be itself added to the article as a "common misconception". Again, and with respects, this is my observation from existing guideline.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * With respects spare me the misinformed condescension. I'm convinced, after working hard on this, that it's not sourcable EVER. And, it's had five years for people who disagree with me and others to demonstrate otherwise. While there is no deadline, unsourced, uncategorizable garbage should go almost immediately -- if sources emerge later, something can be recreated. Removing an article that might mislead the public does not remove the information from the world. After all, it came from somewhere in the first place. By your argument, nothing should be deleted, ever, because it could always be "improved." Furthermore, all the useful information here is duplicated elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Nothing would be lost by it's removal.Bali ultimate (talk) 07:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. Sorry to be the recipient of such ardour. Please accept in good faith that I was not being condensending and was remaining as polite and civil as possible. I can appreciate your statement that you have dedicated time to this... and understand from the histories that that many many others have as well. But please note that my "argument" is from the policy and guideline pages of wiki itself, not simply my opinion. Its just that you just got me thinking of why wiki's rules are written the way they are... and so I was simply asking if you felt it was time to rewrite them all to reflect your thoughts that this and similar information should be either deleted as "garbage" or sprinkled throughout wiki in other locations. Might you then suggest some sort of index system that would make it easier to find the dispersed information by some method other than a random page by page search?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Condescension doesn't require impoliteness or incivility; in fact, pretended politeness or faux civility enhances its effects.--CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This is perhaps the single most epic page of trivia and indiscriminate information Wikipedia has ever seen, but it remains trivia and indiscriminate information. Given that this article will pretty obviously close as no consensus, I hope those voting for retention and rescue will follow through. Resolute 05:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is actual discriminate as it has a clear inclusion criteria and non-trivial as the topic is the subject of many published books. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 15:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Remove unsourced things and retitle to less subjective "list of misconceptions"; notability can be decided by editorial judgment. I think this can be a discriminate list. I can foresee some confusion over the title, as these misconceptions may be discussed as "myths". Why is this not the same as common conceptions? Because misconceptions are much less common and eventually destroyed. Anyway, if this article is destroyed it should be moved to Wikinfo.org. II  | (t - c) 05:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps restructure the existing article to show that certain misconceptions have their own cultural, ethnic, or hemispheric bias?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Removing the word 'common' doesn't change the structural problems nor indiscriminate and trivial nature of this list one iota. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete- Indiscriminate and trivial lists like this one are discouraged on Wikipedia, and with good cause. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  06:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As shown by everyone above, this particular list is discriminate and non-trivial. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 15:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. A complete hodge-podge of indiscriminate trivia, without even the slightest attempt to provide an even marginally objective definition of 'common misconception'. If the concept is so vague that one can't create an article on the concept itself ('Common misconception', I'll note, a redirect to the list), trying to get around that obvious problem by making it into a list isn't working. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As has been proven above, the list is discriminate and contains non-trivial information. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * i think this should be kept or merged. there certainly are published works on lists of significant misconceptions and their sources/causes. maybe this article can be framed in such a way, instead being a simple list? 212.200.243.13 (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I've read through much of the discussion above, and frankly the "delete" reasoning is entirely unconvincing. Yes, the list needs some cleanup and a clearer definition of inclusion criteria, but neither of those is a reason to delete; some people seem to be forgetting that "needs cleanup" is not a reason for deletion and we have no deadline here. The claim that there is no relation between Pilgrim dress and geological features is spurious, as there is a connection: both are the subject of things many people believe that are not, in fact, true. The assertion that the list is "indiscriminate" is false, although it does need a clearer definition of scope; Father Goose said it better than I can. The comparison to a "List of common conceptions" is amusing: we have something like that, but to avoid having a terabyte-sized page it's split across many articles. The fact that someone made a No true Scotsman argument regarding other encyclopedias' coverage of the topic is similarly amusing. The claim that the list matter is "trivial" or "cruft" smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Anomie⚔ 15:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, many of the "keep" !votes are similarly useless, but among them I do see some good arguments. I don't see a single such argument among the "delete"s. Anomie⚔ 15:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. completely random - some of the content might be moved to other articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I fail to find a deletion reason that has a foundation. It's certainly not indiscriminate. Yes, it wants improvement but that is not relevant to an AFD. So keep it's interesting and educational. SunCreator (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is not an indiscriminate list - we can define common misconceptions by what reliable sources are calling commons misconceptions. If the issue is reliable sourcing, then fix it, that is not an issue that requires deletion. As for the nominatory statement - I have an issue with the nominator proposing that it holds true that because an antonymical list to the one being discussed would be indiscriminate it must also be indiscriminate to have the one we currently are discussing. Asking someone what they did last Saturday is in no way as warranting of an indiscriminate answer as asking them what they in fact did not do last Saturday. As for this article, it would appear that a lot of people seem to care what happened last Saturday. I see no reason to delete. &mdash;  neuro  (talk) (review) 19:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup – the blaring problem I see in the article is the verifiability of all these facts as common misconceptions. Care must be taken to ensure that those that are not verifiable are not included, i.e. you can cite all you want on the facts themselves, but it needs to be shown via reliable sources that the fact is indeed a common misconception. For example, it needs to be shown that JFK's ich bin ein Berliner statement is a common misconception in itself; sources verifying that he said that is not enough. I few of these are indeed verifiable, and others can be, as well. Hence, I see the need for a good cleanup as opposed to outright deletion in this case. MuZemike 21:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's useful, it's encyclopaedic. It needs cleaning up a bit, perhaps, and everything in it should be sourced - but it should not be deleted. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 21:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, inherently unverifiable. List of things people might like would be an equally funny article which would be equally out of place on wikipedia. If someone wants this emailed to them so they can create a website about it then fine - but the content of this page cannot be decided verifiably. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 00:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * delete fails WP:NOT and WP:ENC. Basically this is an arbitrary collection of things that relatively educated people know, but many people do not. Most of them are simply dumb sterotypes or caricatures that aren't accurate.  Really, I thought everyone knew there were no horns on viking helmets.  Much of ths list could be retitled List of dumb things only very ignorant people believe, much of the rest are barely "common misconceptions" enough to qualify for inclusion for DYK items.  There is no attempt at an objective criteria for inclusion.  There is no synthesis, the whole of this is nothing more than the sum of its measly parts.  This is the sort of thing that makes wikipedia look stupid. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, almost entirely OR and unverifiable, and as some people have misconceptions about everything, is indiscriminate.<b style="color:#0000CD;">Yob</b><b style="color:#008000;">Mod</b> 12:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Don't let all those "references" at the bottom fool you. There is NOT ONE CASE where the most important reliably sourced reference for each item on the list, i.e. that the item is, in fact, a common misconception, and so belongs on the list, is present.  Without any such sourcing, you get an empty list that should therefore be deleted. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There is a Trivia-esque quality to it that can't be incorporated into an article on the subject because there is no subject. That most of these misconceptions are common is also doubtful - the first "common misconception" I came across in the list was the Let them eat cake one, and even that is so obscure that I only learned of it a few months ago. Both of these points make this list indiscriminate in my eyes, plus I actually see no encyclopedic purpose in this list. – sgeureka t•c 13:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That was actually covered on the latest episode of QI which specializes in debunking common myths. - Mgm|(talk) 00:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment (as I already voted delete above), reading the responses, I think a lot of this comes down to the fact that the existance of any item on this list needs to have a source to say it is a common misconception, but to that end, the phrase "common misconception" is a highly loaded POV statement even if it comes from a reliable source. What, factually, is a common misconception?  The problem is that the sources to support this need to pull two pieces of information together: that a significant fraction of people believe one thing, and that the reality is something else, just stating that something is "a common misconception" doesn't cut it, even if it is coming from the most reliable source ever.  Just like the definition of "trivia", there is no hard meaning for this word, and thus if we simply go off any RS that states "it's a common misconception", this becomes indiscriminate.  The only way I can see this list to become less indiscriminate is if only a small subset of RS sources were used that would be the appropriate authorities on what are "common misconceptions" but I don't even known where to begin to set the bounds for this (education-related journals may be a startng point, but even that's not great).  --M ASEM  (t) 14:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You can do both with one source. There are books and websites investigating common myths like Snopes.com that can easily prove something is a common misconception and debunk it at the same time. - Mgm|(talk) 00:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if you can get those sources you're still looking at one POV against another. Consider if every subject in the list was a seperate article that stated something was a misconception without any sources. It would be removed as OR instantly but if they are all together in a list that makes it ok? It's still opinions/values stated as facts against NPOV policy --<span style="font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: underline; color:black; border: 1pt solid white; padding: 0pt 4pt; background-color: white;">neon white talk 16:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Father Goose and others. This seems to be a replay of the repeated attempts to delete e.g. List of unusual deaths, in which "what is unusual" arguments come ad libitum.  Doesn't look like a telephone directory to me.  What an incredible amount of passion and energy that goes into such discussions.  Power.corrupts (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - The unusual deaths are generally well-sourced as being unusual. If these could generally be as well sourced as that as being common misconceptions in some clearly stated form, then there would be a good argument for keeping and splitting this list. But I'm still not convinced that it's possible to source them as such, and I'm certainly not seeing sources in the article which consistently demonstrate the commonality of false belief on the topics in question. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussion at the latest AfD nomination of List of unusual deaths was precisely that "unusual" was a subjective quality, inherently ill-defined. Still, most people, applying common sense, felt that the deaths indeed were "unusual", like the first on the list, having a bird dropping a turtle on your head.  It's the same thing here.  Several of the misconceptions in this list, for instance if the Great Wall in China would be visible from the moon, is something I have been told way back at some point in time, I now realize, due to this list, that it's a tale, an urban legend of sorts.  I doubt if a research source could be located, having identified this as "a common" misconception.  I would personally never take on such a research task, out of fear of being nominated for the next Ig Nobel Prize. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or delete :( This is an excellent, entertaining, wonderful article that shows what is so great about wikifying information.  Sadly, it is not encyclopedic for a few reasons.  "Common misconceptions" is not a tightly defined concept or a notable / encyclopedic subject in itself.  The subject, if it were notable, would be on the tendency of people to believe, and sources to spread, untrue factoids that sound plausible or interesting.  The actual content of those misconceptions is not that relevant.  Even if the subject were encyclopedic, there are so many of them that a single article cannot hope to include more than a scattering of them, nor is there any logical inclusion criterion that comes to mind.  I'll point out that it is not really a list: I do not see sourcing for most of these.  To be properly sourced you would need a secondary source that says: (A) there is a common misconception that X, but (B) the truth is Y.  In the list here, we have not cited A, and it is A, not B, that needs to be notable.  I'm not averse to keeping on some "WP:ILIKEIT" or "WP:IAR" theory, as long as we don't encourage people to create too many of these articles.  One or two here and there is nice, but if the encyclopedic becomes full of these things we'll have lists of famous bloopers, lists of double entendres, lists of common Freshman algebra mistakes, etc.  If it is deleted, someone should just post the whole thing on a website and maintain it there, or maybe port it to a different project space. Wikidemon (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: The two premises for deletion, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY, don't apply unless distorted to give them a broader interpretation that wasn't meant when they were written and for which there isn't consensus. The 23 thousand results for common misconception on google books and news might help with determining what a common misconception is. Year Zero is a concept (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: I know this is essentially WP:ILIKEIT, but this is one of those pages that draws in readers and makes the encyclopedia more interesting, even if it flouts a few of our guidelines. I think in this case, it would be best to apply WP:IAR, and keep the thing around a while longer.. -- Versa geek  17:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the other approach that concerns me. This page is not well linked; take away talk page discussion, the anon IPs, and the like, and the only real links are to other "lists of factoids".  This type of article is one that has many routes out but few in (particularly reverse links), and is also an awkward search term.  It's not like the mainpage Did You Know... box which will attract eyes. --M ASEM  (t) 17:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And yet, tons of people have viewed and contributed to the article. I suspect it ranks pretty high on some web searches.  There are also about a dozen incoming links from regular articles.  It's hardly an orphan.--Father Goose (talk) 04:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I suppose if kept (or no consensused) we would still need to delete all content we can't find statistical survey data to reinforce as a "common" misconception? For some of it surveys will have been done (as parts of academic psychology work no doubt) but the vast majority would go the way of the Dodo if exposed to such unmotivated scrutiny and unreasonable requirements. The problem is that many of those who like it now wouldn't like it after such a silly process. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 17:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There is substantial coverage in reliable sources which is the basis for ntoability and article inclusion. Editors are welcome to improve/ clean up the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and chainsaw. This list is a natural magnet for unsourced, unverifiable facts; that is a problem, but not a justification for deletion. I ask the question: can this article be reduced to a stub with only one list entry, that one entry presenting carefully-sourced evidence that a particular fact is a common misconception? If so, then that's a good starting point. We can watchlist it to help keep it clean. It does cover a very broad area, but it can be sectioned and split as necessary. Dcoetzee 23:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You'd still be looking at an entire article based on some people's opinions of what others believe. I don't see the basis for an encyclopedic article here. --<span style="font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: underline; color:black; border: 1pt solid white; padding: 0pt 4pt; background-color: white;">neon white talk 04:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Userfy/projectify (userfy to a relevant project). I totally support lists in general, but in this case I agree with the delete side. Discovering whether something is a common misconception is easy, but it still means it's a list of loosely related facts which is a specific rule for stuff not to make a list from. Having this somewhere in project space as a reference to check all relevant articles to see if the facts are in there and correct is more productive. (For those not willing to read the entire thread: I don't think you need two sources for an entry, sites like Snopes.com can prove it's a common misconception and debunk the claim all with one reference. - Mgm|(talk) 00:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: per IAR and the excellent missives from A Nobody. Unomi (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Overly broad list with vague parameters. AniMate  talk  02:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Wikipedia: namespace – it's easier to see why this should probably be deleted when you imagine the other article names that say the exact same thing:
 * List of things people think they know but don't
 * List of things you thought you knew but are totally wrong about
 * List of things we think are correct but aren't
 * ... and the list goes on. "List of common misconceptions," while it feels like it needs a place on Wikipedia, is constrained to the time, place, culture, and the commonality of the alleged misinformation's distribution in a particular society&mdash; all of which is not sourced in the article.  Additionally, the problem with this is that the information will always change, and it will always vary across cultures, thus emphasizing only one is systemic bias.  Its sister articles that would want to be created are "List of things that were common misconceptions during the 19th century," and "List of things that were common misconceptions during the 17th century."  Great potential articles, but unless it has the secondary sources to verify that it was a common misconception, it's difficult to justify having an article that synthesizes what is currently a misconception by stringing together sources or facts for each bullet point.
 * The far more immediate concerns for Wikipedia are also apparent:
 * How does one justify sourced additions or deletions from the list when someone disagrees?
 * How does one prevent battlegrounders from asserting that a particular misconception is more misconceived/important/prevalent than another misconception?
 * What determines whether one misconception is "more interesting" (and thus warrants inclusion) than another misconception?
 * What determines when a "fringe (uncommon) misconception" is being given undue weight over a "mainstream (common) misconception?" "Common sense?"
 * Is it a "common misconception" (yet?) that the earth was created 6,000 years ago? How do you prove it is? How do you prove it isn't?  How do you prove it's misconceived?
 * Great list, and I agree it's useful, but is sadly more "did you know that" than encyclopedic, and the policy arguments tend to outweigh the WP:IAR arguments in my opinion.
 * -- slakr \ talk / 09:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Looks to me like a great sister piece for the WP:DYK type of information that we post to the main Wikipedia front page. If we're encouraged to create DYK information, it appears obvious to me that a list like this could go on to being a FL, and in time split into various lists by topic. just IMHO — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 09:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't that an argument for the list to be on a project page, rather than in an encyclopedia article?  --SV Resolution(Talk) 14:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:IINFO and WP:NOT. This is a nice web page, but doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. If someone want to keep this outside article space as source material for some future project (such as WP:DYK), that would be fine. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this cruft-magnet or transwikify to WikiBooks. Lists of common misconceptions are a popular topic for the kind of book that one tends to find in remaindered book shops rather than in libraries or real book shops. If WikiBooks doesn't have a book of this genre yet, it should. There is a verifiability problem because many of the factoids in the list are sourced to such books, which generally have the very low standard of accuracy of a large part of the edutainment market. In other words: Such books are generally not reliable sources. There is a demarcation problem, because the choice of factoids from the thousands that have appeared in relevant books seems to be purely random. This list is no more encyclopedic than a list of interesting telephone numbers in Leeds, only more entertaining. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would like to posit that the discussion here isn't (or shouldn't be) the veracity of the claims or the comedic value of the page (BJAODN anyone?) but rather the possibility of judging whether something is a "commonly held" misconception objectively (I know this has been stated above, I am repeating it and trying to clarify the reasoning). This can be demonstrated by looking at two examples, List of true stuff and List of cool stuff. Obviously both lists would be totally unmaintainable in terms of size but the thing I'm trying to demonstrate is that one of them is subjective and the other objective and, barring solipcist/nihilist reasoning about truth, it's pretty straight forward which is which. The question here is which of the above "commonly held" falls into, whether it is reasonable to believe that reliable (reliability is not implied by it being on paper or on the internet after all) sourcing of such title can be found for enough claims to make a worthwhile list, and whether such a list, once created, would be encyclopaedic content without violating WP:NOT and WP:OR in a way which makes WP:IAR unreasonable. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 17:02, 24 March 2009 (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.