Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of misquotations


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Can be restored for purpose of transwikification if somebody wants to do that.  Sandstein  17:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

List of misquotations

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I'm proposing deletion and transwikifying to Wikiquote. There's even an article there waiting to receive non-duplicate content. I have half a mind to be bold and do this as unilaterally as possible, but I admit this is a decent article and this AfD is likely to draw some opposition. The issue is not that this a particularly bad article, just that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. See under WP:NOTDIR, which states that Wikipedia is not for "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote." Also refer to WP:LONGQUOTE ("Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations").

Furthermore, there has been previous interest expressed in this move, such as in the first AfD for List of misconceptions and in the article's own talk page. Inclusion of List of misconceptions seems, to me, the most obvious counterargument, but the simple fact is that that article is not in a format explicitly named in policy as inappropriate for Wikipedia. --BDD (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment if it's going to be transwiki'ed, I don't see any reason to delete it per se, when we could just make it into a soft redirect. Jclemens (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Other than being less mature and not as well formatted, I see little difference between the spirit of this article and List of common misconceptions. This is not merely a list of quotes, all of the content is well cited and put in context. -- NINTENDUDE 64 01:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Asher196 is right; the article has been tagged as needing more citations for over four years! Also, Wikiquote uses context as well; you can't garnish a list of quotations with context and make it encyclopedic. --BDD (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Well cited? Are we reading the same article? The vast majority of this article relies on primary sources if any at all.  This article has had this problem for years.  Get rid of it.--Asher196 (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge with misquotation This topic is clearly notable, just check out Google and Googlebooks for yourself for a few minutes and you'll be convinced of that. I'd say cut down the list to only those citable/cited from sources. Then I would redirect this article to Misquotation (which I have just redirected here because it had a weird Wiktionary template), and add all the misquotation info (of which there is masses) there.--Coin945 (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a notability issue. Famous quotations in general, and specific types, such as misquotations or famous last words are certainly notable. But you'll see "famous last words" redirects to a disambiguation page of various works of that title, with a link to the actual collection on Wikiquote, which is indeed the appropriate place for it. --BDD (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and Transwikify per BDD. Rorshacma (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT as an un-encyclopedic list of very loosely associated miscellany. Wikiquote has hundreds of misquotations, contextualized in articles about the persons to whom they are misattributed, or annotated where the correct quotation or attribution appears. It could be transwikified for inclusion in List of misquotations if people really want to, but it would be fairly pointless to do so. That article is also a dumping ground for random stuff that is largely ignored by regular Wikiquote contributors, and is cluttered with trivial and poorly researched material that would not long survive in an article that is monitored. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. On behalf of Wikiquote, while we'll be glad to work on the list, most of these misquotes are not sourced up to our standards, which require an independent source showing use of the misquote. Cheers! bd2412  T 16:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete nin-wikipedic list: neither glossary, not navigation list. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:55, 4 May 2012 (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.