Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of popular misconceptions

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 02:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

List of popular misconceptions

 * A list like this is not quite encyclopedic. Allissonn 05:06, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. In general I don't mind trivia on Wikipedia, but this list of disconnected factoids doesn't serve any real encyclopedic purpose. This information belongs in the articles on each topic discussed. Szyslak 06:03, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Lists of trivia are sometimes valid. --82.194.62.17 00:46, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * But they're not always valid, since Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Specifically included in this category are "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". --TenOfAllTrades 18:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. A list of popular misconceptions is important. --82.194.62.16 14:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * User:82.194.62.16 and User:82.194.62.17 are the only editors of this article. Delete.  A short list of random factoids isn't particularly useful.  Put the information into the appropriate articles where it might do some good. --TenOfAllTrades 17:28, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for being too vaguely defined. Lists on WP are fine, as long as they have some sort of focus to them. If this was split into List of popular misconceptions in evolution, List of popular misconceptions in astronomy and so on, then maybe it would be okay. sjorford// 15:44, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Votes_for_deletion/Precedents --82.194.62.17 00:51, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete To unfocused to really be useful for anything. Instead of sjorford's idea, I'd think these things would only belong on the individual pages relevant to the topic. --InShaneee 16:48, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete trivia is good for adding spice to individual articles, but this list is useless. Might be better if it had a full explanation of why these misconceptions exist and what the truth behind them really is.  But even then, it would be better rolled into the individual articles. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  17:41, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is simply too vague an article to ever be useful. Rje 18:48, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This would be too vague and catch-all to be useful -- even if not for the fact that some of these "misconceptions" are the truth and the "truth" is the misconception.  (ISO-comes-from-the-Greek-for-equal, I'm looking at you.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:41, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, that one seems to be true. See for example the FAQ on ISO's web site.  Of course, that factoid--like most of the others--is already in the appropriate article.  (In this case, International_Organization_for_Standardization.) --TenOfAllTrades 23:11, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The basis of a fascinating, informative article.--Centauri 22:46, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The purpose of Wikipedia is not to be interesting, but useful.  -- Scott  ei&#960; + 1 = 0  00:43, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * informative = useful --Centauri 03:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Far too broad, with a lot of room for POV and ambiguity as to what constitutes a misconception.  -- Scott  ei&#960; + 1 = 0  00:43, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * List of popular misconceptions is no more broad, POV, or ambiguous than List of people widely considered to be eccentric. --82.194.62.17 00:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I've never considered the "We have X so why delete Y?" argument to have any validity. X is a separate issue, lets judge Y on its merits alone. I've actually considered putting List of people widely considered to be eccentric up on VfD, but I'm somewhat more in favor of keeping quasi-encyclopedic material that's well written.  -- Scott  ei&#960; + 1 = 0  05:23, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually List of people widely considered to be eccentric was already put up on VfD, and there was opposition.''' --82.194.62.17 06:06, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * List of people widely considered eccentric has survived at least two VfDs on the grounds that it's "inherently non-NPOV." The big difference between List of popular misconceptions and List of people widely considered to be eccentric is that the latter list has a clear purpose and subject: it's a list of people who, for whatever reason, have been labeled "eccentric." Something like, say, List of interesting people would be as unencyclopedic and pointless as this article. Szyslak 06:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hopeless POV. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:19, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Several of them aren't specific enough to debate logically.  Others strike me as true (thus not misconceptions).  Others strike me as not "popular".  None are attributed.  Those that may meet the criteria of the page are not refuted with any useful information.  The "popular misconceptions" that are popular and misconceptions should be moved into articles about their subjects. --Plutor 16:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, actually I agree with Centauri on this. If we can have far more trivial music and song lists on Wikipedia, I see nothing wrong in having this list. True, POV needs cleanup but I feel this idea is far more worthwhile than say "List of Songs with No Lyrics". Megan1967 23:46, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's no worse than XYZ-other bad list is not, to me, enough justification to keep. The intent of the list is ill-defined.  The listed "misconceptions" are not sourced or explained.  (For example, who holds this misconception?)  I suppose you theoretically could clean up this page but I see no value to doing so.  Delete.  Rossami (talk) 01:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Well I was using it to illustrate my point. I have in the past tended to vote against lists because I really see no justification for them (I am a supporter of categories rather than lists). But all things considered the role of the encyclopaedia is to be informative and as accurate as possible. As I said there is POV in the article but so long as it is cleaned up and expanded (sourced or explained as you say), I have no problems with this list existing albeit not in its present form. Megan1967 00:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep for the above reasons. --68.163.221.85 01:56, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Users only edits are to this section.
 * So this user was driven to start participating in Wikipedia because of this contraversial VfD. That doesn't make this user's vote any less valid. --82.194.62.16 05:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trivia. DJ Clayworth 05:15, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's just a bunch of random stuff. - RedWordSmith 06:12, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Idiotic.   --BM 11:15, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This sort of detail is what makes encyclopedias useful. --209.122.160.124 13:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * This user has a history of vandalism.  -- Scott  ei&#960; + 1 = 0  23:34, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete another impossible to maintain POV list. Jayjg (TALK) 21:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article has no focus.  The facts (assuming they really are all facts) would be of better use within their related articles.  Joyous 03:15, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you mean this article has no focus? The focus is to expose popular misconceptions. This is very powerful because a person can read the list of popular misconceptions to correct any misconceptions they have. Because of this article, the number of misconceptions in existance will gradually decrease. --82.194.62.17 05:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Potentially useful. Cerceole| (talk) 03:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mikkalai 07:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's just random stuff with no organization or support. Who holds these misconceptions and why?  What is the truth?  I'd say rewrite, but I don't think there's anything here to base a rewrite on. TomTheHand 10:07, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Some of the misconceptions already say what the truth is. It will be filled in for the rest through the wiki process if this article is given a chance. --209.122.160.124 16:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * keep. Yuckfoo 05:07, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Far, far too broad a subject to be treated adequately in one article. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 06:34, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. More like an email forward than an encyclopedia article. &mdash;tregoweth 19:07, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain: I'd like a similar article but the current incarnation is rather bad. violet/riga (t) 23:53, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Cdc 05:31, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete --fvw *  09:46, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's absolutely useless. It doesn't meet Wikipedia's definition of informative: it is neither actionable nor interesting. A list of popular misconceptions would be useful if it provided (1) evidence that the statement is widely believed, and (2) evidence of what the truth is. The current list does neither. --Angr 13:20, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inaccurate; piecemeal original research.    One problem with these kind of lists is that each entry is just someone's unsourced opinion.  The format makes it unlikely that any particular item will go through the wiki vetting/NPOV-ification process, and the "article" just becomes a disreputable holding area for inaccurate POV in the Wikipedia.  Two thirds of the current list is likely incorrect: these are not popular misconceptions, or not misconceptions at all. --BM 15:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.