Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misnomer


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. The votes are: 5 to "keep"; 4 to "delete"; 1 to "keep or move"; 2 to "keep or rename"; 2 to "rename"; 1 to "move"; and 1 to "redirect" - so 8 of 16 votes appear to accept "keep" as an option. A move to something like List of notable misnomers might be in order. -- BD2412 talk July 9, 2005 04:08 (UTC)

Misnomer
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is only about the word misnomer. It has already been transwikied. Delete. --Dmcdevit 1 July 2005 06:50 (UTC)
 * Delete as stated above. What's the point of having official policies that won't be followed? *sigh* Besides, it's already in wiktionary drini &#9742; 1 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)
 * Delete or just link to Wiktionary. -- Infrogmation July 1, 2005 17:00 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deleting this page would leave a lot of red links. Pburka 1 July 2005 19:10 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect to Wiktionary. Solves redlink problem.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 1 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)
 * Please note: from the deletion process, "If a given title should never have an article, then remove all links to it." That's part of the process if delete is decided, and I don't think we're meant to worry about that here. I wouldn't keep a bad article just because it has links to it. --Dmcdevit 1 July 2005 21:17 (UTC)
 * There are about 75 links to Misnomer. Clearly many editors thought that the title should have an article. Pburka 1 July 2005 21:29 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -- brian0918 &#153;  1 July 2005 22:01 (UTC)
 * Delete unless someone does a Houdini impression and manages, somehow, to write an article on misnomers. Remove all the links and do not create soft redirects. Dunc|&#9786; 1 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)
 * Keep, or move to List of misnomers. This would definitely be an interesting list, and not one that would appear in the Wiktionary. These contents shouldn't be lost simply on the reasoning that "It's already on Wiktionary!!!" -- brian0918  &#153;  1 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)
 * Move as suggested by Brian0918, although I can see the irony of renaming this page. Grutness...  wha?  2 July 2005 01:33 (UTC)
 * Rename per above. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 4, 2005 08:55 (UTC)
 * Either keep or rename. I found the list useful and informative. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 03:37 (UTC)
 * Keep The goal of this article should be to explore the popular misnomers in the world. What impact may they have on politics?  How does the media use them?  How are they used in persuasion?  This could be a great article with an insightful discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.244.253 (talk • contribs) 18:46, July 2, 2005
 * Good point.--Jyril July 2, 2005 19:08 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand to a proper encyclopedic article.--Jyril July 2, 2005 19:04 (UTC)
 * Rename to List of misnomers. carmeld1 4 July 2005 23:36 (UTC)
 * Weak rename on the odd chance something worthwhile might be written. &mdash; Phil Welch 5 July 2005 03:37 (UTC)
 * Keep needs to be expanded though. --Vizcarra 8 July 2005 21:04 (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.