Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Errors in Wikipedia that have been corrected by referring to accurate entries in Encyclopædia Britannica


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

The result of the debate was delete. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 20:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Errors in Wikipedia that have been corrected by referring to accurate entries in Encyclopædia Britannica
Appears to have been made to balance Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia, but appears to contain no content (it doesn't list a single error that's been corrected). Discussion on its talk page shows that some other people are dubious about the existence of this page too. --ais523 13:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Dead project free of any actual content. &mdash;dgies tc 17:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The page seems to have been made to imply a balance where there is none--it's saying "see, there are lots of EB errors but no Wikipedia errors.  Wikipedia is much better!"  This is fallacious since the two pages aren't opposites.  A true opposite page would be about errors in Wikipedia that *are correct in* EB, not errors that *have been corrected by referring to* EB. Ken Arromdee 18:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if a statement is correct in EB but wrong in Wikipedia, people are far more likely to just correct it in Wikipedia than report it on a little-used project page, only to have to remove it again when they correct the error a few minutes later! --ais523 14:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that a statement can be correct in a *lot of external sources*, one being EB, and wrong on Wikipedia. If there are 100 sources, chances are only 1/100 that someone will correct it by referring to EB rather than by referring to one of the other 99 sources that say exactly the same thing.  Counting the number of errors corrected "by referring to" EB will understate them by orders of magnitude. Ken Arromdee 15:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Mark historical unused project. Wooyi 21:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? Historical is for projects that existed and had activity, WP:ESPERANZA, WP:PAIN, WP:RFI, etc...  This one is never got beyond debating its own existence.  &mdash;dgies tc 21:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as unused and unuseful page --Maelwys 19:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - like Wikipedia is failing and Wikipedia is not failing, this page exists only to support the concept of a neutral kind of balance. The only problem is, the balance doesn't exist. Grace notes T  § 04:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete (speedy as housekeeping if you like). Correct me if I'm wrong but another encyclopedia isn't considered a reliable source anyway. --kingboyk 14:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Its dead, has no major activity going on. --  Darkest Hour   21:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete  Jo  e  I  17:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, inactive project. - Mailer Diablo 11:58, 24 March 2007 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.