Deletion of List of common misconceptions (3rd nomination)

Comment: This is a notable topic and a valuable one to tackle, and though the current form could certainly use work, the question of inclusion criteria '''doesn't''' merit deletion. This article, or the idea of it, is valuable to the project, enough to earn some leeway from . As far as cleaning up the present form and/or dealing with the question of inclusion criteria and the accusation of indiscriminate information, I support the idea of breaking it up into articles by topic, and then connecting those articles to the sidebar/main article for the relevant topic. This article could remain as a list of those subtopics. The inclusion criteria seem to have already reached a workable consensus, and should, I believe, be prominently posted in the article(s) or the talk page(s). Special:Contributions/24.17.161.178|24.17.161.178
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: per  . Can the closing sysop please take into account that a fair few Keep !votes seem to come from people who appear to be SPAs
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:indiscriminate)

Comment: but refactor. The article does, indeed, deal with a notable topic, which has been the subject of numerous popular Pseudodoxia Epidemica|books, Mythbusters|tv programs and even entire Snopes|websites. The main issue being raised appears to be finding inclusion criteria which doesn't breach . I fully agree this is a hurdle all articles need to overcome, but I disagree that it's one this article can't (or even hasn't already). Many of the topics covered have been widely publicized by reliable sources such as peer reviewed papers, notable newspapers like the New York Times, and so forth... all describing the topics quite clearly as common misconceptions and, in some cases, even providing statistics for that claim. The article has recently been subject to an influx of brand new editors due to its fame from xkcd, which, while ''wonderful'' for the project, has also meant a great deal of overhead in managing content and introducing newbies to our policies. This sudden wave of interest has made it difficult to hash out much of ''anything'' on the talk page, which has quickly filled up with failed proposals, and therefore it's been difficult to discuss and prune existing entries which are improperly sourced or inappropriate for the topic. As interest dies down, it will become easier to whip the article back into shape, and clearer what sorts of entries are really valid
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)