Deletion of List of common misconceptions (3rd nomination)

Comment: per |IAR if nothing else. I think that this article works towards the goal of Wikipedia to bring valuable knowledge to its users, even if it doesn't match the traditional notions of an appropriate article as defined by our current guidelines. Thus, I think keeping this article makes Wikipedia ''better'' regardless of whether it may or may not meet our current standards for an article topic, so I must break out a rare occurrence of IAR. It might be the case that IAR doesn't need to be invoked and that interpretations of policy and/or guidelines would support this being kept, but I don't have the energy to research all that now and considering a finding in the negative wouldn't have changed my mind, IAR it is.  If this is deleted, it would be a real shame to see this information go. I would ask that it at least be moved to Wikipedia space for preservation and maintenance there
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: I haven't read the talk page of the article) As commented by many editors, there are multiple reliable factual works (books, http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22common+misconceptions%22&hl=es&btnG=Buscar&lr= papers, etc) written on the topic of "common misconceptions of X", so it's a valid encyclopedic topic that meets the general notability guideline, both  and  (the article is already split in topical sections). Items can be individually addded to lists articles if they are adequately sourced, providing that the inclusion criteria of the list is well-defined, see  in the manual of style.  Other editors pointed at already-existing articles that are also lists of misconceptions
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:LISTN||WP:SALAT)

Comment: According to . Having the article there is better for the site than to not have it. The article is factual, informative, and useful. While it may not fit strictly in a category with other articles, it is very much in the spirit of Wikipedia - it provides knowledge to the world. Wikipedia isn't going to run out of space, and this is a good article. Deleting it wold be a loss to Wikipedia. I'd suggest if you don't like maintaining this article, leave it to people who do. Also, not having a clear criteria for inclusion isn't really a reason for deletion - all articles have to have decisions made regarding what to include, that's part of the article creation/maintenance process. --Special:Contributions/58.96.69.23|58.96.69.23
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: We've had this discussion before and the result was '''Keep'''.  Trying again in the hope of getting a different result is disruption, per .  Hair-splitting arguments over the meaning of common misconception are unimportant as it is possible to nitpick most definitions
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL)

Comment: In addition to the comments above, for many of the entries, the term "common" loses any meaning when  is considered - something the sources quoted don't need to worry about
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:WORLDVIEW)

Comment: this reminds me of lists of "frequently asked questions" with questions that are unlikely to have been frequently asked. Now that is not really a big deal for a random FAQ on a random website, or even in our project/talk pages. But in article space, we are supposed to have higher standards.... Even if the facts themselves are interesting, we should use appropriate standards for labelling their opposites  as "common misconceptions". For an illustration of why it is important, consider the fourth item in the list about Columbus - a common misconception about a common misconception! So, it is not always easy to tell whether something is a common misconception, and a reliable source for a fact is not necessarily reliable on the judgement that many people believe the opposite. So, what are appropriate standards? Well, I skimmed through the discussion above about these criteria - it is pointed out the term is nebulous and difficult to substantiate, but I would really like to make the point that it is not even our place to define such a term for our readers. We should use accepted criteria, and in this case, there are none - this is not a field of study. And I disagree with the analogy made a few comments above - "notability", "verifiability", "original research" and so on are our ''internal'' terms. We use our definitions internally, and they affect our articles, but we do not export our internal definitions into articles as such: compare original research with  and so on (of course we have articles on WP itself, so we have notability in Wikipedia, but that's still completely different from notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: as throroughly un-encyclopedic.  Do we really need a section in  for stupid stuff you may have gotten wrong?  I think not
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)