Deletion of List of common misconceptions (2nd nomination)

Comment: I know this is essentially , but this is one of those pages that draws in readers and makes the encyclopedia more interesting, even if it flouts a few of our guidelines. I think in this case, it would be best to apply , and keep the thing around a while longer
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:IAR)

Comment: into separate articles, such as (for example) List of common history-related misconceptions, List of common law-related misconceptions, etc., turning this page into either a disambiguation page or a category. That way, the facts in each article will be more closely related, alleviating (or nearly alleviating) the  problem. I also agree that a more narrow set of criteria for what constitutes a "common misconception" should be defined
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: Indiscriminate list of trivia, fails . Some of the stuff can be merged in relevant articles. This is Wikipedia, not Snopes
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: This list is clearly |indiscriminate in its |scope and the lead is hardly |unambiguous about the list's membership criteria. The list is mostly made of of trivia that is better off |incorporated into their individual articles. There really is no purpose to this list other then to have a list. See also 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO||WP:SALAT||WP:STAND||WP:TRIVIA||WP:LISTCRUFT)

Comment: All of this information is available elsewhere, so worries over content loss are needless. And this is a poster child for Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information|a largely indiscriminate collection of information and is patently unencyclopedic. Also, frankly, it borders on 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:TRIVIA)

Comment: I think there could be some kind of article about misconceptions, how they get started and become common knowledge, and that might include some in-depth and well-sourced examples.  But a big, sprawling list of random trivia like this is far too much what |Wikipedia is not
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: I'm concerned about a nomination that seems to ignore |POLICY and |GUIDELINE in an eager wish to remove this article. I am also concerned by the number of deletes that state the article is imperfect and so must go. That would mean its time to fix it, not trash it. The most basic threshold for inclusion has been met, and everything here is simply quibbling over who thinks what is importanat enough to include or meaningless enough to toss... and this out of out of a paperless encyclopedia. Let's improve wikipedia and not spend so much time trying to diminish it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:BEFORE)

Comment: Actually I brought up two points.  Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information|Wikipedia is not a random collection of information is only one of them.  The other is |Wikipedia is not a directory, and if you look at the text of that it is clearly meant to cover things like this.  Also Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information|Wikipedia is not a random collection of information is not necessarily limited to just those things.  If I just make a list of fact that have been deleted from other articles that is clearly a nondiscriminate collection of info even though it isnt on that list
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:DIRECTORY)

Comment: per  and #HOST. This is a nice web page, but doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. If someone want to keep this outside article space as source material for some future project (such as ), that would be fine
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO||WP:NOT||WP:DYK)

Comment: I don’t think the article resembles San Francisco telephone directory and it is not a |indiscriminate list as well. All the list items have something in common that they are misconceptions
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: The information list popular misconceptions, and corrects them.  Fascinating.  Does  apply here?  I think it does.  This adds to the wikipedia greatly
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: per  as it is a list of discriminate, useful, interesting, verifiable, important, and encyclopedic information that gets http://stats.grok.se/en/200902/List%20of%20common%20misconceptions over 20,000 page views a month. The article serves a great purpose as a spinoff or sub-article to our coverage of misconceptions by illustrating examples, much as an encyclopedia or almanac article on a country lists cities with that country or on the Academy Awards lists award winners for illustrative purposes. The article also serves a navigational function as a means for those interested in these common misconceptions of having a gateway to our other articles that deal with the reality of the items listed. In any event, it is what editors and readers come to Wikipedia for and is thus consistent with what Wikipedia is. Calling it "indiscriminate" is patently dishonest as it is clearly discriminate, i.e. only miconceptions and only miconceptions that are common and on top of that only miconceptions that are common as verified through reliable sources per . Calling it "trivia" is pure subjectivity as it concerns items that are studied and discussed by millions of people throughout history and in many diverse fields. Dismissing their academic interest is trivial borders on insulting. Some calls to delete and merge should be reminded per Wikipedia:Merge and delete that we cannot delete and merge per the GFDL. Thus, no reasons beyond  has been presented for deletion. Any appearance of policy are guideline based reasons are and have been easily refuted. The truth is that the article clearly meets all of our policies and guidelines with flying colors. Sincerely
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LISTS||WP:RS||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: I would like to posit that the discussion here isn't (or shouldn't be) the veracity of the claims or the comedic value of the page (BJAODN anyone?) but rather the possibility of judging whether something is a "commonly held" misconception objectively (I know this has been stated above, I am repeating it and trying to clarify the reasoning). This can be demonstrated by looking at two examples, List of true stuff and List of cool stuff. Obviously both lists would be totally unmaintainable in terms of size but the thing I'm trying to demonstrate is that one of them is subjective and the other objective and, barring solipcism|solipcist/nihilism|nihilist reasoning about truth, it's pretty straight forward which is which. The question here is which of the above "commonly held" falls into, whether it is reasonable to believe that reliable (reliability is not implied by it being on paper or on the internet after all) sourcing of such title can be found for enough claims to make a worthwhile list, and whether such a list, once created, would be encyclopaedic content without violating  and  in a way which makes  unreasonable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:OR||WP:IAR)

Comment: Agree that  applies here for the interest value of the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: It's an atypical article, but it's still an asset to the encyclopedia.  The criteria for what items get included on the list could be made more definite, and the sourcing improved, but that's about it.   is there to keep material with no encyclopedic value out of the encyclopedia -- this list does not qualify -- and  is not a deletion catch-all.  Claiming that an article is "|indiscriminate, delete" is a non-rationale and an abuse of the AfD process, as far as I'm concerned
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR||WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: I suppose if kept (or no consensused) we would still need to delete all content we can't find statistical survey data to reinforce as a "common" misconception? For some of it surveys will have been done (as parts of academic psychology work no doubt) but the ''vast'' majority would go the way of the Dodo if exposed to such |unmotivated scrutiny and |unreasonable requirements. The problem is that many of those who |like it now wouldn't like it after such a silly process
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:OR||WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: I've read through much of the discussion above, and frankly the "delete" reasoning is entirely unconvincing. Yes, the list needs some cleanup and a clearer definition of inclusion criteria, but neither of those is a reason to ''delete''; some people seem to be forgetting that "needs cleanup" is not a reason for deletion and |we have no deadline here. The claim that there is no relation between Pilgrim dress and geological features is spurious, as there is a connection: both are the subject of things many people believe that are not, in fact, true. The assertion that the list is "indiscriminate" is false, although it does need a clearer definition of scope; Father Goose said it better than I can. The comparison to a "List of common conceptions" is amusing: we have something like that, but to avoid having a terabyte-sized page it's split across Special:AllPages|many articles. The fact that someone made a No true Scotsman argument regarding other encyclopedias' coverage of the topic is similarly amusing. The claim that the list matter is "trivial" or "|cruft" smacks of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:There is no deadline (WP:DEADLINE||WP:ITSCRUFT||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: it's basically |indiscriminate and impossible to categorize. I also agree that it's a list of trivia. What's the bar for a "common" misconception, for instance? How many people must hold the mistaken belief for it to be included here? What about all of the "misconceptions" that were common at one time or another but have been corrected by science and reason. I commend whoever did the work on it; it's handsome enough with some fun bits, but not the stuff of which encyclopedias are built
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: Fails #INFO. Inherently a list of trivia. Also, those calling above for this to be taken to  should be aware that this is not even ''remotely'' close to FL-quality
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:FLC)

Comment: Contrary to many delete "votes", this meets the requirements of  and its inclusion improves wikipedia and its servicibility to all readres. I see some editors are confused, so help fix it.... not delete such a worthy article. Any disagreement with style can be addressed on the articles talk page and through 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LISTS||WP:CLEANUP)

Comment: The topic is neither random nor a directory.  The relevant policy is  which forbids a fussy insistence on following rules rather than considering the quality of the topic.  Of course, there is scope for refinement and other improvements but this will not be achieved by deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTLAW)

Comment: Massive violation of core  policy. The topic is way too broad for any meaningful encyclopedic coverage. And, frankly, anyone who doesn't get that would be better off leaving Wikipedia to create Triviapedia.org or Wikilistomania.org or something that would be more in line with their goals
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)