Deletion of List of common misconceptions (4th nomination)

Comment: Per  and the maintenance hassle (editors who know how Wikipedia works battle at its talk page and more recently at 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:ANI)

Comment: It satisfies  and  (and also, while pageviews aren't a valid argument, this ''is'' one of the most viewed pages on Wikipedia...). And, AfD is NOT CLEANUP. If the page needs to be cleaned-up, then make it happen
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:LISTN)

Comment: The question isn't whether the content is true or verifiable.  It is.  The question is whether this list, as an article in one place on 191 or some other topic is encyclopedic.  Wikipedia spreads knowledge about misconceptions by correcting the misonceptions in the articles.  Has anyone identified these as the misconceptions most in need of correction?  No, and they won't.  It's just , but |Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LISTCRUFT||WP:IINFO)

Comment: common'''" misconceptions? Unless you can produce a public opinion poll for each and every entry to verify that qualifier, it just devolves down to WP:OR. A very strong WP:LISTCRITERIA may get it just over to "keep" but it would probably be ignored just the way the current one is. This  doesn't need to be centralized and its in a pretty useless format
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LISTCRUFT)

Comment: I don't see any problems that day-to-day editing couldn't fix. Collections of misconceptions about particular topics (e.g., evolution) are discussed together in reliable sources (e.g., the TalkOrigins FAQ and its kin), so the sections of this list each pass 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: The article clearly and easily meets .  And as Shoy points out, AFD is not cleanup.  Shame on the OP for wasting the community's time with this frivolous AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Not a huge fan of this article as it's a magnet for POV and OR edits, but it passes . There's tons of sources out there describing common misconceptions. &ndash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: It has been argued that it does not meet the threshold of otability. Per , {{tq|One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed ''as a group or set'' by independent reliable sources}}. Several sources have been linked above demonstrating that this is the case for the topic of common misconceptions; https://www.businessinsider.com/mythbusting-common-misconceptions-2014-11 here is another for good measure. It has also been argued that there aren't clear and well-defined  and that the list is hence . I don't personally agree that this is the case, and even if I did that's not a reason to delete the page without at least making an attempt to fix the criteria first (since the topic is notable – if the topic itself were not notable, changing the inclusion criteria to redefine the scope to something that ''is'' notable I would consider a much more dubious proposition, and I might favour deletion in such a case). It has further been argued that the sourcing is poor, that certain entries don't belong, that some entries that should be on the list are missing, and that the inclusion criteria are insufficiently enforced; these are all  problems that can (and should) be solved by regular editing, not reasons to delete the page outright. Considering I don't see any reasons for deletion that I think hold water, I am of the opinion that the page should be kept. I would however not be opposed to splitting the page into subarticles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:LISTN||WP:LISTCRITERIA||WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:SURMOUNTABLE)

Comment: per . All we have here is a bunch of opinions - in fact the article almost looks like "The very best of |Did you know?" There's no possible way this could be considered a definitive and encyclopedic list, as so much of what is considered a "common misconception" is down to the reader. I think it's a "common misconception" that Leicester Square is pronounced "Lie - ches - ter Square" (and indeed, that article says that and cites a source saying it; for homework consider Towcester|Toaster and Chiswick|Chizzick), but it's not listed here and I can't see much appetite for it turning up here either.  is '''not''' met, as there are no traditional encyclopedias or ''general purpose'' sources that talk about ''a list of common misconceptions'' (as opposed to individual ones) as a significant topic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:DYK||WP:LISTN)

Comment: Topic is clearly notable and |AFD is not cleanup. It's also somewhat disingenuous to complain about poor quality and simultaneously prevent users from improving it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP)

Comment: this is an exceptional list article having unambiguous and rigorous criteria for inclusion, as described in the big tan box at the top of the talk page. It is actually pretty hard to get a new entry accepted. Each misconception has reliable sources that attest to the fact that it's a common misconception. Even the subject of common misconceptions has had books published about it, and the quality and sourcing in this list exceeds that of the books I've seen. Clearly meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: It's false to say this list has not improved. Look at the diffs between the 2011 version of this, or 2009, or whichever old AfD you like, and it's obvious it has gotten better. Having poorly sourced information has never been grounds for deletion. Many articles had 10 unsourced facts last year, and 12 this year. A 20% increased in unsourced facts is not grounds for deletion. Things change. The prediction that it won't reach a "workable state" in the future has no arguments behind it. Why not? You could make the same argument about Wikipedia as a whole. What exactly is a "workable state", anyway? Good Article? Featured List? Or what? It's a nebulous criticism, unrelated to any valid criteria for deletion.If you can accept that for all the beautiful Featured Articles, Wikipedia also has hundreds of thousands of terrible articles, then why not accept that while this list might have some flawed entries, many are good? If you can't accept a list like this, then you can't accept Wikipedia itself.  The premise of the list, that it only reflects consent on ''other articles'' that already has good consensus, is sound. In the end, policy says this: |perfection is not required. There is no time limit. That fact that one individual editor becomes impatient sooner than another is to be expected. Not every editor can hang in there for the long haul. But this article can
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PERFECTION)

Comment: per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_common_misconceptions_(4th_nomination)&curid=58586939&diff=862152853&oldid=862145625&diffmode=source) There is plenty of  to make the numerous individual topics within the overall topic notable.  As I see it, Wikiipedia is to inform, and this list does just that.  Is it a typical encyclopedia entry?  No.  Is it a typical LIST?  Yes.  If anything in the list is not properly documented in  sources, sure get rid of that. But otherwise, I see absolutely no problem with this potporri of random facts.  It's certainly far more useful than this list of Toronto Skyscrapers that seems to me mostly just a bunch of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:SECONDARY||WP:PROMO)

Comment: per Wikipedia:Listcruft and per ; incomplete and trivial
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: the nomination has not given any |accepted reason for deletion. As FenixFeather points out, "common misconceptions" is a notable topic for a list, in fact, it's something, despite claims to the contrary, what people have always expected to find in an encyclopedia, something that is clear from the coverage ''this'' article has gathered (see links on the talk page). All those problems with consistency, sourcing or inclusion those arguing for deletion mentioned are  problems and can and should be fixed by editing. As Dennis Bratland correctly points out, the state of the article has actually improved and |perfection is not required. If you disagree with certain entries, remove them (boldly or after discussion), but |don't chuck out the notable, well-referenced stuff with it. Also, I find it deeply troubling that the nominator first started an ANI discussion about an editor's behavior on this list and then, when that editor was not immediately sanctioned, started this AFD instead of waiting for the ANI or talk page discussions to conclude. Regards
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DELREASON||WP:SURMOUNTABLE||WP:PERFECTION||WP:BATHWATER)