Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (4th nomination)
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
— User:Dennis, 02:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:PERFECTION (Wikipedia:Editing policy)