AlexTiefling (talk | contribs) →List of common misconceptions: Responses about facts and utility |
LinguistAtLarge (talk | contribs) m keep |
||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
*'''Keep'''. 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. [[WP:NOTDIR]] is there to keep with no encyclopedic value out of the encyclopedia -- this list does not qualify -- and [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]] is not a deletion catch-all. Claiming that an article is "[[WP:INDISCRIMINATE|indiscriminate]], delete" is a non-rationale and an abuse of the AfD process, as far as I'm concerned.--[[User:Father Goose|Father Goose]] ([[User talk:Father Goose|talk]]) 16:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Keep'''. 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. [[WP:NOTDIR]] is there to keep with no encyclopedic value out of the encyclopedia -- this list does not qualify -- and [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]] is not a deletion catch-all. Claiming that an article is "[[WP:INDISCRIMINATE|indiscriminate]], delete" is a non-rationale and an abuse of the AfD process, as far as I'm concerned.--[[User:Father Goose|Father Goose]] ([[User talk:Father Goose|talk]]) 16:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
:*'''Question''' - what authoritative source could be used to demonstrate the relative commonality of false beliefs, worldwide? [[User:AlexTiefling|AlexTiefling]] ([[User talk:AlexTiefling|talk]]) 16:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC) |
:*'''Question''' - what authoritative source could be used to demonstrate the relative commonality of false beliefs, worldwide? [[User:AlexTiefling|AlexTiefling]] ([[User talk:AlexTiefling|talk]]) 16:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''', but maybe not in this form. I don't know which policies to cite, so I'll just give you my reasoning. First, the premise of the article-- debunking popular misconceptions-- is encyclopedic. Second, a large part of the list is sourced, and the rest of it can be. Third, a list like this is a better format than trying to use a category to accomplish the same thing. Now, here are the problems I see with this list. First, what are the criteria for inclusion? How do we define "common" misconception? Second, misconceptions are tightly tied to culture. In the US, we often think that you lose a disproportionate amount of heat via the head (you don't), but in areas of South and Central America, people think you lose a disproportionate amount of heat via the feet, not the head. In Mexico, many people have the misconception that you should cover your mouth when you go outside at night because the cold air will make you sick. In Korea they think that [[Fan death|leaving a fan on]] all night will cause you to dehydrate and die. etc. So we need some well-defined criteria for inclusion, including defining what is common and marking what culture the misconception comes from. The list has a misconception about gunpowder, which is obviously a western misconception and is not shared by the Chinese. —<b style="border:1px solid #C5BE83;background-color:#F5DEB3;font-size:0.9em;"> [[User:LinguistAtLarge|LinguistAtLarge]] • [[User talk:LinguistAtLarge|Talk]] </b> 16:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:57, 19 March 2009
List of common misconceptions
- List of common misconceptions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
While this page does contain some interesting information, unfortunately it is exactly two of the things that Wikipedia is not: a random collection of information, and a directory. A direct quote from Wikipedia is not a directory: "Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons.". This is precisely the content of this article. Consider these two list items on the page:
1) "The Pilgrims did not dress only in black, nor did they have buckles on their hats or shoes";
2) "Mount Everest (pictured) is, indisputably, the highest point of land above sea level (8,850 meters / 29,035 feet) which, according to traditional measurements, means that it is the tallest mountain in the world."
It is hard to see how these two statements are associated through any particular subject. They are exactly the List. . .of loosely associated topics that is prohibited by what Wikipedia is not. Furthermore, the entire content of the article is these sorts of unrelated facts; no amount of editing could repair this problem. The article should thus be deleted. Any facts of particular interest in the list should be added, as appropriate, to the article on that topic. For example, the first quote above could be added to the article on pilgrims if it is not already there.
A final analogy in favor of deletion: this article is not logically different than an article titled "List of commonly held correct conceptions" or "List of surprising facts": all of these are lists of essentially unrelated information that are subjectively claimed to be related based on an unverifiable claim of knowledge, interest, or lack thereof by some undefined segment of the population. These other examples would probably be deleted without argument; the fact that lists of misconceptions are often grouped together in non-encyclopedic media should not be allowed to bias the essential conclusion that, although interesting, this list is something Wikipedia is not.Locke9k (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that according to the rules, this list should go. However, I think that before it is deleted it should have the information transferred to the relevant articles. If the information is inappropriate for the articles, then this page has a place.—Jchthys 15:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the information should be transfered to a related article, where it is appropriate and will improve the quality of the article the information is being transferred to. However, if there are some facts that cannot be added to an associated article in a helpful way, I don't agree that that would justify the existence of this article. If there are some facts that cannot be transferred, we have to ask why that is. Most likely, it is because either the subject of the fact is not notable or because the fact itself is not of sufficient interest or value within the relevant subject. Either way, there is no reason to keep it here. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information indicates that random information that does not fit into an appropriate article should not just be collected into random information clearinghouses such as this page. Finally, the transfer of info from this page to other pages should not delay deletion of this page. People can just copy this page to their sandbox (the appropriate place to keep random information you haven't decided what to do with yet), and add it to appropriate articles as they have time.Locke9k (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Locke9k (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Locke9k (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Locke9k (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Locke9k (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Locke9k (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Locke9k (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Locke9k (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, if sourced snippets can find their ways into articles fine. But, misconceptions come in all sorts and which are "common" is debatable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Do not leave in this form It's mostly well sourced, but there's no clear guidelines for what gets included or excluded. It could be merged into the articles most germane to the misconceptions, but that loses the visibility. Maybe it could be broken into topic-based articles ("List of common misconceptions in religion") of manageable size, with this article remaining a list-of-lists? Maybe a category "common misconceptions" would be better, breaking the individual notable/verifiable bullets into their own stub articles. I don't think this information should be deleted from the encyclopedia, but I agree with the nom that it should not continue to exist in this form. Jclemens (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Merge per Moloch09 and nom. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. This article should be up for FA, not AfD. This is one of the best-written, well-sourced collection of scientific and historical common misconceptions. While the individual facts can be gathered, labouriously, from the individual topics mentioned, no "Category:Common_misconception" will ever be able to arrange and present them in a useful way. This article is a gold mine to every history of science researcher. Owen× ☎ 16:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question - What, exactly, have false beliefs about the hats of Puritan immigrants into North America got to do with the history of science? Whilst these are important facts, the commonality of the misconceptions about them do not appear to be well-sourced. Take, for example, the very first source, for the very first fact, about gunpowder. The source relates, albeit in a slightly quirky manner, the facts as I understand them relating to the history of this technology. However, it does not support the article's assertion that there is a common misconception to the effect that Europeans were the first to make military use of gunpowder. The same problem exists with many of the 'misconceptions' listed; the facts are related correctly, but the existence of the misconception is unsourced and highly debatable. To a sociology researcher, it's useless. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. This is useful information. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Response - The San Francisco telephone directory is useful, but we don't keep that here. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. 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. WP:NOTDIR is there to keep with no encyclopedic value out of the encyclopedia -- this list does not qualify -- and WP:INDISCRIMINATE 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.--Father Goose (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question - what authoritative source could be used to demonstrate the relative commonality of false beliefs, worldwide? AlexTiefling (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, but maybe not in this form. I don't know which policies to cite, so I'll just give you my reasoning. First, the premise of the article-- debunking popular misconceptions-- is encyclopedic. Second, a large part of the list is sourced, and the rest of it can be. Third, a list like this is a better format than trying to use a category to accomplish the same thing. Now, here are the problems I see with this list. First, what are the criteria for inclusion? How do we define "common" misconception? Second, misconceptions are tightly tied to culture. In the US, we often think that you lose a disproportionate amount of heat via the head (you don't), but in areas of South and Central America, people think you lose a disproportionate amount of heat via the feet, not the head. In Mexico, many people have the misconception that you should cover your mouth when you go outside at night because the cold air will make you sick. In Korea they think that leaving a fan on all night will cause you to dehydrate and die. etc. So we need some well-defined criteria for inclusion, including defining what is common and marking what culture the misconception comes from. The list has a misconception about gunpowder, which is obviously a western misconception and is not shared by the Chinese. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)