Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Science misconceptions
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus Default to keep. I considered marking this as delete but the article seemed better sourced than the other misconception articles and there seems to be less consensus for this one's deletion. I hope the users who wanted it kept work to improve the article. JoshuaZ 21:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just deleted Physics misconceptions as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physics misconceptions; this seems to fall into the same category Deville (Talk) 04:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and delete the other "misconceptions" articles as well. wikipediatrix 05:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sad delete I would say to keep and rewrite this, but the article itself barely has any meaningful information in it. Like Physics misconceptions, it could be a useful and interesting article; I just don't think the current text would be of any use at all in writing that article. Keep if someone fixes it before the AfD runs out, I guess. (Also, you should peruse the see also section if you're chucking these - there's a lot more where this came from.) Opabinia regalis 05:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't deserve it's own article - see Misconception -Freekee 05:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all science misconception articles per AFDs of Physics and Chemistry misconceptions. The choice of misconceptions to explain on the articles is inherently POV. People wishing to put right their misconceptions would probably search for and read the article on that topic, not the article on the misconceptions of that topic. Molerat 12:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's certainly not inherently POV - if it's sourced, it's not POV at all. WilyD 12:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What I meant was the misconceptions and their explanations are sourced and therefore not POV, but the choice of misconceptions discussed is, as there must be hundreds of science-related misconceptions, ranging from trivial to degree level science. It is POV to decide which deserve a place on this article and which do not. Molerat 13:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fortunately, no such decision is necessary - you can include all that have reliable sources. Apart from which, it is essentially impossible to argue that choosing what to include and what to exclude from an article is so inherently POV that the article should be deleted - every single article does this. The article on Canada doesn't discuss everything that's verifiable that's ever happened there, but that's a featured article. If this was well sourced it'd certainly be encyclopaedic and verifiable, which would necessitate a keep argument. Here, it ain't though. WilyD 13:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "If it's sourced, it's not POV at all" is just not true. If I started an article called Why Tom Cruise is a moron, it would obviously be inherently POV, even if I got copious amounts of sources for people stating words to that effect. The similar problem here is that "misconception" can be just as much a matter of opinion. wikipediatrix 13:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you had copious reliable sources about Tom Cruise being a moron, you should be able to make an encyclopaedic article. Everything in the whole shebang we call Wikipedia is just someone's opinion - please read WP:NPOV before accusing it of saying something it doesn't. WilyD 13:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm well aware that everything in Wikipedia is someone else's opinion, and I know WP:NPOV quite well, thanks anyway. The "inherently" part stems from the opinionated title and premise of the article - I thought I'd made that painfully obvious, but I guess not. wikipediatrix 13:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that neither the title nor the premise are inherently opinionated, it'd pretty hard for it to be obvious. I'm sure if someone were so inclined, they could write an excellent article on the exact subject using nothing but articles from peer-reviewed journals. Whilst the title might omit some implicit qualifier like common to suggest the entire content of the article needs to be in the title is a bit excessive. This article is at the title it should be per WP:NAME, being at the most common name for the subject in english - along with all sorts of other articles like Armenian Genocide or Wounded Knee Massacre WilyD 13:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also sure that an article called Why Tom Cruise is a moron would be deleted as an attack page and not for being inherently POV. Since this is not an attack page it is an apples and oragnes comparasion. You need a better example than that. I also have a question. Can you desmostrarte anytime that a well sourced artilce was deleted simply for being inherently POV? If you do can you please provide the AFD record so it can be eximined. --My old username 01:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that neither the title nor the premise are inherently opinionated, it'd pretty hard for it to be obvious. I'm sure if someone were so inclined, they could write an excellent article on the exact subject using nothing but articles from peer-reviewed journals. Whilst the title might omit some implicit qualifier like common to suggest the entire content of the article needs to be in the title is a bit excessive. This article is at the title it should be per WP:NAME, being at the most common name for the subject in english - along with all sorts of other articles like Armenian Genocide or Wounded Knee Massacre WilyD 13:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm well aware that everything in Wikipedia is someone else's opinion, and I know WP:NPOV quite well, thanks anyway. The "inherently" part stems from the opinionated title and premise of the article - I thought I'd made that painfully obvious, but I guess not. wikipediatrix 13:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If anybody provides any reliable sources that show the misconceptions described are the most common of all misconceptions, as opposed to a random/potentially POV choice of misconceptions, I may change my mind. I doubt any reliable research has taken place into the most common science misconceptions, though. Molerat 18:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you had copious reliable sources about Tom Cruise being a moron, you should be able to make an encyclopaedic article. Everything in the whole shebang we call Wikipedia is just someone's opinion - please read WP:NPOV before accusing it of saying something it doesn't. WilyD 13:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Just because an article could be incomplete dose not mean it must be deleted. By those criteria most articles in wikipedia have to be deleted. If there’s a science misconception that’s missing it can be added. Seano1 00:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete! The history of science shows that science is wrong more often than it's right. We just have to hope we weed out some wrong and accumulate right. You can't cram most of the history of science into a single article. Doczilla 05:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep The history of errors is just as important as the history of accomplishments. Quite a few misconceptions are notable and widely dicussed. Although I must admit this article is a poor stub now. By the way, IMO Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physics misconceptions was closed in haste: only three votes, two for deletion. I am placing it into deletion review. Mukadderat 18:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep From my knowledge, it looks like the articles contain some original research WP:OR, but also some sourced statements. Anyway poor formatting, and in need of attention of an expert of the subject. See Deletion review: Keep all and improve; remove OR/POV (point of view), or Delete all. The articles are really poorly written, in terms of WP:LAYOUT. The misconceptions maight be sourced, because it happens again and again? I do not know the subject well enough. User:Yy-bo 19:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Name should be Misconceptions_(science), and disambiguation required. User:Yy-bo 19:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.