Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (4th nomination) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pengo (talk | contribs) at 00:58, 28 September 2018 (expand my comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:58, 28 September 2018 by Pengo (talk | contribs) (expand my comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

List of common misconceptions

AfDs for this article:

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

List of common misconceptions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a list of trivia by definition; it has inconsistent and sometimes very poor sourcing. Despite being AfD'ed previously, sourcing has not improved mostly because the broad variety of subjects and mass-appeal nature of explicit sourcing rules out many academic and high-quality sources. Article is highly unlikely to reach a workable state at any point in the future, and well-sourced entries can be moved to the appropriate article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Like many other problematic Misplaced Pages 'list' articles, this suffers greatly from having no clear criteria for inclusion. To my mind, if the criteria for inclusion aren't evident from the title, and instead have to be fought over repeatedly, one has to conclude that they are not only subjective (as deciding what exactly 'common' means for example clearly would be), but more generally subject to the whim of whoever currently wishes to make the most fuss over them. Which ultimately means that the contents of the article aren't decided by Misplaced Pages policy (e.g. on notability), but instead by popular vote. Which would seem to me to be contrary to the stated objectives of this project. I know that "it isn't encyclopaedic" is generally considered a poor argument at AFD, but in this case I have to suggest that an amorphous collection of random poorly-sourced trivia gathered together by people who can't agree what exactly it is they are compiling makes for poor encyclopaedic content. 86.149.219.138 (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Yup. It's had well over a decade to correct the issues (check the first AfD and prepare to experience deja vu), and yet it's never done so. If 12+ years of editing can't fix it, it can't be fixed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Is it more reasonable to prevent the community from coming to a decision over what to do with an article just because a few people are edit-warring over it? I think not. It would seem to me to be a most inadvisable precedent to set. 86.149.219.138 (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
To clarify: I'm only suggesting that this deletion discussion be put on hold until the protection expires. I have no objection to it reopening at that time. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Given that protection is due to expire in less than 24 hours that would seem rather unnecessary. 86.149.219.138 (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
It expires at 14:50, 28 September, or about 40 hours from now. That's almost 1/4 of the normal 7-day length of an AFD. This article has been around since 2003; a 40-hour wait isn't going to do much harm. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
If the article can be improved to avoid deletion, then deletion is not warranted even if no improvement happens (cf. Misplaced Pages:Potential, not just current state). Regards SoWhy 09:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
This AFD was more controversial than I thought. A simple Google Scholar search reveals plenty of sources that discuss common misconceptions. Given the quantity of academic sources, I'm quite sure there's even more non-academic sources. – FenixFeather 18:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
The google scholar result is not impressive. It's mostly articles that use a "common misconceptions" title as a catchy introduction to an article by experts in topic X, providing solid correct information on topics within X, chosen based on the authors' subjective impression about what misconceptions in that field are common. Ccrrccrr (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per User:FenixFeather. It's also sufficiently organized so as not to be itself a trivia section, and its contents are (for the most part) well-cited, verifiable, and sourced to secondary sources. --John M Wolfson (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - 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 WP:LISTN. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I lean keep but I don't find this statement credible. The big tan box actually says that there's no clear consensus about the criteria! Also, the use of reliable sources to attest that it's a common misconception is weak. Often an article will use that as a way to frame an explanation by an expert on the topic who has done no research to actually determine how common the misconception is. And the editors who are vetting that content (for the reliable source) are likely vetting only that the corrected story is correct, not vetting whether the misconception is in fact common. Ccrrccrr (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Seriously, this again? The article obviously has lots of good, well sourced information, and to suggest that it should be deleted simply because it's contentious is ridiculous. Furthermore, in my opinion, this article is particularly useful to the mission of Misplaced Pages, to spread knowledge. Benjamin (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - 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. Misplaced Pages 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 WP:LISTCRUFT, but Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - Trivia, any information here can be put into the article with little or no disruption. Incredibly questionable citations as well. In short, it's a mess. I'd rather see it nuked and restarted than try to salvage a clearly broken page. --Tarage (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong/Speedy/SNOW keep The fact that the article has poor sourcing is basically irrelevant. If there were poor sourcing on Donald Trump or Life or book cover (as indeed there is) would you be advocating that page's deletion? Of course not. If there are respectable and reliable pieces of literature in existence on this very topic, which indeed there are, then why on Earth should this article not exist? The article is wholly encyclopaedic, not to mention very interesting. I have learnt much from it over the years. JZCL 01:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - "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 WP:LISTCRUFT doesn't need to be centralized and its in a pretty useless format. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
    Mind pointing us to the part of WP:V that requires public opinion polls before we can include what multiple reliable sources say is common? Regards SoWhy 07:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
    Re: "common" then its WP:V, lead, second paragraph, first sentence, there should be some reference to the source verifying that. If that does not exist then its an opinion of the source and should not be stated as a fact in Misplaced Pages's voice per WP:YESPOV. What actually happens with the entries is WP:OR - editor reads something in a Misplaced Pages and says "oh, I didn't know that" (googles it) "oh, there it is again, and again, oh... and their it is again...it must be a common misconception!!!"...does a quick A+B+C+D=E and adds it to the list. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, they must be verified and with reliable sources. But when a reliable source or two or three says "this is a common misconception", WP:V does not require that they conducted a poll for them to be allowed to says so. The OR problem can easily be fixed be following the requirement that entries need sources to verify that this is a common misconception. Which is already part of the rules on the talk page. Regards SoWhy 14:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
    That still won't fly – would a source have to actually use the word "common misconception"? What if it used "myth"? What if it said "pervasive"? Two different authors, no matter how reliable, might have completely different notions of what "common" means. Otherwise reliable sources can very easily insert words like "common" as a hook on which to write about a topic, while offering absolutely no evidence that it actually is common. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
    Your argument seems to be that because sources might report something as common that might not "truly" be common, we cannot include it, correct? But the point of V is that we should only report on what sources say is common, not choose whether this is true. If it helps, we can rename the list to List of misconceptions considered common or something like that (if one allows the WP:OSE argument here, see List of films considered the best, List of films considered the worst, List of video games considered the best etc. for examples of other "subjective" lists like that that are considered acceptable). We can also require that each entry features at least three different reliable sources claiming that something is a common misconception. Both are editing problems though, not notability problems. Regards SoWhy 15:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Ongoing ANI discussion People may wish to have a look at WP:ANI#Article_ownership_at_List_of_common_misconceptions before voting JZCL 01:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep 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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. Oversimplification to the point of verging on OR. Every one of these items needs a fullr eferencedi scussion, and we have articles on most of them to do that. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete This is an unmanageable double whammy of an article: a vague and overly inclusive criterion that promotes addition of all kinds of trivial nonsense, combined with a subject matter that is an absolute magnet for bad sourcing and OR. It's no wonder the article has been limping along in dire shape for years now. To achieve a state that WP needs not be ashamed of, it would require the kind of iron hand control that we just don't (can't) do here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, 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 WP:SURMOUNTABLE 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 SoWhy 07:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep A notable topic, stringent inclusion criteria, and mostly well sourced. (Not that bad sourcing is a valid argument for deletion.) The criteria that the misconception is mentioned in the main article means that it's not an indiscriminate collection of facts. Sjö (talk) 11:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. 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 Toaster and Chizzick), but it's not listed here and I can't see much appetite for it turning up here either. WP:LISTN 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. Ritchie333 13:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment LISTN says nothing about traditional encyclopedias or general purpose sources, it says "independent reliable sources". That criteria is met. See the sources, external links and further reading in the article that discuss common misconceptions as a group.Sjö (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
LISTN also only requires that a set of topics "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". There are plenty of sources that list misconceptions as a group rather than individually (e.g. , , , , etc. pp.). It's not our job to decide whether RS should do that, just that they do. I mentioned List of films considered the best above as an example of a list that has routinely been found encyclopedic despite clearly being subjective. OSE aside, the same reasoning applies: If source 1 says "A, B, C and D are common misconceptions" and source 2 says "E, F, G, H and A" are common misconceptions, we can include A to H in a list and point to the sources that list them together without having to have a source that lists all of them together. Regards SoWhy 16:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, per above discussion. It's a common misconception that this interesting page should be deleted. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment In the 12 years since this article was first brought to AfD for the exact same reasons, nothing has changed. Normally, I wouldn't think that the problems I described were a rationale for deletion. But 12 years?? That's a lot of time for us to fix it, and we're not doing that. Instead, we have individual editors all trying to fix it, while fighting each other. We have irrational inclusion criteria (seriously; a criteria that requires content be in a different article first is ridiculous) being written up and posted to the edit notice, we have editors mass-reverting every addition, we have nothing but battles on the talk page. It's a hot mess, with no signs of getting better.
At what point to those !voting to keep this article plan to actually help by replacing bad sources with good, trimming bad entries and adding good ones? Because I don't see that happening at the article. Instead, I see occasional editors showing up to "fix" it and only making things worse, or else editors just completely ignoring it. So if editors here don't want to get in the mud of fixing this crap, then please don't !vote "keep" just on principles. Principles are good things to have, but they don't actually do any work on their own. If we can delete and rebuild this article, we might have a chance to make it worthwhile, but if we just keep pretending that just because it could be fixed that it will be fixed, we're just damaging this project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
So you are basically saying it's too much of a hassle to have this page even if it is encyclopedic? How is there anything that can be achieved by deleting and recreating that cannot be achieved by editing without prior deletion? Plus, if you start citing time as a reason for deletion, when does it stop? After 10 years with no improvement? 5 years? 1 year? Misplaced Pages is a work in progress and will always be. And this includes having lists that might never be "perfect". That does not mean they should not exist. Regards SoWhy 14:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
So you are basically saying it's too much of a hassle to have this page even if it is encyclopedic? No, I'm saying that no-one is taking on the hassle to make this non-encyclopedic article actually encyclopedic. I'm pointing out that in 12 years, we've yet to deal with the hassle of this article. Also, I never suggested anything needed to be "perfect", nor can any reasonable person interpret what I said as meaning that, so please stop mischaracterizing what I said. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a very interesting and insightful article that is fun to read. Can't see anything wrong with it. In fact, it's one of my favorite articles. 🔥flame🔥 14:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
    Also, there's a strict inclusion criteria; I tried to edit it, and besides, it's highly protected. 🔥flame🔥 14:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
    This is a pure WP:ILIKEIT vote, not a valid justification to keep. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
    You may have missed LFlamel's "strict inclusion criteria" and "protected" language, both valid justifications and both good reasons to favor a "Keep" conclusion. So the comments are a long way from a simple "ILIKEIT". Randy Kryn (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep The topic of misperceptions ("factual beliefs that are false or contradict the best available evidence in the public domain") is the subject of a small but interesting body of scholarship, reviewed on pp. 2-3 of this 2017 paper, so it passes WP:LISTN. It also has reasonably clear selection criteria, so it satisfies WP:SALAT. Therefore the list should be kept, I(DONT)LIKEIT arguments notwithstanding. FourViolas (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Misplaced Pages:Listcruft and per WP:INDISCRIMINATE; incomplete and trivial. Kierzek (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete: If nothing else, there's no way to quantify what qualifies a misconception as being "common". Indeed, while the entries themselves are fairly well-sourced in terms of the basic facts, I checked a few at random, and none offered any evidence that these were common misconceptions. There's often no way to verify whether something here is a common misconception, or whether it's a common misconception that it's a common misconception. We could simply rename to "List of misconceptions", but then what's too trivial to include or too important to omit? Between the insurmountable sourcing issues and the vague inclusion criteria, this list should be axed. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Case in point: It's an extremely common misconception that an argument from authority is always a fallacy (it's not; hence why it's not called "fallacy of authority"). Good luck finding a source that say this, though. That's the problem with common misconceptions: they're so common nobody calls them out. Finding a source for one is like trying to find a source for the claim that water is wet. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing that proves that any of these are actually common misconceptions, although it would be very difficult to prove. A lot of these are local American entries which would not be common in a world or encyclopedia sense. MilborneOne (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - Utter trash fire of an article, not encyclopedic in the least bit.--WaltCip (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - This article has survived three AfD noms before this one. This is an insightful article, refs looks ok. I see that most of those who !votes Delete gives raitonales like Utter trash and a bunch of opinions etc. That is POV and not guideline based. per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I see that most of those who !votes Delete gives raitonales like Utter trash and a bunch of opinions etc. That is POV and not guideline based. per WP:GNG. You sure don't see that in this AfD. The Delete !votes for the most part give WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:OR and WP:LISTCRUFT based arguments, but also give practical arguments, like my nom. You know what I do see here? WP:LASTTIME, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:JUSTAVOTE, WP:MUSTBESOURCES, WP:INTERESTING, WP:ADDSVALUE. Only I see them in the keep !votes. Funny how they're all on the same page, isn't it? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Plenty of sourcing is available; inclusion criteria is well-defined (INDISCRIMINATE doesn't apply). Enterprisey (talk!) 17:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - This article seems to be more of a bar trivia article than a encyclopedic article. The name itself is concerning as it's subjective. —JJB 18:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
    The name can easily be changed. Regards SoWhy 18:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep -- There is plenty of WP:RS 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 WP:SECONDARY 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 WP:PROMO:
Toronto skyscrapers and towers
Over 150 metres
(by height)
Under 150 metres
(alphabetically)
Proposed or
under construction
Cancelled or
never built
Other
--David Tornheim (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a summary article. References are not an issue as each fact is taken from another Misplaced Pages article. See the "official" criteria for inclusion on the talk page (and which also appears when you edit the article): "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources." If the associated article doesn't also include the misconception with references, then its associated entry in this list should be removed. Besides which, there are a ton of references: the list contains some 476 references itself, 10 items under "Further reading", and a host of editors hawkishly protecting the article from misinformation. If this article is deleted for "very poor sourcing" then you might as well delete 98% of Misplaced Pages. For those who find "common" to be too subjective, it's no more or less subjective than "notability", the primary test to decide whether a topic warrants its own article on Misplaced Pages, so it's hardly an issue. —Pengo 00:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - Poor sourcing is not a reason to delete a list article on a subject that has been covered in many sources. I'm not sure what changed since last time. Oren0 (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Categories: