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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of historical confusions[edit]

As far as I can understand, this list is supposed to contain either (1) instances of confusion over history topics, or (2) instances of confusion over placenames/peoples throughout history. I don't think that either criterion is, of itself, particularly notable. In the first case, the list would essentially be a result of something that happened in school one day. In the second case, the list would seem to violate WP:NOR, be potentially unmaintainable, and be (again) unnotable unless the importance of these confusions was specified. My second (or fourth, depending on how you count it) reason for nominating it for deletion is that it adds little or nothing of encyclopedic value (after all, Wikipeida is an encyclopedia) as evidenced by the facts that:

the information contained in it is replicated on two disambiguation pages (Albania (disambiguation) and Iberia) and the rest of the individual article pages it links to;
it is unsourced; and
it provides no context whatsoever. Black Falcon 01:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unclear as to what was confusing, who was confused, why it was confusing...I'm so confused. I cannot fathom what kind of encyclopedic entry would be possible from this title, or how it would not be original research. Agent 86 02:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list is poorly defined and far too broad to be satisfactorily encyclopedic. It's also subjective and unverifiable. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverfiable. What's the criteria for such a list? --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 03:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm very worried that this could become a vehicle for POV. As in: "A common historical confusion is the Genocide XYZ hoax." --N Shar 03:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If this is a list for historical confusions, then that article should be much longer than its current state. Also, what is the confusion about? I see no confusion! I'm as confused as Agent 86! Also, the article will eventually violate WP:NPOV, since confusion is a biproduct of perception of the mind. Also, the article provides no WP:RS, does not assert WP:N, and does not WP:CITE its sources.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 03:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:V, WP:OR, unencyclopedic. Supposedly a list, but it isn't now. Terence Ong 04:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has been around almost a year, yet no effort has been made to provide any context. --Metropolitan90 05:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 06:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete; violates WP:NONSENSE --Mhking 16:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe even speedy because it lacks context (A1). YechielMan 20:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT Bucketsofg 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Tom H 22:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per nom and Dyseption. Evan^{(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!)} 23:04, 28 January 2007 (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.