Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mnemonics for the cranial nerves (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. On the numbers alone, this would easily be a "no consensus," but Andrew and Edison in particular made reasonable arguments for the topic's notability that were not substantively rebutted in the discussion. postdlf (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of mnemonics for the cranial nerves[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of mnemonics for the cranial nerves (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)

Unencyclopedic Lesion (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Review of the previous attempt to delete this article in 2011 did not give a satisfactory consensus, and the arguments to keep were not based upon guidelines such as WP:MEDMOS#Wikipedia is not a medical primary resource:[reply]

Wikipedia is not a medical textbook and it is not aimed at students but a general audience. A general audience has no use for this page. Agree 100% with Mikael Häggström who suggeted move to Wikiversity, where this kind of content is most welcome. Lesion (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or transwiki: per the above. I have come across this article before and wondered what it was doing here. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of the keep arguments in the previous discussion were acceptable grounds to keep this article. I contribute to both Wikiproject medicine and the Wikiversity school of medicine. This kind of topic belongs on Wikiversity, it is not encyclopedic. It does not matter if medical textbooks can be found to support certain mnemonics, the topic is not notable for a general encyclopedic audience. Lesion (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Keep result last time was acceptable because it was accepted. Your interest in Wikiversity is irrelevant here as that project is a separate one which is mostly moribund. And setting up explicitly to teach medicine in a pseudo-university sounds quite problematic. Anyway, what you fail to recognise is that the mnemonic is more than just a detail in the study of cranial nerves. It is now a famous archetype or example and so is referenced not just in textbooks teaching medicine, but also in numerous books about memory, mnemonics and psychology. There are even explicit studies of its effectiveness such as The Olympian struggle to remember the cranial nerves: Mnemonics and student success or Cranial Nerve Clock: Part I. A Declarative Memory Paradigm. The topic therefore has ample notability and this makes it a suitable topic for us. Andrew (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute nonsense. No-one apart from medical students would be in the slightest interested in this topic. We have a guideline specifically for medical articles which tells us not to write about mnemonics, let alone pages of unreferenced ones. Delete all unreferenced content and move to Wikiversity. Lesion (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. The guideline to which you refer is telling us not to incorporate mnemonics within the main text of articles about the corresponding facts. That is an argument for not merging this material with an article such as cranial nerves. It does not tell use what to do when the mnemonics themselves are the main topic of the page. Mnemonics are suitable because they take on a life of their own and so become notable topics in their own right such as Roy G. Biv and Fleming's right-hand rule. Andrew (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mnemonics for the cranial nerves do not rank alongside Fleming's right hand rule, just as mnemonics for bones in the wrist, branches of arteries, nerves, and any of the other dozens and dozens of mnemonics a medical student might encounter. This topic does not belong in an encyclopedia. Lesion (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. I see no indication that the mnemonics are notable as science or culture; the article appears to serve only as an instructional aid for anatomy students. If there are reliable sources establishing the notability of these mnemonics, I am prepared to be voted down. I don't see evidence of that in the article, though. Cnilep (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep I think there is some cultural value in some of the mnemonics. I would see the list being kept, but thoroughly purged so that we only keep mnemonics that are sourced in the literature. While amusing for example the Snape ones are not encyclopedic material and should definitely be moved to Wikiversity where they can do good. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 11:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki, then delete Study aids should be sent to Wikiversity. The Wikiversity page can be linked at Cranial nerve. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, stripping any unsourced content. LT910001 (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True. The reason why I split the content from cranial nerves to this new article, as I recall, was because I thought the content was too bad for the cranial nerves article. Perhaps I should have proposed deletion of it already then. Yet, it seems a good idea to transwiki the content, presumably to Wikiversity. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm surprised it hasn't been blown out of the water by WP:MEDRS due to a blog being the second reference! In seriousness, this is a silly, trivial list, that will simply invite more and more unencyclopedic additions. Does anyone really need three different accounts of what happens after "Old Oprah Occasionally Trots Triumphantly About, Farting Velveeta Globs..."? --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not convinced MEDRS would apply here. Lesion (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A well established part of medical folklore, as much so as any other folklore. MEDRES has nothing whatever to do with it--the actual names are the science, and they are of course perfectly documented. The abbreviations are not science, but just famous leaning devices, DGG ( talk ) 14:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 11:48, 21 February 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_mnemonics_for_the_cranial_nerves_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138015848"