Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheat sheet


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheat sheet

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Essentially unreferenced (the one "reference" is a link to a document which is an example of a cheat sheet), and tagged as such for 6 years. By the time you've gotten rid of all the WP:OR, there's nothing left. My own searching finds lots of uses of the term, but no secondary sources that discuss the topic in an encyclopedic way. (i.e. anything more than a dictdef). One thought was to redirect to Reference card, but that's more of the same. This is the kind of article that was acceptable in 2006 (when this was originally written) but now we've got notability guidelines that demand more. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - but with the clear acknowledgement that my !vote should probably be given less weight because this sort of thing is my sort of thing. In all seriousness, I'm generally of the view that these sorts of idioms and phraseology that have found their way into common vernacular have a place on Wikipedia. I totally understand why this has been nominated, but I remain of that view.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 04:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've now added some content, cleaned other content up, and added a handful of references. Some are better than others but I think the totality is probably enough that it meets our WP:GNG.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 04:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, with thanks to St ★ lwart  for his work. RomanSpa (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep There's a ready reference for nominators which is a good checklist of what's expected. If this had been followed correctly then numerous sources would have been found.  Here's some examples:
 * Do students learn course material during crib sheet construction?
 * Reducing test anxiety while increasing learning: The cheat sheet
 * Crib sheets help students prioritize and organize course content
 * Cheating in the Educational Process:(An Experiment in Crib-Sheet Studies)
 * Veterinary students' use of crib sheets in preparing for learning and reducing stress
 * Do crib sheets improve student performance on tests? Evidence from principles of economics
 * Cheat Sheet or Open-Book? A Comparison of the Effects of Exam Types on Performance, Retention, and Anxiety.
 * The cheat-sheet: Efficient coding device or indispensable crutch?
 * Benefits of a “Cheat Sheet”
 * The birth of an organizational resource: The surprising life of a cheat sheet
 * Improving Precision of Grammatical Error Correction with a Cheat Sheet
 * The Cheat Sheet as an Instrument of Study and Learning in HCI Tests
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 10:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to Reference card. These are not separately notable topics and can and should be discussed together. Reywas92Talk 21:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep thanks to improvements by since nomination. However, merging to Reference card as suggested above isn't a bad idea as long as all content is kept. NemesisAT (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Notice how none of the sources that I listed above call this a reference card. That's because they are not the same thing.  A reference card is typically a given; something that comes with a product or manual.  A cheat/crib sheet, on the other hand, is typically prepared by the user and this process of creation is a significant aspect in the studies listed above.  Also note that reference card is in worse shape than the page in question and arguably ought to be merged itself to something like ready reference.  But that redirects to handbook and that's the danger of over-enthusiatic merger – you can end up under an inappropriate title which tends to surprise the reader and encourage improper synthesis.  Better to keep it simple and follow the sources. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, and I think we're in general agreement here. I would support a merge over a deletion, but really these pages should both be kept under their own titles. Reader confusion is a good point, and I agree. NemesisAT (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, per the sources provided by, plus here are a few more: SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly notable with numerous sources, thanks to Andrew.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.