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


 * 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)

List of mnemonics for the cranial nerves
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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: Most mnemonics and rules of thumb exist primarily to help medical students pass tests. Just give the information without the artificial and distracting structure of memory aids.

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)
 * 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)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The mnemonic is itself notable - see Introduction to Psychology, for example. The worst case would be merger into list of medical mnemonics which has already been proposed. Andrew (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Delete. Anything useful should be merged into cranial nerves JFW &#124; T@lk  19:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Merger and deletion are opposites - see WP:MAD. Andrew (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Merge, stripping any unsourced content. LT910001 (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Presumed delete-- in response to the bot notification on his talk page, stated: "I don't contest this deletion proposal. A short section at Cranial_nerves is enough as it is. 09:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)"  Lesion  ( talk ) 11:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Not convinced MEDRS would apply here. Lesion  ( talk ) 13:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a guide and many of these are poorly sourced. Also see WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. This is an excessive list, and notability is questionable at best.  If the content can go somewhere else, great, but it's simply not appropriate for a list article here.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 16:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Per DGG. Definitely edit out unreferenced, made-up-in-class-one-day bits of ribald humor. References exist to verify that some are famous mnemonics, studied not just by medical students but by nurses, dentists, students of psychology and even attorneys, "Textbook of basic nursing:" "On Old Olympus Towering Top A Finn And German View Some Hops" is said to be a "common mnemonic", "Understanding anatomy and physiology:" "On Old Olympus Towering Top A Friendly Viking Grew Vines And Hops" is called  "a common one", "Oral Diagnosis, Oral Medicine, and Treatment Planning" (for dentists) says "On old Olympus towering top a Finn and German viewed at hops" "has helped generations of medical, dental and nursing students  remember the cranial nerves...", "Anatomy for attorneys:"  "On old Olympus' towering tops a Finn and German viewed some hops." , "Psychology: modules for active learning:" "On Old Olympus Towering Top A Famous Vocal German Viewed Some Hops" The last discusses it as a notable mnemonic per se, rather than presenting it as a tool to be used for learning ther subject matter of the course. (The "Olympus" mnemonics may have changed with the times as nerves were renamed).  Edison (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nominator. The writing style section of MEDMOS discourages emphasis on mnemonics as being unencyclopedic. Some representative "safe for work" (ie non-NSFW) examples are currently included in the parent page, and that should satisfy any genuine encyclopedic need (WP:TEXTBOOK). On the other hand, the present page appears trivial and looks largely like a student prank rather than a genuinely encyclopedic source of information. 86.173.146.3 (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2014 (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.