Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mnemonics for the cranial nerves

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. lifebaka++ 20:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of mnemonics for the cranial nerves[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was amazed to find that this had not been to AfD before (it was PRODed shortly after creation but was declined). In short, it's a gross violation of WP:V as it largely consists of WP:MADEUP-class content. In its current form it really belongs on a private webpage or a medical wiki of some description, though a few could be merged to List of mnemonics or the article re-written to something more like the others in Category:Medical mnemonics.

(Note: this has nothing to do with the vulgar nature of many of the entries) ninety:one 17:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page should be moved to Wikiversity. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The obvious problem with a page of mnemonics in an encyclopedia that anyone can edit is that anyone can make one up something where the words start with OOOTTAFVGVAH or SSMMBMBSBBMM or COSSSROSIIJJJH and then post their own version, as is the case here, many of which have cleverly incorporated parts of women's anatomy that begin with "V" and "B"... I'm sure that there are three examples that have been published in reliable and verifiable sources, so as to overcome the problems with original research, and that would fit into our List of mnemonics. If that list becomes too big, then I can see splitting off a list of medical menmonics and making it semi-protected. Mnemonics that are taught are notable, although I believe that what medical students are usually taught is to create their own versions, and none of those need to be shared with us. Mandsford 21:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There arr well established one, with references. If there's imaginary material, it can be removed. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as very notable [1], but let's not kid ourselves, almost all of this is "imaginary material". The mnemonic that turns up again and again is #10, "10.On Old Olympus' Towering Top A Finn And German Viewed Some Hops". [2] and [3] and [4]. The 8th nerve is the Vestibulocochlear nerve or Auditory nerve, so sometimes "Finn and German" is replaced by "famous vocal German", with Olympus and hops still part of it. Mandsford 04:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established, no deletion rationale has been articulated which can't be solved by regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I posted this to a *chan website a couple of days ago, and upon returning I found that all the hilarious mnemonics gone. Don't get me wrong, some of them were awful (and by awful, I mean they were fantastic) but I actually *do* study neuroscience, and probably some of the racier ones actually *HELPED* me remember the Cranial Nerves. Keeping established ones, like "On Old Olympus Tower..." doesn't help me or ANYONE in my class. In fact, I had to memorize the Cranial nerves just to remember the mnemonic with the Finn and German. Whereas, Snape doing an amusing deed to Voldemorte immediately stuck in my head.

If it's any consolation, you can still find the other versions in the article history by clicking the tab that says "history" (see?); and, if you can find something suitably ribald, including one that you learned your cranial nerves from-- as long as its been published somewhere, you can add it along with the link to where it came from. It's just that Wikipedia has its limitations, one of them being that it's no longer a bulletin board for things that one person heard from someone else or read on a blog, or that an imaginative contributors can make up see whose joke is the funniest. I'm not sure that Voldemort can still get his hand job (I think Ms. Rowling has retired) but accurate doesn't have to be boring as hell. Mandsford 01:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With the joke entries gone, there's very little left that isn't a duplication of what's already in cranial nerve, which is where you'd look in the first place. From the history, it seems this page was only created to segregate the ever-growing list of unsourced mnemonics added by drive-by editors, which even the Keepers seem to agree don't belong. Get rid of those and the problem that necessitated the article in the first place goes away. – Þ 11:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Cranial nerve. Now that the "imaginary" material has been removed this would be a simple solution that keeps the content without having a list with only a few entries. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the merge would be a bad mix, combining a medical article with one about a teaching technique. I compare it to the business article Tylenol being separate from the chemistry information in acetaminophen (which redirects to paracetamol). If it were merged, the more logical target would be list of mnemonics. Mandsford 20:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, I feel like this is a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. First it was "There's too much unsourced stuff here" and then it was "Now it's a list with only a few entries!" or "You got rid of my favorite one!" Truth is, there are plenty of other published examples. I seem to see this a lot lately, people taking time to fix the problems with an article and then getting the "it still sucks" response. Mandsford 21:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I didn't see it at all until just before I commented here. However, I just took a look at a revision from last October and , wow, did it suck a lot worse then, so all due respect for your efforts no matter what happens here. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2011 (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.