Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opqrst

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. Phoenix-wiki 11:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opqrst

Opqrst (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non notable nemonic that is not world wide/country wide/industry wide - or of importance to wikipedia Brentoli (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Well known and widely accepted. --Arcadian (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Article is now referenced. --Dhartung | Talk 21:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Agree with it being non-notable. If this is notable, why not include every other mnemonic ever invented? I don't think that "Hot T-BonE steAk (Interleukin mnemonic) deserves a Wikipage.JPINFV (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Indeed. As long as a mnemonic is notable I see no reason we cannot have an article. --Dhartung | Talk 22:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable."

I guess the question then, is, are sources that are teaching assessment enough to be considered independent? It would be one thing if it was a common mnemonic (by common, I mean common in public, a la A-B-C), but I don't feel that this is the case with most of the assessment mnemonics. I think the most damning evidence is the fact that, in over a year and a half since the articles inception, the page only has one article linking to it, History of the present illness (which itself only has 4 pages linking to it, OPQRST). If it was notable, wouldn't there be more links to it?JPINFV (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to judge an article's notability on the basis of how many Wikipedia articles link to it. That's what {{orphan}} is for. And I really don't know where this "sources that are teaching assessment" comes into WP:RS. People that know the subject are not now considered reliable? --Dhartung | Talk 01:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't citing reliable sources, but notability. Hence my direct quote from the notability page. I don't think that things like OPQRST have received enough coverage that is independent of the subject (assessment text books, in this case, are not independent of the subject) that it is notable. -JPINFV (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Transwiki to wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary but this information could be useful there. Captain panda 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems notable enough, with dozens of hits in Google books and Google Scholar. I don't buy the argument that assessment books and articles are not "independent of the subject". By subject, in that guideline, I read a person or organization, not a topic. Otherwise we could not use music books for notability of music terms, or chemistry books for notability of chemistry topics! --Itub (talk) 08:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep With the references added, the article should pass muster. Because this is mnemonic specifically taught to people to remember a specific sequence of procedures (or, if not a sequence, to ensure completeness), it stands above those "pass the exam" mnemonics such as those for planets, star types, music notes, etc. In that regard, it most certainly is notable. Mandsford (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a valuable Emergency Medical Services mnemonic. I'll see if I can't do a couple quick improves to demonstrate this. Jclemens (talk) 07:05, 5 April 2008 (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.