Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chemistry mnemonics

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. postdlf (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of chemistry mnemonics

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

I don't believe this article serves any encyclopaedic purpose. Therefore, I feel that it fits under WP:What Wikipedia is not.

Specifically, there are no particular criteria for a mnemonic's inclusion in this list. Of course, this is a problem common to many lists (such as those of slang and industry-specific terms). However, in this case, I think that there is no way of establishing a given mnemonic's notability or lack thereof. Of course, the concept of a mnemonic is notable in and of itself, but adequately covered in its own article.

Furthermore, there do not appear to be any third-party sources available that distinguish between commonly used mnemonics and those that have been suggested in pages referenced by this article but are otherwise unused. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know it seems odd and a violation of WP:NOTHOWTO, but we have a LOT of these things, including a science subcat, at Category:Mnemonics. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - our core readership of students will almost certainly search for this and expect that we have it. It is also probably notable because secondary school textbooks always cover such mnemonics. I had an interview to be a science teaching fellow just last night, and I'm not ashamed to admit that I'd use this article in a lesson plan. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN while the nomination is WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC. Andrew D. (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree (as nominator) that the topic passes WP:LISTN. I don't believe any of the sources establish notability for chemistry mnemonics over mnemonics as a whole. There are already more than enough examples at mnemonic. Triptothecottage (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter." A mnemonic is clearly a teaching aid, so in my mind, not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Also, the mnemonics that aren't referenced, smack of original research (and not very good at that).Glendoremus (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With a few easy clicks, I cut out a bunch of totally unsourced lines. "How easy was that?" - chemist and cook Ina Garten. Ordinary editing can fix the problems identified, so total chemical explosion is unwarranted. Bearian (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:LISTN These are well known and have value. Chemistry mnemonics are widely covered in reliable sources. Smartyllama (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smartyllama. And an article like this needs a lot of attention because of homemade mnemonics... Christian75 (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does serve an encyclopedic purpose: it is a collection of chemical mnemonics, which should clearly be valuable knowledge in the field of chemistry. A list needs to be well-defined, and I see nothing ill-defined about what a mnemonic is. These mnemonics also appear widely in standard textbooks. —Lowellian (reply) 12:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure about this one. I have been a chemistry educator for over 50 years and I have never heard of any of them, but perhaps they are used in secondary schools. However, I was a university chemistry academic with a keen interest in chemical education. If this article is to be kept, then every entry needs a source that shows the item is in wide use, otherwise wikipedia will be spreading the use of a mnemonic that someone has just invented. If they do appear widely in standard textbooks, as the previous comment suggests, then they should be used as sources. If I have to make a decision, I come down on the side of saying that this article should not be on wikipedia. The other articles in the category seem to match our criteria better than this massive list. --Bduke (Discussion) 19:40, 22 January 2017 (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.