Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Threshold knowledge

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. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold knowledge

A term which appears to have strictly limited currency. Fewer than 2,000 Google hits, of which most are unrelated subjects which just happen to have the two words together. Some on GBooks and scholar, but again most seem unrelated to the term as defined - either it's so vague as to be meaningless, or it is specific and largely unused. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. This is an apparently non-notable neologism, as the nominator indicated, it has little currency elsewhere. If JHF Meyer and Ray Land, the originators of the concept, are themselves sufficiently notable, the term could be included on their articles, but at least at the moment neither of them has an article (this is not meant to take any position whatsoever on whether or not they are notable). Cool3 (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. According to WP:NEO, "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term". I have done further work on the article since Cool3's comment and there are now ~~six~~ eleven reliable secondary sources about the term. Bondegezou (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC) (Edit Bondegezou (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I originally created this article. It was speedily deleted by Deb, but I took that to deletion review who unanimously overturned that decision. Thus we are now here. I'm about to take the cat to the vet, so for now let me just copy part of what I said in the deletion review as to why I think the article is notable under WP:GNG in terms of having multiple reliable source coverage.

Threshold knowledge is a theoretical structure in studies of higher education. It was introduced by Meyer and Land, and I included a key reference by them in the article I created:

Meyer JHF, Land R (2003). "Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge – Linkages to Ways of Thinking and Practising" in Improving Student Learning – Ten Years On. C.Rust (Ed), OCSLD, Oxford.

Another would be:

Meyer JHF, Land R (2005). "Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning" Higher Education, 49(3), 373-388.

That paper has already been cited by 8 others according to ISI Web of Knowledge. Meyer and Land have written about threshold knowledge, threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge in several papers, but the idea has also now been used by other researchers; for example:

Park EJ, Light G (2009). "Identifying Atomic Structure as a Threshold Concept: Student mental models and troublesomeness" International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 233-258

Baillie C, Goodhew P, Skryabina E (2006). "Threshold concepts in engineering education-exploring potential blocks in student understanding" International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(5), 955-962

Clouder L (2005). "Caring as a 'threshold concept': Transforming students in higher education into health (care) professionals" Teaching in Higher Education, 10(4), 505-517

Google Scholar throws up plenty more candidates, as I said in my prior discussions with Deb (see our discussions here and here). Bondegezou (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neologism/OR. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out that the DRV overturned the speedy solely or primarily on the grounds that A7 doesn't apply to it because it's not an article about a person, group of people, company, band, or web content. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The DRV indeed overturned the speedy deletion primarily on the misapplication of A7. I wished to alert people to the DRV review primarily to provide context. However, that said, some other comments in the DRV do speak more directly to this discussion ("its seems to be an ok starting stub" said Davewild; "I'm not sure that it needs to go straight to AFD" said Cube lurker; "There are referenced sources on this" said Litherlandsand).

By the way, I am genuinely puzzled by the suggestion of WP:OR. I've provided 5 citations in the academic literature. Would you be kind enough to expand on your reasoning there? Bondegezou (talk) 11:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an important topic in education which we do not seem to have covered under any alternate title such as key concepts. There are numerous possible phrases to describe this - foundation studies, core subjects, fundamentals, etc. It seems hard to distinguish the common usage of such phrases from discussion of the topic in ontology and education at a meta level but such papers do exist, e.g. Threshold concepts within the disciplines. Note also that the comments about neologism above seem to misunderstand the point of that style guideline (which is to avoid the use of novel words which our readers will not understand). This phrase is not a neologism and, in any case, that would just be a reason to reword rather than to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obviously I don't think it's appropriate content. Nice to see that some more references have been added to the original stub, though. Deb (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant topic in education research, Google Scholar. --J.Mundo (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Since this AfD was started, I have done further work on the article. It now sports 11 reliable secondary source articles on this subject, which I feel is sufficient to dismiss concerns under WP:NEO and to establish notability under WP:GNG. In retrospect, I think I chose the less used terminology for the article name and a move to threshold concept would be better, with redirects from threshold knowledge and troublesome knowledge. Bondegezou (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly and with regret. The illusion of our culture that the craft of schoolteaching is an academic subject, supportable with the apparatus of learned, footnoted journals and the rest of the trappings of scholarship; and that exposure to this kind of scholasticism is necessary to train schoolteachers, yields chiefly the abuse of the English language. This seems to be an example of the typical results. It is unfortunate that it meets the requirements of notice by disinterested third parties in sources held to be reliable in the field, but it does. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourced fairly well. I agree with Ihcoyc on nearly all points however. Hobit (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Patton^t/c 13:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree that the added reliable source coverage satisfies notability/neologism/OR concerns. The literature also gives a concrete definition of threshold concept, which addresses the other concern in the nom that the term might be so vague as to be meaningless. Baileypalblue (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2009 (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.