Deletion of Threshold knowledge

Comment: According to , "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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: 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  and to establish notability under . 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:GNG)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Complete bollocks (WP:BALLS)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)