Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davis Dyslexia Correction


 * 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 delete. Sandstein 21:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Davis Dyslexia Correction

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete this ad for an unproven method not backed by adequate research. The article has not established notability at all and appears to have been written with a serious violation of WP:COI. Not counting a self-published source, the references generally aren't about the program's validity or notability. One newsletter criticism doesn't exactly count. See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rational_Skepticism. Doczilla 03:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Doczilla 03:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC) (Comment refactored by closing admin)


 * Delete. If no better and numerous sources are forthcoming, then delete as failing WP:N. -- Fyslee / talk 03:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Remove some ad-like sentences. Article has some good sources (from third party sites) but a few more wouldn't hurt.  Seems notable given that a source or two comes from a government site, which definately is a third party.  So, needs some work, but thats no reason to delete it.  - Rjd0060 04:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I do not believe that this article establishes its subject's notability. The link within the article that I would particularly like to see (Ref #3) is a deadlink. This drove me to look for journal references; I am unable to find scholarly articles on this method via PubMed, and a Google Scholar search turned up a handful of underwhelming results. I then turned to the News, and the best I could find was this 2003 BBC article that only tangentially mentions the program - this, in itself, does not establish notability. I generally do not see how this subject is notable based on my own, admittedly brief, search through academic and news sources. From a scientific point of view, I think it fails. From a pop-culture / many people are using it / the British gov't is referencing it point of view, it may be noteworthy. At any rate, this article is too long and goes into too much depth on its subject. It's not notable for the actual method itself (though that should be discussed briefly). If it's notable, it's notable for its popularity.  Ante  lan  talk  04:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Read carefully, there is no evidence at all the UK government is using it, just that they have "reported a case study involving two learners". That's about as tangentially as one can get. . No sources, no evidence, no notability. Nothing besides their own web site to show how many people are using it. DGG (talk) 05:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Self-reporting of facts, and echos of corporate propaganda in minor journals. No real notability. - Jehochman  Talk 10:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No scholarly sources, with a side of marketroid-speak. This article is also being discussed here.  Skinwalker 11:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability is readily apparent by exploring the sources which include newspapers and scholarly sources. -- Levine2112 discuss 05:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Evidence of Notability Detail evidence is posted here: : Talk:Davis_Dyslexia_Correction/Notability This includes:
 * 1 Published Books Citing to Davis
 * 1.1 List compiled from Google book search (15 books)
 * 1.2 = Amazon Book Reports (46 books)
 * 2 International Recognition of method founder, Ron Davis - (New Zealand Dyslexia Discovery Museum).
 * 3 Outside Web Links and Interviews
 * 4 Outside agencies looking at Davis Methods
 * 4.1 UK - Entry to Employment Programme
 * 4.2 New Zealand Ministry of Education "Literature Review - An International Perspective"
 * 5 Media Reports
 * 5.1 From US: Denver Post, Report that school using Davis methods has highest test scores in state
 * 5.2 From Canada: 6 articles listed, most recent from Vancouver Sun 11/3/07 -
 * 5.3 From Israel: Jurusalem Post, 2001, Reprint posted at
 * 5.4 From New Zealand: 2 articles, including one from magazine, "Parent and School Today" (Posted on Cookie Munchers Charitable Trust web site)
 * 5.5 From the UK: 1998 article from The Independent: Education, Reprint posted at [Reprinted at http://www.dyslexia.com/library/clay.htm]
 * 6 Educational Magazines - Reprint of article from "Special" (educational magazine geared to UK/SEN teachers): http://www.dyslexialink.co.uk/files/spec12.pdf
 * 7 Internet Discussion -- representative links to discussion threads on International Dyslexia Association web site, demonstrating sustained interest from over 4 year period
 * 8 Geographical Range of method -- link posted to New Zealand Dyslexia Foundation web site listing various providers of dyslexia therapies - shows high representation of Davis providers - http://www.dyslexiafoundation.org.nz/dyslexia_solproviders.html


 * Additionally, I have corrected the broken link to the abstract of the research journal article in note 3 of the main article; the full text is now posted at ftp://dyslexia.com/pub/Articles/Bacon2007_Reasoning.pdf


 * Re research articles sourced in main article:
 * * "The Effect of Davis Learning Strategies...." was published in refereed journal in 2001; abstract is available at Amazon.
 * * Rene Engelbrecht, author of the master's thesis "The effect of the Ron Davis programme on the reading ability" is not associated with / affiliated with Davis organization - this could be verified by contacting her via her web site at http://www.rene-engelbrecht.co.za/


 * Editing of the main article by a neutral, unaffiliated person to comply with wikipedia standards would be very welcome. Armarshall 14:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding some of those sources (I will use your numbering on this page):
 * 1, 1.1, 1.2, 2 - Citing Davis (the person) is quite different from citing the actual program, "Davis Dyslexia Correction." The man may well be notable even though this program may not be.
 * 4.1 appears to be a recognition that specialists use this method - that is a valid start, but satisfying to me only with further context.
 * 5.x
 * 5.1 - Davis is mentioned in an image caption only. This is not significant coverage.
 * 5.2 - This is a non-working link.
 * 5.3 - This is the first and only article that I have seen that focuses on DDC.
 * 5.4 - DDC is discussed at the end of the article, but is not its focus. This is not significant coverage.
 * 5.5 - I am unable to independently confirm that this is a reprint of an article that was originally in a newspaper.
 * 7 - Internet forums do not make for particularly reliable sources.
 * The Bacon paper that you have put up on the FTP refers to research by Davis, but not the "Davis Dyslexia Correction" itself. Unless the Engelbrecht paper is published in a refereed journal, I don't think it adds much credibility, either.
 * In the end, this is not enough to change my analysis. If I were to change my conclusion, it would be to stubbify the article and condense it down to one paragraph max to describe it as a pop culture, not academic, phenomenon, which is the extent of its potential notability. Ante  lan  talk  16:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have corrected the Vancouver Sun article. Davis's work (the book, The Gift of Dyslexia) equates with the method, because the book describes both the theory behind the method & the method in detail; and Davis has not done anything else of note other than develop the method.


 * I assume you are aware that most academic interventions for dyslexia are not supported by peer-reviewed research? If not, I would suggest that you download the recent New Zealand Literature Review and look at the chart of interventions and reported research or lack thereof. That is the latest effort of a governmental agency to evaluate the methods and the state of research into each that is available. Your interposition of a requirement that a method requires support of peer reviewed research would require deletion of the Orton-Gillingham article as well -- and exclusion of all references for any possible treatment of dyslexia. Armarshall 16:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm. How about independently authored textbooks on treatment that make reference to the treatment method? I'm not out to delete this article per se, and would gladly switch my stance if I felt more comfortable with the strength of the sources. Ante  lan  talk  22:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Look at the list of titles from Amazon & Google searches that I posted under #1 at Talk:Davis_Dyslexia_Correction/Notability. There were between 45-50 books listed. It's hard to know what books are text books, but the following titles seem like serious works:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * * Dyslexia and Counselling by Rosemary Scott
 * The Teaching Assistant's Guide: An essential textbook for foundation degree students by L Hammersley
 * Teaching Maths to Pupils with Different Learning Styles by Tandi Clausen-May
 * Dyslexia-Successful Inclusion in the Secondary School by Lindsay Peer
 * Multilingualism, Literacy and Dyslexia: A Challenge for Educators by Lindsay Peer
 * Counseling Troubled Teens and Their Families by Andrew, J Weaver
 * Dyslexia by [T.R. Miles
 * Dyslexia In Adults: A Practical Guide for Working and Learning by Gavin Reid
 * Dyslexia: Theory and Good Practice by [ http://www.swan.ac.uk/research/centresandinstitutes/CentreforChildResearch/ Angela Fawcett]
 * The Adult Dyslexic: Interventions and Outcomes by David McLoughlin
 * Dyslexia and Effective Learning in Secondary and Tertiary Education by Morag Hunter-Carsch
 * Study Skills and Dyslexia in the Secondary School: A Practical Approach by Mario Griffiths

The following books contain detailed descriptions of the Davis method:


 * The Bipolar Child: The Definitive and Reassuring Guide to Childhood's Most Misunderstood Disorder (Revised and Expanded Edition) by Demitri Md Papolos (Serious work geared to parents and professionals; at 318 describes a private school in Texas that uses "the clay techniques as describe in the Davis "Gift of Dyslexia" program.)
 * Overcoming Dyslexia For Dummies (For Dummies Series) by Tracey Wood (page 95, and page 311) (Popular work; at page 93-95 lists "programs used predominantly in public schools" with "Davis Learning Strategies" listed on page 95, with this text, "You can take your child to a Davis center for for assessment and tutoring ... and now teachers can attend Davis workshops and buy Davis boxes (full of materials for small group instruction) to use in class with struggling readers"; at page 311, there are 4 paragraphs about "Davis Dyslexia Correction" in a chapter entitled "Ten Well-Known Dyslexia Programs and Treatments".)
 * Right-Brained Children in a Left-Brained World: Unlocking the Potential of Your Add Child by Jeffrey Freed, (Popular work geared to parents, Davis mentioned on 8 pages; at page 111 describes the Davis program clay modeling word mastery procedures)
 * Homeschooling the Child with ADD (or Other Special Needs): Your Complete Guide to Successfully Homeschooling the Child with Learning Differences by Lenore Colacion Hayes (At p 205 contains 3 paragraphs about the Davis program, describing it as an "unqualified favorite of many homeschooling families" and anecdotal reports from two parents.
 * Upside-Down Brilliance, by Linda Kreger Silverman (This book is out of print, but it contains a summary of detailed report from a group of special ed teachers who implemented the program at their school, describing progress of 4th & 5th graders who were brought up to grade level and reintegrated into regular classrooms following the program)
 * My World is not Your World, by Alison Hale, (at p. 134, autobiographical work with anecdotal report "I could barely read but to some extent this problem has been alleviated by following" the program developed by Davis.)   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armarshall (talk • contribs) 04:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The Dyslexia Pocketbook (Teachers' Pocketbooks) by Julie Bennett (at p. 113 - Description of Davis method under title "Approaches based on perception" in chapter entitled "Current Approaches")  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armarshall (talk • contribs) 04:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, see:


 * Literature Review of dyslexia research and programs prepared by the New Zealand Ministry of Education (2007) (Look at table 2 beginning at p. 41; Davis is discussed at p. 42).
 * }


 * I don't think you should ignore the popular works in terms of assessing "notability" because these are often a primary source of practical information in the world of dyslexia remediation. Again, we are not talking about medical treatment- in the world of dyslexia treatment, parents generally need to go to private therapy or tutoring centers-- I could give you a list of some of the others if you want -- or you would find the "For Dummies" book to be a good reference if you look at some of the other methods listed on the pages that discuss the Davis program.  Again, I'm now addressing the "Notability" issue, not weight of research. In the case of Davis, we know that at least two national government education departments (UK & New Zealand) feel it important enough to include in their overview of available treatment approaches.  Armarshall 03:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Armarshall 16:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Additional Research Journal Citation I've found another research journal citation to Davis' work:
 * Again, an issue with this approach is that Davis is not the DDC. Another issue is that you might need dozens or even hundreds of citations to his work to demonstrate notability per WP:PROF if you're going to go via the academic notability route (and even then, you will establish his notability, not necessarily that of the DDC). Ante  lan  talk  16:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fyslee requested that I post evidence according to the [WP:N] standards, which is what I am doing. This is not a medical article - it is about an educational intervention, like Montessori method or Orton-Gillingham or Whole language. Armarshall 17:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I recognize that's what you are doing and I am glad that you are posting here. I don't mean to encourage you not to; I'm just trying to offer my interpretation of these sources. Ante  lan  talk  22:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Looks like original research to me. Bombycil 16:19, 8 November 2007 (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.