Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discover Intensive Phonics for Yourself


 * 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The result was nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 10:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Discover Intensive Phonics for Yourself
Self-promotional. Google hits: 247. Lack of references to 3rd party analysis on the Internet. Fails: Verifiability.

Kowens 17:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hi, I'm the original creator of the article. I have added some references to third parties on the internet.  With regards to the article being self-promotional, I think the article has non-promotional merit.  There are other articles about other reading systems, such as Wilson reading system, Hooked on Phonics, Spalding Method, DISTAR, and Reading Recovery.  Why not an article about the DIP method, then?
 * Delete all of the external links are to niche publications by small industry groups. I'm not sure it failsWP:Verifiability, but it certaily doesn't pass WP:CORP. I'm also not convinced all of the other articles mentioned by Kowens belong either. --djrobgordon 19:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm going to bed now, but I'm willing to second all the above mentioned links for deletion if they don't reference any 3rd party studies. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  19:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the other ones, but Hooked on Phonics 100% deserves an article. Haven't you ever seen those wildly popular t-shirts (Hookt awn fonix wurkt fur mee)? Delete this one, but don't move HIF. - Che Nuevara:  Join  the   Revolution 19:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Regarding WP:CORP, I believe it DOES pass. WP:CORP states that "The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself."  Besides those references listed, I'm aware that the DIP method has also been written about in third-party, independent publications including a study by Georgia Southern College, published in Reading Improvement; by Mary Pride in The Teaching Home, a homeschool publication; by Ruth Tiechroeb in the Seattle P-I, a newspaper; it was featured in the Readers' Choice Awards in an issue of eSchool News; and California State University developed a video documentary about it called Keyboarding to Literacy.  It is currently being researched by Harvard University, Brigham Young University, and Temple University .  While I know these aren't the New York Times, I firmly believe they are not trivial, either.  DIP is certainly notable enough to pass WP:CORP. Kowens 15:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm actually satisfied with the references you have provided and I would actually be willing to withdraw my vote for deletion if you shifted the focus in the background section away from Charlotte Lockhart's credentials and instead provided an objective comparison of this reading instruction compared to other systems and note its advantages/disadvantages compared to other reading systems. i.e. answer the question - why should instructors use this method? At the moment, the background section reads a little too much like blurb from a promotional phamplet for comfort. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  19:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've tried to improve the article a little based on your suggestions. Some of the "marketing" feel has been reduced from the "Background" section.  (That was originally based primarily on a page on the publisher's website, which probably explains why it sounded that way.)  I have also added some information about how the DIP method "fits" into the market compared to other programs.  I'm not very familiar with the specifics of many other programs, so the comparison is probably a little weak--I plan on updating it in the future as I do more research. Kowens 15:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thanks for listening to our concerns Kowens. I now withdraw my vote for deletion based on your willingness to improve this article. In future, could you also please elaborate what Orton-Gillingham means? Thanks,  Netsnipe  (Talk)  06:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 02:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Sounds like an informercial. Maybe you could do something about that --Xrblsnggt 03:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, doesn't seem to be self-promotional the way I'm reading it, has sources establishing notability. Needs a tiny bit of clean-up/wikification, but not much. -- NORTH talk 09:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a tough call since the content reads reasonably well now. My concern is the notability criteria.  ALexa ranks the project's site at 1,606,392.  Compare that to hooked on phonics at 123,789.  This is a big difference in web traffic.  DIP certainly seem to be the litte guys.  So what is the claim for them to meet WP:CORP? -MrFizyx 18:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete content is better but still not notable. --Pboyd04 00:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep reviews were in small pubs, but this passes the "multiple, independently published reviews" requirement for products. JChap (talk • contribs) 01:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - still essentially a promo for a commercial method. I find the Alexa ratings telling. BlueValour 04:49, 23 July 2006 (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.