Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LearningRx


 * 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. Or at any rate no consensus to delete.  Sandstein  09:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

LearningRx

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No notability. One mention on NY Times article but that article covers the industry as a whole, not specifically LearningRx. Article is an ad. CerealKillerYum (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk to me  15:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 18:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: The New York Times article is more than a mention.  I don't think the article is too promotional either, it is much more restrained than many co. pages. Vrac (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: LearningRx Corporate would like to comment on the claim of "no notability," among other claims, made regarding the LearningRx Wikipedia article. According to Wikipedia’s General Notability Guidelines, the LearningRx article does, in fact, meet all criteria for notability. Here are Wikipedia’s guidelines for notability and how the LearningRx entry and source material stack up:

1. Significant coverage: Wikipedia states, “Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.” Despite a claim that LearningRx received “one mention” in the NY Times article, the fact is that 27 of the article’s 47 paragraphs discuss LearningRx. 2. Reliable: Wikipedia states, “Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.” The NY Times meets this criterion. The article in question was written by Dan Hurley, a science journalist who writes for the Washington Post, Neurology Today, NY Times, Wired, Discover, Psychology Today, and presents a neutral, balanced look at brain training. The article examines or mentions four brain training companies and quotes experts with opposing views on the value of brain training. It in fact includes negative statements about LearningRx. 3. Secondary sources: The NY Times article clearly meets this criterion. Wikipedia also states, “There is no fixed number of sources required,” adding that multiple sources are generally expected. We’d like to point out that this is a relatively young Wikipedia article. Other source material does exist (for example, the company was also referenced in the 2005 issue of Entrepreneur magazine at ) and it is likely that, in time, these sources will be added to this article by others contributing to Wikipedia. 4. Independent of the subject: The author of the NY Times article has no affiliation or connection with LearningRx. He is an award-winning science journalist and author of numerous books, one of which is on the brain training industry. 5. Presumed: The LearningRx article does not violate What Wikipedia is not and, in fact, meets all criteria for an assumption of inclusion in Wikipedia.

It should also be noted that LearningRx has not created nor edited this Wikipedia Entry. At this point we are not aware of any LearningRx involvement in the Wikipedia entry at all. As far as we can tell, none of Wikipedia’s 14 “Reasons for Deletion” apply to the LearningRx article. In summary, we can see no grounds for deletion and can’t identify why this article was nominated for deletion to begin with. learningrx 16:53, 16 December 2014 (MST)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Comment (@ et al.) - The New York Times piece is a good ref. Certainly more than just a mention. However, the specific guideline that applies is WP:CORPDEPTH which includes the line "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." I would extend that to say that two sources is likewise rarely sufficient. Aside from the Entrepreneur piece linked above I'm seeing largely local stories and PR-based pieces, but as of yet not more than that. I'm leaning keep as it is, but another good one would make it easier. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 21:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:CORP. Comments above from learningrx, aside from WP:COI issues, misconstrue the Wikipedia notability guidelines. I commend the remarks of editor Rhododendrites  above.  --Bejnar (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete First, there is some confusion about whether the article is about the technique or the company. The company itself gets plenty of bad reviews (just type "learningrx reviews" into Google), but so far has no Better Business Bureau complaints. The technique, which this article is about and what the NYT article is about, is neither new nor unique, so there isn't anything particularly notable about the technique, that I can find. So we either have to go with corporate notability, which hasn't been shown here (e.g. articles in business journals), or the method, and neither is notable. LaMona (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep it has a long enough history and is noted in various sources for at least over a decade. The article definitely could use some improvement but it's as notable as other brain training programs that have their own entries..--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you provide links for the various sources over a decade? Arguments that other stuff exists are typically discounted at AfD discussions, and lack of sources seems to be what this hinges on. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 01:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What I meant was the franchise was founded over ten years and has branches all over America which gives a solid case for an entry on wikipedia. --Taeyebaar (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Longevity and geographic coverage are not basis, of themselves, of notability. Please see WP:CORPDEPTH. --Bejnar (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment One of the "keep" !votes is from the company itself. I assume that "keep" is not to be considered in the decision? Perhaps it should be changed to "comment." LaMona (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I am pretty skeptical about the claims of this company, but based on policy, I think we should keep it. First, the New York Times article is about LearninRX and compares it to the other three companies in this area: Lumosity, Cogmed, Posit Science. Second, there is an in-depth article on the start of the company in an article   via HighBeam from the Star Tribune. Third, there is evidence that this topic and also company is under scientific scrutiny .  So, I'm inclined to conclude that it does meet WP:GNG. --I am One of Many (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article notes: "On this Wednesday evening at the Upper Montclair, N.J., outlet of LearningRx, a chain of 83 “brain training” franchises across the United States, the goal is to improve cognitive skills. LearningRx is one of a growing number of such commercial services — some online, others offered by psychologists. Unlike traditional tutoring services that seek to help students master a subject, brain training purports to enhance comprehension and the ability to analyze and mentally manipulate concepts, images, sounds and instructions. In a word, it seeks to make students smarter. “We measure every student pre- and post-training with a version of the Woodcock-Johnson general intelligence test,” said Ken Gibson, who began franchising LearningRx centers in 2003, and has data on more than 30,000 of the nearly 50,000 students who have been trained. “The average gain on I.Q. is 15 points after 24 weeks of training, and 20 points in less than 32 weeks.”"  The article notes: "Based in Colorado Springs, Colo., the LearningRx Franchise Corp. opened its first office in 2002. Today it has 40 centers across the country, including one that opened in Lake Oswego in early October, and expects to open 50 more within the next year. Clients don't typically arrive by doctor referral. What's being sold is cognitive improvement by coaching. All clients are tested, then assigned to a trainer. Most are children and teens who face challenges with such skills as reading, concentrating and problem solving and who often have low grades, said Linda Conlee, owner of the Lake Oswego franchise."</li> <li> The article notes: "She decided to enroll her children in LearningRx, a Colorado-based program that works to strengthen the brain's cognitive skills so students can learn more quickly and easily. The program first came to Minnesota two years ago. Since then, four more LearningRx franchises have opened in the state, including the newest center in Eagan. Although the program bills itself as beneficial for anybody, students with cognitive and learning disabilities, such as attention deficit disorder and dyslexia, are flocking to it. Some parents say the benefits are so great that their children can go off their medications. But experts remain skeptical that a program could produce such dramatic results.  Canan Karatekin, associate professor of child development at the University of Minnesota's Institute of Child Development, said research shows it's possible to improve cognitive functions. But she says programs, like LearningRx, should be independently researched."</li> <li> The article notes: "LearningRx is used for a variety of learners, including students with learning disabilities, K-12 and college students who want to improve their academic skills, adults wanting to improve their job performance and senior citizens who want to stay mentally sharp, as stated in a LearningRx Inc. flier. ... Ken Gibson, founder of LearningRx, discovered through his research that 80 percent of learning problems are cognitive weaknesses, Winchell said. ... The program is designed to strengthen weak underlying processing skills, including attention, working memory, processing speed, logic and reasoning, visual processing, auditory processing and long-term memory. These skills are the foundation of a student's ability to learn and are the basic mental abilities used for thinking, studying and learning, according to LearningRx."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow LearningRx to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * 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.