Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LearningRx (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. North America1000 18:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

LearningRx
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has "referenciness" but the references are not reliable independent sources. The closest it gets is a recycled press release in the New York Times. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: A lot of topics from years back have references from old coverage, but still need to be kept on Wikipedia. Just because they're old topics, doesn't mean they don't require coverage on Wikipedia. This meets the Wikipedia General Notability guidelines. The company is a huge chain with branches all over America.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So they might, but this one doesn't. You restored a bunch of primary and unreliable sources. What it needs is reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Most are not primary, they are independent.--Taeyebaar (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: LearningRX has been around for a while but it didn't show any benefits nor received any positive feedback from research or practicing psychologists. Lack of reliable sources clearly demonstrate this point.Wiki-shield (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Striking per Sockpuppet investigations/Mishash/Archive and Administrators' noticeboard/Archive272 (permanent link). Cunard (talk) 06:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Also many results can be found for this subject in the search options provided above. It is notable and been discussed for a long time to be added.--Taeyebaar (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Do not be misled by what at first glance appears to be RS coverage, e.g. Chicago Trib. The entries I've seen are either from "community contributors" or are press releases (often even with the press release boilerplate still appearing at the end). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Old version of the article before it was blanked out.--Taeyebaar (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  See https://books.google.com/books?id=7ZDIAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT49 for the chapter titled "LearningRx". The book discusses LearningRx for roughly seven pages.   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."  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> 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) 02:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Keep per the reliable sources listed above. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America1000 18:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete (Note: I voted "delete" at the last AFD.) I'm rather shocked at the state of this article and at the edit warring taking place since this AFD was initiated, essentially between Nom and Taeyebaar. At the moment, the article is almost completely blanked so it is hard to see what we are using as the basis of this discussion. I looked at the last pre-revert edit by Taeyebaar, and still do not see RS that would bring this up to notability. I do not understand why Taeyebaar is so determined to keep the article when there is so little about this company. And I'm not clear on what sources SilverSurfingSerpant considers to be reliable of the ones above -- it would be good to be more specific. LaMona (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Journalist Dan Hurley's book published by Penguin Books provides around seven pages of coverage about LearningRx. Hurley's article in The New York Times also provides nontrivial coverage of the subject. There is also detailed coverage about LearningRx's history from The Oregonian, St. Paul Pioneer Press, and the Associated Press. I have added some of that information to the article. Cunard (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I have restored the article without unreliable sources like Yelp, as well as expanded and added sources to the article. Cunard (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment As I said in my comments on the first AfD, I think that the article conflates LearningRx as a franchise business and the whole issue of cognitive training. Cognitive training is covered elsewhere, so there only needs to be links from this article. The questions that remain for this article are: is this about the franchise as a business? and: Does LearningRx have a unique product? Reference #1 is about the former. None of the other references address the latter. I'm still struggling to see what it is about this company that is of interest. LaMona (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dan Hurley's book and the newspaper sources (like The New York Times article and the St. Paul Pioneer Press article) discuss how LearningRx as a franchise was established. Sample quote: "The LearningRx program stemmed from the work of Dr. Ken Gibson, a specialist in visual processing from Wisconsin, and his brother Keith Gibson, a clinical psychologist. The two collected data for more than 15 years, showing that short, intense cognitive training helped patients stay more on task, recall facts more easily and process information faster, the company said. They developed a series of exercises and held an academic conference in 1985 publicizing their findings to educators and doctors. The brothers refined the exercises for 16 years while they tested the program and relied on the input of educators and psychologists. Their work led to LearningRx, which opened its first clinic seven years ago." This is enough to satisfy Notability.  "Does LearningRx have a unique product" is not a notability criterion at Notability or Notability (organizations and companies). Cunard (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The policies provide only very general concepts of notability. The notability criteria there are not a substitute for the human intelligence that is creating WP, nor should it be considered absolutely complete. We do get to use our brains in this process -- otherwise, WP could be entirely created by bots. I'm trying to figure out what makes this company of interest, not just whether it can be shoe-horned into some policy category. To my reading, it hasn't done anything worthy of note, and the fact of a few routine articles about it doesn't make it of interest. LaMona (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What's this got to do with interest??? There are hundreds of articles here on Wiki covering boring topics, but they are well covered thus satisfying general notability.--Taeyebaar (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. If articles were kept based on interest, then only articles that the average Wikipedian (Systemic bias) found interesting would be kept. Notability takes the focus off interest and places it squarely on sources and Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 06:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep There is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources therefore meeting the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Userify or Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH currently. No problem with removing the claims, and reducing to a stub iff the org has coverage. Conflation of a business and a scientific claim. Classic PR stuff. The latter should be held to WP:MEDRS. Widefox ; talk 11:06, 29 May 2015 (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.