Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural Stress Relief


 * 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. Few secondary sources, those presented in the AfD are trivial mentions (or don't mention it at all). Jayjg (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Natural Stress Relief

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —Fladrif (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Promotional article for product/company without notability. Article is unsourced, except to primary, company-produced sources. No independent secondary coverage whatsoever of the topic can be found in Google, Google News, Google Books or Google Scholar Fladrif (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The article on Scientia Institute, the owner/developer of this product was previously deleted as non-notable over two years ago.  Fladrif (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Responses by David Spector
Keep. I thank Fladrif for informing me of this AfD request and inviting me to respond. That was very thoughtful of him.

I am sorry for the length of these responses, but I wish to respond with several reasons to retain this article and include sufficient supporting details.


 * The background to this AfD request is a personal conflict between Fladrif and myself in connection with the arbitration currently in progress concerning the Transcendental Meditation movement article. In that arbitration I have supported the evidence provided by other editors showing Fladrif's lack of civility (which include several sanctions placed on him in the past). It is well-known among the parties to that arbitration, including Fladrif (who maintains anonymity (User:Fladrif), that I am the owner and president of Natural Stress Relief, Inc., a nonprofit educational corporation offering clients a $47 do-it-yourself alternative to the Transcendental Meditation program. I currently have 969 clients all over the world, and our organizations together have roughly 2000. Our organizations have little money, so I do not draw a salary or compensation for my work. I believe I make a good target for people like Fladrif who do not like opposition to their POV. As mentioned above, Fladrif has a consistent history at WP of attacking many fellow editors, including myself. Most of us respond politely to his bullying and ownership tone. Very rarely, due to frustration, some editors have criticized his argumentative Talk page language. I don't believe I have, though.


 * Fladrif claims that I am an editor of this article (which would be a violation of WP:Conflict of interest): "An article that you have been involved in editing...". I have never edited this article, as can be seen from the page history. This article was created by a rather enthusiastic client of mine who wanted to describe the NSR technique, history, and self-conducted but peer-reviewed published research of the NSR organizations. I am pleased that the article exists and contains only a few errors, but I did not write it.


 * Fladrif claims that the NSR organizations are not notable. Yet we have an unexpectedly large number of clients. We estimate that over 90% of these clients are happy with how NSR improves their lives. Quite a few of these clients chose NSR because they could not afford TM. These facts show that we are a small but important organization, one whose notability rests on our success and the fact that we are the principal competitor of TM, which is an enormous and wealthy set of corporations which has been around in one form or another for about 50 years. We are also notable because we have survived in spite of about six letters the TM lawyer has sent us during our existence threatening us with legal action (lawsuit, presumably) within a week or two. Our cooperative and informative responses have apparently ensured that he has not actually taken such legal action. But it was clear from the wording of the letters that the TM organizations perceived us as a competitor and a threat. I should think it notable that a one-person organization should be seen as a competitor of a $3.5 billion organization.


 * Fladrif states correctly that there are almost no secondary sources of information about Natural Stress Relief ("No independent secondary coverage whatsoever of the topic can be found in Google, Google News, Google Books or Google Scholar.") The reason is simple: we have been in existence less than 10 years in our current form and have done little advertising or marketing (we can't afford it). This is certainly a difficulty with this article, and I will accept the decision of the AfD reviewers. Since few of my clients report that they were referred by the article, I am not particularly attached to it. But I wish to point out that there are many WP articles on people, events, and organizations that are too new or specialized to have had secondary reporting. They are tolerated not because they are 'encyclopedic', but because they are of active public interest. NSR is such an organization. We have constant orders from people who say they want to learn TM but simply cannot afford the $1500 price tag. I would think our position as the main viable competitor with TM, which shows our desire to help people improve their productivity at work, success at school, better personal and professional relationships, energy, creativity, and intelligence makes us notable. These benefits, and many more, have all been reported by our clients. (The benefits are not magical; they are the simple result of clear thinking and freedom from stress.)


 * Fladrif claims that the article is "promotional". I see it as descriptive of our organization and technique. It appears quite objective to me. Compare it with articles about Coca-Cola, the United States Postal Service, or the Nintendo company, which are also descriptive and objective, yet also describe their services and products. If I wanted to be 'promotional', I would put emphasis on the many impressive and unsolicited testimonials we have received from our clients, or I would make unfounded, pseudoscientific, or logically specious claims about NSR; I have never done this, and never will. I also would have created the article when I started NSR/USA in 2006 and was an active WP editor, instead of waiting until 2008 for a client to write it.


 * I should think it obvious that the deletion some time ago of an article on our Italian NSR organization, Istituto Scientia, due to being self-published (a mistake by Dr. Coppola, who was not familiar with WP policies) has no bearing on whether Natural Stress Relief should be deleted.

In this response I am speaking on behalf of Dr. Fabrizio Coppola and myself, representing the three volunteer Natural Stress Relief organizations (in USA, Italy, and Brazil).

Respectfully submitted, David Spector 23:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input David. To your arguments:
 * (i) This has nothing to do with ArbCom, and even if it did, that would be irrelevant to this discussion. See WP:ADHOM The article was tagged by another editor as unsourced and for lack of notability over a month ago. I looked for reliable secondary sources (I'm really very good at that) in the expectation that I would be able to add some references to the article, and there simply are none. Hence this AfD. Period.
 * (ii) You were notified of this AfD because you have repeatedly identified yourself in talkpage discussions as President of this company, not because you edited this article. There was no notice template for people who haven't edited but may be interested for other reasons. I used the most appropriate template readily available to give you that notice. I have not accused you of editing despite a COI.
 * (iii) Notability is not established by the number of your happy customers nor whether your principal competitor has noticed you sufficiently to send you threatening letters. "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable." (Emphasis in original) See WP:ORG
 * (iv) You admit that that there is no significant independent secondary coverage of your company or product. That is, for all intents and purposes, dispositive of the issue here. Yes, there are other articles about companies or products that suffer from the same lack of notability. That, however, is not justification for this article. See WP:OTHERSTUFF If they are not notable, they should also be deleted, and the list of companies and products nominated for AfD grows daily. Nor does it matter that you may have a great product and a great company that is doing a world of good for your customers at a very reasonable price. See WP:VALINFO The test for inclusion in Wikipedia is notability, and without secondary coverage, this simply doesn't qualify.
 * (v) The article is promotional notwithstanding that it is not an obvious "hard sell" Spammy advert, but that is not the basis for this AfD. Lack of notability is the basis for this AfD. See Notability_(organizations_and_companies)
 * (vi) The Istituto Scientia article was not deleted because it was written by your partner, Dr. Coppola. It does not appear that either the editor who placed the PROD notice nor the admin who deleted it knew at the time that Dr. Coppola was User:Nooyawk the editor who added that article. (Since you say that you are posting this on behalf of both yourself and Dr. Coppola in your official capacities, I will assume in that you had his permission to have outed him here.) It was deleted via WP:PROD for lack of notability, as I correctly noted above. Fladrif (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. All references are self-published, clear COI.  Woogee (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of notability. Proponent admits that Fladrif states correctly that there are almost no secondary sources. Article also appears as a promotional piece, despite David Spector's disclaimer. --Bejnar (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. As author of this article, I was careful to write it in an objective manner and to state the facts as I believe them to be true. I am a client of both NSR and TM, having paid money to both organizations to learn their techniques. I therefore have a "close connection" to both NSR and TM. Does that mean I cannot contribute to either page? I don't think so. I am sure many of the contributors to the TM page, have purchased that product as well. I fail to understand why the references cited in the article are being discounted. Yes, they were written by Scientia Institute, but they were published in peer reviewed publications. To the best of my knowledge, 'Psychological Reports' and 'Social Behavior and Personality: an International Journal' are independent publications and will only publish papers which they deem appropriate to the psychological field. Please dispense with the politics and keep this topic on Wikipedia. --User:DaveRaftery  —Preceding undated comment added 20:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC).
 * It is a very neutral article. That is not the point. You being a satisfied customer is not the point. No-one is saying that the two papers you quoted are bad studies. But, they are not independent secondary sources: (i) they were authored by the principals in this business; and (ii) per WP:MEDRS they are primary, not secondary sources which, and in the absence of significant secondary coverage, probably do not qualify as sources for a Wikipedia article. The requirement of notability is significant independent secondary coverage. Those two research papers don't satisfy that standard. No politics. Just facts. Fladrif (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with Fladrif, in spite of my obvious interest in seeing the article kept. It is quite true that primary sources should only be used when there are sufficient secondary sources cited. I am also in the rare position of respecting Fladrif's balance of opinion. I think that admitting that our research studies might not be poor science, that NSR has many satisfied clients, and that the article is neutral (rather than promotional) is a very big step for him or her towards applying WP policies rationally and dispassionately. David Spector 23:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't push your luck, and don't put words in my mouth. I have no idea whether your research studies are good or poor. I haven't read them. I have expressed no opinion either way. Their merit or lack thereof is irrelevant to this discussion. They are primary sources which shouldn't be usee here and which don't establish notability. That is the point. You have made representations about the size and satisfaction of your customer base, which is entirely unsourced and unverifiable. I have no basis to question those representations, and have not questioned them. Whether or not your representations are accurate is equally irrelevant to this discussion. Notability is established by significant independent secondary coverage. You admit that there is none. The article is neutral yet still promotional. Those are not mutually exclusive. A neutral article on a company and product with no secondary converage whatsoever is by definition promotional. But, again, that is irrelevant. Notability is the issue. But, thank you for your belated recognition that I do actually apply WP policies rationally and dispassionately. It is your recognition of that fact, not some change, insight or reformation on my part, which is the big step here. But that is again beside the point; which one of us has had an apostrophe is not the issue here. Notability is the issue here. Fladrif (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added seven (7) Third Party References to the article. This should be more than sufficient to address the Notability issue raised previously and dismiss this Article for Deletion request. --DaveRaftery 03:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not so sure about that. "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." (I can read Italian)
 * "La Repubblica" ref is about Dr Coppola, but does not appear to makes any mention of Natural Stress Relief
 * "Stress and Quality of Working Life" has two sentences about one of Dr Coppola's studies, and does mention NSR, in a wider discussion of meditation research.
 * "A Biblical Approach..." mentions NRS in a parenthetical as one of several techniques based on the same approach as TM but with different names.
 * "Stress Management" has a single sentence on NSR as one of several varieties of "New Age" meditation
 * "Google Scholar" is not a source - it just points to the two company-sponsored papers which are primary sources (and shows that they have not been cited in the literature - a single third-party citation for the 2007 paper )
 * The Radio Interview is not secondary coverage - it was an interview of Dr Coppola.
 * "Super EVA" does not look like a RS, and appears to have been written by Dr Coppola.
 * I doubt these amount to anything other than trivial and incidental coverage, but it is for others to decide that. Fladrif (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is Fabrizio Coppola: I have been quoted above, and I believe that I should post an explanation about the seven (7) Third Party References reported by DaveRaftery, which may easily be increased to nine (9) or more. My purpose is only to try to give a clearer picture to the Wikipedia Editors about the main secondary sources, which probably are neither "trivial" nor "incidental". First of all, please note that David Spector said: "... there are *almost* no secondary sources of information about Natural Stress Relief...". Saying ... "*almost* no secondary sources" is different from "no secondary sources at all", as simplistically was assumed later. (The aim of David Spector, as usual, was to be honest in admitting that the secondary coverage about NSR is limited - but it nevertheless exists and probably shows a sufficient "notability" for this technique). NSR *is* found on Google Books, more than one or two "incidental" cases. And it *is* found on Google Scholar, too. And it has been quoted in at least three case in important Italian press (not counting the several minor articles or the many unsolicited testimonials by NSR practitioners that can be found in the web). Let's start with Google Books:
 * Google Books - Stress and Quality of Working Life - Here, the peer-reviewed study of 2007 about NSR (primary source) is supposed to be scientifically respectable, and descriptive of this (relatively famous?) meditation technique. It is reported at pages 160 and 164 of this book, written by three researchers in three different University (two in the USA and one in Brazil).
 * Google Books - Stress Management - Here, Natural Stress Relief is included, with TM, in a list of six (6) meditation techniques, assumed to be implicitly notable in this book about Stress Management published in India (a country that is supposed to be quite reliable in evaluating meditation techniques).
 * Google Books - A Biblical Approach to Indian Traditions and Beliefs - This is a critical book mostly about TM but it also quotes the meditation technique by Deepak Chopra (the famous New Age Medical Doctor) and NSR meditation. Of course, we are talking about *notability* here, independently from the fact that this is a critical book. TM is much more notable than NSR, but this is fairly reflected by the very large coverage that TM has got in several Wikipedia articles (not only the main TM article), so it would appear unfair for NSR not to have at least a single small article.
 * I would add this book (that DaveRaftery did not quote): Google Books - Alternative Therapies for Mental Health by a American Medical Doctor. Apparently this book is scientifically valid, also because its cost is rather high, around $130.00. At page 334, the 2007 NSR peer-reviewed article was implicitly considered the best scietific article about the effect of meditation techniques on anxiety: "While reducing stress [...] meditation has also been shown to [...] reduce anxiety (226)". You can check at page 567 that quotation 226 is just the NSR article from Psychological Reports, 2007.
 * Also, consider that the two peer-reviewed articles about NSR have been quoted on Google Scholar (and one in MedLine/PubMed, by the way). From Google Scholar one can see that a citation of one NSR article has already been made from another article (about Tai Chi and Meditation) from third party researchers, even if only 2 years have passed from publication of the quoted article.
 * About the second most important newspaper in Italy, La Repubblica, please notice that NSR in Italy is also known as "Tecnica Naturale Anti-Stress" or "Training Naturale Anti-stress". The article was based on an interview of mine, but the journalist considered NSR meditation as the most important thing I spoke of: isn't it "secondary" coverage? And, even if it not considered formally as such, it might be an objective sign of notability of NSR.
 * The same might apply to the Italian National Radio interview on a different topic, that was a book I wrote, but also this journalist decided to talk briefly about NSR ("Tecnica Naturale Anti-Stress").
 * The SuperEva Guide is an independent website about several subjects, including Health, that unsolicitedly reported parts of a previous article of mine about NSR. Even if it may not be strictly secondary coverage, it seems very similar.
 * I can report another website, about Experiential Yoga, where one find an unsolicited article made with a mix of the articles above, added to the 2007 Psychological Reports abstract of the article about NSR (confirming that NSR meditation or Tecnica Naturale Anti-Stress is implicitly considered notable among generic meditation techniques).
 * Another important article about NSR at a national level was published independently on the "Alias" section of the newspaper "Il Manifesto" on September 23, 2006, but I have not yet found a link on the web.
 * I am not going to report several other minor articles. I imagine that NSR is also quoted in other new books in English that are not (yet?) in Google Books, but I cannot be sure of this.
 * I hope that these explanations may help the Wikipedia Editors. Thanks for reading this post of mine.
 * Fabrizio Coppola, Istituto Scientia, Italy. Posted on 28 March 2010, 16:45 UTC.
 * (A few other corrections made later, until 20:00. Sorry for bad editing and not so good English)
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.17.199.12 (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So. basically what we have is this:
 * The La Repubblica and Radio interviews of you regarding your book, neither of which is about NSR. The first doesn't mention it at all, and the second only in passing
 * Various search engines and web pages, none of which are independent, reliable, secondary sources, and which point to articles or papers you wrote, not to secondary sources.
 * Three or four books which make passing mention of NSR or your research paper in footnotes or parentheticals in the context of discussion of meditation in general, but containing no substantive discussion of NSR.
 * I'm inclined to characterize that as no more than trivial and incidential mention of NSR, and not "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". But, as I said above, others will decide that, not me. Fladrif (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Fladrif, I imagine that certain translation issues, added to your tendency to undervalue the importance of NSR meditation, may prevent you to exactly understand those references and whether they are really secondary and independent or not.
 * NSR meditation (a.k.a. Tecnica Naturale Anti-Stress or TNAS) is described in both the Repubblica article and the National RAI Radio 2 interview. A possible connection between the mantra, regular alpha brainwaves, transcendence and the mechanics of stress removal is briefly exposed in both. About the Repubblica article: from a simple translation from Italian to English one might understand that this is just a description of a generic mantra meditation technique. This is partly true, but those who are familiar with Italian can get that the subject is specifically NSR/TNAS meditation: for example, the Italian website YogaEsperenziale.com (Experiential Yoga), which is an independent third party in no way connected to our organizations, easily gets that and resumes that article and other basic information about NSR in that one single page. The NSR/TNAS technique was also described by an independent article in the newspaper Il Manifesto/Alias (but I can't find a direct link to that text on the web).
 * Guide SuperEva, which is a large Italian website about culture, science, health, etc. (of course independent from us), also reported some of that information about NSR, and favorable comments about NSR/TNAS can be found on minor independent Italian and international websites or fora (for example Yoga.it), but I think it is not worth to fill this page with a large number of such micro-references.
 * You initially said that NSR had no references at all in Google Books and Google Scholar, but it is easy to find the ones that DaveRaftery then reported above, including Google Books 1, 2, 3, 4, Google Scholar 1, 2. Now, you say that these are just incidental or trivial references to generic meditation, just quoting NSR as an example of meditation technique. Well, even if you get only that little from those references, it means that those authors consider NSR as a notable and typical meditation technique, and this should definitely close the notability issue.
 * However, there is more than just that little you got: for example Google Books 4 considers the 2007 Psychological Reports article about NSR (reference 226) as the best scientific source about demonstrating that meditation can reduce anxiety. I personally do not agree, since I consider the Eppley et al. meta-analysis (including TM) published in 1989 as a better article (about anxiety reduction and meditation): this is just my opinion, though, and we agree that our individual opinions mean nothing to Wikipedia. The important fact is that that author does objectively consider the 2007 NSR article as the best reference on that subject. This is a fact, not an opinion, since secondary source statements are considered facts according to the Wikipedia policies.
 * I will try not to answer anymore, and I hope that other Wikipedia Editors make their comment, after considering the whole picture, rather than the limited facts exposed at the beginning.
 * Thanks for reading. Fabrizio Coppola, Istituto Scientia, Italy. Posted on 29 March 2010, 20:30 UTC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.19.206.19 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

An editor added the Paranormal category tag to this deletion discussion page apparently without explanation. I removed the Paranormal tag and added a Spirituality tag, retaining that editor's intent in using Paranormal but changing it to the less outrageous and superstitious Spirituality tag, even though even Sprituality is irrelevant to a secular mental technique like NSR. I also provided a rationale for the change.
 * NSR has nothing to do with the paranormal

Unfortunately, that editor has seen fit to add the Paranormal tag back to the article. I will not start a revert war, because that is not my way. But the editor should not WP:PUSH his or her WP:POV in this way.

Natural Stress Relief has nothing to do with belief or religion, and definitely is not 'Paranormal' in any way. It is simply a stress reduction technique! Would anyone call hypnosis or taking a bubble bath 'paranormal'? Of course not. Why does this editor insist on smearing Natural Stress Relief with the brush of pseudoscience? Does he or she have a WP:RS for this? I ask for correct categorization (is that a WP policy? It should be). David Spector (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The purpose of those listings is simply to alert users interested in the relevant project to the existence of this AFD. They don't mean that the article is necessarily related to those projects except by the broadest interpretation. Broad exposure to AfDs can only improve the final decisions. If this article is not at all related to the paranormal then probably no one from that project will weigh in and so it won't have any effect.    Will Beback    talk    18:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Will, neither you nor Fladrif have the right to impose your POV on NSR. Suppose I add the Medicine category to this page. will you silently acquiesce, or immediately remove it? I have removed the Spirituality tag. See our discussion about this on my talk page. It's clearly two bullies against a volunteer trying to protect his organization from libel. Must I follow the official complaint mechanisms? I really don't have the time, even if it is clear to me that I would win. NSR is not paranormal and therefore would not be expected to be of any interest to people who believe in things paranormal, like ghosts. Why do you think NSR is of interest to people who believe in mind-reading, but not to people who believe in spirituality? You're inconsistent. You should really put this in the category of Cults (or Bad Things, or Things No One Should Waste Their Money On), and see if you can prove that. You can't even provide one WP:RS showing why NSR has anything to do with the paranormal! I look forward to your responses with interest. David Spector (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. I have no objection to adding this AfD to as many delsort lists as might be applicable, per my comment above. I haven't !voted in this AfD, and I've only made a single minor edit to the article. I'd remind you that WP:COI calls on those with conflicts of interest to avoid or show great caution when participating in deletion decisions. Your intemperate words are not helpful.      Will Beback    talk    20:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully request that Fladrif recuse himself from this AfD per WP:COI since he has a conflict of interest with NSR and David Spector as documented above. DaveRaftery (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)DaveRaftery 31 March 2010
 * I'm having trouble finding the documentation of Fladrif's COI. Could you repeat it here please?   Will Beback    talk    02:20, 1 April 2010 (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.