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)[reply]

LearningRx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 15:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The New York Times article [1] 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)[reply]
• 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 [2], 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 [3], 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 [4], 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 [5]) 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 [6] 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)

• Comment (@learningrx 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. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Longevity and geographic coverage are not basis, of themselves, of notability. Please see WP:CORPDEPTH. --Bejnar (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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 [7] via HighBeam from the Star Tribune. Third, there is evidence that this topic and also company is under scientific scrutiny [8]. So, I'm inclined to conclude that it does meet WP:GNG. --I am One of Many (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Hurley, Dan (2012-11-04). "The Brain Trainers". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2014-12-31. Retrieved 2014-12-31.

     The article notes:

  2. Lima, Christina (2006-11-30). "LearningRx offers help to struggling students". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2014-12-31. Retrieved 2014-12-31.

     The article notes:

  3. Miranda, Maricella (2010-06-27). "New option for struggling students - Program uses drills instead of tutoring to 'train' the brain". St. Paul Pioneer Press. Archived from the original on 2014-12-31. Retrieved 2014-12-31.

     The article notes:

  4. "Program designed to make learning easier". Daily Herald. Associated Press. 2009-02-21. Archived from the original on 2014-12-31. Retrieved 2014-12-31.

     The article notes:

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow LearningRx to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.