Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LearningRx (3rd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LearningRx

AfDs for this article:
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)

Brian training programmes are a scam, the evidence shows that they have no actual effect. Amazingly, this distinctly promotional article instead notes that the brain is more plastic than previously imagined - which may or may not be true but is of course irrelevant to the fact that these training programmes don't work.

So I tried to make the article more neutral, but as I investigated the sources I found that those cited are churnalism - press releases printed in the newspapers without investigation or commentary - and I found no evidence of anything else that could be used instead. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment and analysis - This is all literally from the apparent sources above:

LearningRx turns out to be the most expensive, least supported by published research, and most aggressively marketed of the four leading cognitive training programs. It bears the curious distinction of being the only one set up as a franchise, like McDonald's with independent owners running each of the eighty-three LearningRx centers in twenty countries. And neither the franchise owners nor the trainers who work for them are required to have anything more than a four-year college degree....But hang on. LearningRx also has some unique assets, in particular that its training is offered in person, rather than on a computer, with a trainer encouraging each student to persevere

is an entire sales pitch in that not only is it obviously listed and supplied by the information, but it cares to go to actual specifics about "What the company will make you feel if you use it!" Nobody would care about that but only their own clients and investors (and it is a fact because it advertises its own words), and that's why it was supplied, and there was no actual journalism efforts; the fact it came from a book, that is not guaranteeing safety from company-initiated advertising, because if it's simply a guide, that's exactly what the company involves itself with. See the next one:
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. (information is followed by an extensive paragraph quote by the businesswoman giving number specifics about the company itself and what she thinks about it)
The next one is followed by:

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. (following information is literally about business & clients overall, not the actual company)

The next article is literally about how and why people are using the company, followed by the specifics about where you can find the company, how to use it and the specific numbers so far....that's all company advertising because it's simply made by the company's own hands, not actual journalism efforts, hence it's company PR. The next one although about a law case, still cares to go to specifics about the localities and specifics about the company, which of course bear nothing for notability or substance, let alone significance, and the same can be said for the next article. When an "article" cares to mention "the company's goals and plans are...." you know that's not a journalism source talking, it's the own company.
Delete - Finally the last link listed here is, once again, about the company's business negotiations because of said law case, and what happened so none of that establishes notability, because not only was it still such a trivial law case, it would be shoehorning PR along with trivial pieces about a law case, something no one would honestly care about, especially if it's not showing any actual substance. When the best all can be offered is (beginning) advertising about how, where and why the company should be used by its clients and literal quotes from its own businesspeople, followed by law case situations, it honestly shows how bare genuine sources are.
I'll note that even the last 2 AfDs contained these same exact sources, so that's also saying something that, if after all these years, no one could get better substance, it's because there isn't any....especially not if there are still in fact articles about its own republished advertising. Another thing I'll note is that the current article is literally advertising "company history, "functions ["Company's clients are....") and "reception" where it lists quotes (not from media itself, but simply from named mentions). SwisterTwister talk 04:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
is an entire sales pitch in that not only is it obviously listed and supplied by the information – the author called LearningRx the "most expensive, least supported by published research" and said "neither the franchise owners nor the trainers who work for them are required to have anything more than a four-year college degree". This is negative information. If the book were publishing advertising for LearningRx, it would omit this negative information.

I'll note that even the last 2 AfDs contained these same exact sources, so that's also saying something that, if after all these years, no one could get better substance – sources 6–8 were published in 2016, which is after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LearningRx (2nd nomination) was closed 30 May 2015. The sources discuss the federal lawsuit against LearningRx for making "numerous unsubstantiated claims in the marketing of its program". The Consumerist, which focuses on "consumerism and consumers' experiences and issues with companies and corporations" (according to the Wikipedia article), does not "shoehor[n] PR along with trivial pieces about a law case".

Cunard (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- an unremarkable franchise company with some dubious claims. Tone of the article is promotional (despite one "negative" paragraph"). Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion by non-notable entities. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whatever one's personal opinion about about the company or its product, the company clearly has signficant coverage in reliable sources and passed GNG and CORP. Sources posted above and in the article. The notion that it's promotional makes no sense in light of how many neutral editors have worked on it. Furthermore, simply being on Wikipedia is not promotional, it's the opposite. Studies have shown that corporations with Wikipedia articles has a negative impact on stock price for a number of reasons but mainly due to open access to information. The crusaders trying to delete this article are helping LearningRx - the very thing they claim to be concerned about - by keeping information buried from public view. Regardless of that larger debate, for this article it passes notability as I noted in the first couple sentences. --
    C 14:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per Cunard and Green Cardamom.--Taeyebar 23:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Advertising is something we should take seriously and the comments of "Why should it matter?" are not applicable because this is exactly what it is as shown by my listed quotes where literally advertised company services are shown; the claims that Wikipedia in fact causes damages for companies because of these articles are not quite so because of the sheer fact they continue using said articles for advertising and any AfD about a blatant advertisement involving a company will show this. Once we start making any excuses about accepting advertising, we're damned.
Because of the blatancy of advertising, these are not "significant, notable and acceptable" because that's not acknowledging the advertising and the advertisement of this currently existing article. Also, simply saying "per users above saying Keep" is also not acknowledging the concerns or attempting to counteract them even though the concerns still apply. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article may suffer from low quality and PR-activities, but the company is notable. Covered by NYT, by other reasonably reliable media ([1]) - through usually in a negative fashion (as a likely scam), but this is nonetheless in-depth coverage by a number of sources. There are also academic sources discussing the company's product: [2], [3]. The latter estabilish notability for the product, which can be discussed in the parent article about company. It's a shame that we are bickering here instead of improving the article. PR people should expand using sources that discuss their side of view, and critics have plenty of reliable criticism to cite. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • possibly Keep. but only if a responsible editor (such as Piotrus ) is prepared to rewrite and maintain the article. The material in the article in the past does not honestly describe the subject, and omits important negative material. Some of the sources in the article or asserted above are useless PR, like the miranda and AP articles. Oneof the basic principles of WPis NPOV, and an article that cannot be maintained in an NPOV state should be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DGG: With all due respect, and also with all of my dislike of spammers, I do not think this is TNTable. Tag it with NPOV, PROMOTIONAL and such templates, cut problematic materials, even gut it to a single lead sentence, but delete - if it is notable - I don't see why we should. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, we have no clear rule on when to use
WP:TNT. 5years ago, I was very reluctant to risk losing significant content, but now I see a priority in removing the half million existing promotional articles. -- and not adding to them, if we are to remain an encyclopedia. I suggest as a possible compromise, that they only be retained if someone is willign to personally take responsibility,instead of leaving it for the indefinite future. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The material in the article in the past does not honestly describe the subject, and omits important negative material. – I rewrote the article in October 2015. Your suggestion that my rewrite "does not honestly describe the subject" is unproven, offensive, and in very bad faith.

The negative material about the lawsuit from the Federal Trade Commission surfaced one year after my rewrite in October 2016. I have updated the article to include this information.

Cunard (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Even if it is a scam, it is a notable scam and eligible for inclusion on encyclopedia (sources are cited in the article and provided above in this discussion).
    Anup [Talk] 17:40, 12 November 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LearningRx_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1220557508"