Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visual Coding Displacement Therapy

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. MBisanz ^talk 20:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Coding Displacement Therapy

Non-notable therapy. Article is just spam for the people who provide it. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedias 'General Notability Guidance' states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Pursuant with these Guidelines, there have been continual news reports and media coverage including the decision by UKTV Style & BBC Prime to repeatedly air the second series of a television show (A Life Coach Less Ordinary) continually depicting the successful use of this therapy technique throughout every episode of both series. In addition, the many varied & time-spanned national news reports shown on the site constitutes evidence of sufficient and independently verifiable notability. If the editor feels that it would be prudent to provide additional links and citations then the author will seek these out & include them in the Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukltd (talk • contribs)

Delete - entirely non-notable subject as evidenced by a quick Gsearch. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 17:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~ - notwithstanding the few hits returned by a Gsearch it’s notoriety remains high within the media and field of therapy, otherwise it wouldn’t have been heavily featured in the cited press reports from high authority newspapers and wouldn’t have been given both serieses of a television show which are being repeated over several channels internationally. A Gsearch of the television series (cited within the article) would provide additional returns indicating the notoriety of this specific therapy technique. The author has not cited all media links (as shown in the official website belonging to The Speakmans) but with a plethora of media national media citations including several high profile celebrities (some of whom exist on Wikipedia) surely this in itself is evidence of public interest in this therapy technique? However, should the editor require additional citations to be included within the article, the author will be happily to seek them out and oblige.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukltd (talk • contribs)
Speedy Delete. Does nothing but advertise a product, poorly disguised in WP:COATRACK article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~ - the author has already removed several pieces of text and links from the article which might have been construed as advertising. The Wikipedia Guidelines for Speedy Deletion based on 'Blatant Advertising' (criterion 11) state, "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." The author expressly refutes that the article in any way advertises a product based on the fact that all publicity links have been removed & that VCDT therapy training is only provided to professionally qualified therapists with experience in their respective fields. Nowhere on the site does advertising occur nor are there prices nor links to pay for & receive training in this therapy technique. The article is a documentary application of fact relating to a recognised and trademarked therapy technique. The author of the article has in no way opined a point of view or bias within the article. The authenticity, practicalities and usefulness of this therapy technique is cited repeatedly throughout the media. Those media sources are highly respected, notable, independent and with a such a broad spread of media coverage can not therefore be seen to be biased. The editor feels the article falls foul of WP:COATRACK. There is no clarification as to what the article is purporting to advertise. The author respectfully requests that the editor be more specific rather than merely stating it is poorly disguised advertsing then the relevant text can be removed by the author and the article can improved to address the reasons for proposed deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukltd (talk • contribs)
  - The only phrase that has been removed is "The Speakmans currently provide face-to-face licensed training to the level of Certified Practitioner in Visual Coding Displacement Therapy (VCDT)." The article still claims the treatment is "highly effective" without saying who or what claims it is highly effect (violating neutral point of view), promotes the "experiences and skills" of Nik & Eva Speakman (subjective), quotes the theory as if it is fact (common sales pitch language), and exclusively selects newspaper quotes that promote the technique (big no-no). It's not simply having a product as the subject of the article that is the problem, it's that this article does nothing but promote the product. I'll reconsider if this article is fundamentally re-written in a neutral way, but there's still the notability issue. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - somebody has worked a bit to get media coverage into the article, to give the impression that it passes the notability test on that dimension. But I would expect a therapeutic theory to have more traces that the ones they cite (which are akin to testimonials in an advertisement, not independent coverage, and not properly cited at that), and I found none. There's also nothing in the psychology literature. Anyone can patent a "therapy" and call themselves a "therapist" in the U.S., and I'm betting in the U.K., too, which leads to problems here as well. J L G 4 1 0 4 20:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per all the above. The media refs are just TV listings, and UKTV Style is a minor satellite channel. Ddawkins73 (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~ - there is one media reference that relates to TV listings which evidences the existence and repeated airing of both serieses of the television show where the therapy technique is used extensively throughout. I would disagree that UKTV Style is a 'minor satellite channel' considering that it has a Wikipedia entry of its own (showing notability) and it's included with free digital service provision in the UK. BBC Prime is another television station also airing the tv series internationally. It can't be said that the BBC is on the periphery.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukltd (talk • contribs)
Comment Interesting that none of the 'keeps' above are signed. It's in the History, anyway. I'll be looking further into this - too tired for now. Doesn't look too overtly spammy to me. Does make me think on the one hand of an undergrad party game, and also wonder how a non-computer user would react on having 'Delete!' yelled at him/her. Signing my post by typing four tildes Peridon (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All four "Keep" votes were made by user Ukltd, who has made no contributions outside of this article. I have struck the three duplicate votes. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete unless it can be substantially improved. At present, it is essentially advertising, but that doesn't mean that a balanced article couldn't be written. Anaxial (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious advertising for fringe treatment; violates WP:SPAM & WP:SOAPBOX. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising for a non-notable 'treatment.' Drmies (talk) 04:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete Wow can I buy this somewhere - please! If I leave my credit card info and banking ID will you be willing to fix my brain, pretty please. OK, this really doesn't seem to be even noteworthy as a hoax and SPA riddled Afd bit aren't helpful. -- Banjeboi 16:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've altered 'patented' to 'registered as a trademark'. The link supplied is to this registration, which is NOT patenting. Trade mark registration is a matter of the government office checking for conflicts with other trade marks and with legal requirements. Patenting involves a totally different process. Peridon (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having done some digging, I'm not convinced about the value of this article. Of the six 'star' testimonials on the home site, three have Wikipedia articles of their own. Two are (or have been) in Coronation Street, a soap opera. (One is 'best known for his two years in' Corrie.) The third is a member of a pop group. I'm intrigued by their base of operations being in a little town outside Rochdale in North West England. Not an area frequented by many 'real' stars. In terms of notability, there are ghits, quite a few of which seem to be advertising training sessions for new practioners of this art. Seemingly, one can be certificated in it in as little as two days. (In the UK, it takes four days for a First Aid at Work certificate for comparison.) None I have seen seem to be unbiased outside comment on Visual Coding Displacement Therapy. On the whole, I'd consider this article to be a promotional one, lacking in reliable backing. On the other hand, it is not a hoax, although I had wondered when starting to investigate. Peridon (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not basing my decision on the validity of these techniques, as some editors above do. As a wikipedia editor, it is not my place to decide the validity of techniques. (Who am I to say what is newsworthy when other, real, news organizations have already reported on this method?) Even though I personally think the concept is complete garbage, there is enough credible sources that I feel this article should be kept. Ikip (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? I don't see these sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddawkins73 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find anything I would consider truly reliable. The newspaper articles I looked at were rather of the 'rollerskating dog' level of writing rather than serious consideration. If you've gone deeper, please share your results with us. Peridon (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to clarify, BBC Prime is a satellite subscription channel for Europe and The Middle East. It is a minor channel, and is not available in the UK. It is being shut down.

As far as sources go, all I've seen are two TV listings for two shows on two little satellite channels, neither of them mentioning the therapy in question. So I don't see any sources for this. Ddawkins73 (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources, stubbify the article in the hope that in it;s next life it will be something less spammy. Artw (talk) 07:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources can be found which give an unbiased scientific evaluation of the therapy. . . Rcawsey (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable quackery. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2009 (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.