Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attacking Anxiety and Depression
- 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Attacking Anxiety and Depression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Appears to be a non-notable commercial product and infomercial, with all the article reference links going to commercial sales sites. Mattisse 22:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article was already nominated for a speedy deletion. [1] Subsequent discussion demonstrates that it was decided that it was noteworthy enough to remain. [2] As is discussed on the talk page, this product is one of -- if not THE -- best selling programs for anxiety and depression recovery. It has been around for two decades. Lucinda Bassett, creator of the program, is a constant presence on infomercials and on radio. She is a frequent guest on many high-profile shows, including The Oprah Winfrey Show. -- Andrew Parodi 22:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 00:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's not sold in any store. Plus, if you act now... post a response within the next 10 minutes and get a bonus... hundreds of thousands have been helped... etc. Why pay for an infomercial when you can advertise on Wikipedia for free? Mandsford 01:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. As I mentioned in the "speedy deletion" discussion, I'm the one who started this page. I am not an employee of the Midwest Center for Stress and Anxiety. I make no money off of this program. I started this article because this product has been around for about two decades now and I think it would be beneficial to have an article that offers insight into the program. This program has been the subject of evaluations by professional journals and is said to be used in thousands of hospitals around the world. I think that it would be beneficial to have this information compiled in one place (this article). -- Andrew Parodi 01:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum. As you suggest, the infomercial is ubiquitous. In other words, there's already a great deal of advertising out there for this product -- and it is therefore highly unlikely that any Wikipedia article will give this product any sales boost. Therefore, this article is not "advertisement." Also, with regard to the nominator's comments: the links are to commercial sites, but (save for the Midwest Center's site) not to sites that sell this product. Most of the links are to sites about recovery from anxiety, and those sites have evaluations/reviews of this product. And some of those reviews are negative, further indication that this cannot be seen as "advertisement." Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi 04:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as this attempt at product placement fails WP:NOSPAM. --Gavin Collins 08:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Is anyone reading what I write? I've already stated several times that I am the one who started this article, and I am not on staff at the Midwest Center and I earn no money from this product. It's a bit unusual to be told that I am attempting "product placement" with a product that is not mine to place. At the very least, could others voting on this article practice some good ole "good faith"? Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi
- COI by itself is not a reason to delete, nor is lack of COI a reason to keep. Many people write articles on things they know about and like, in perfect good faith, but the articles are none the less nothing more than PR for the product, which may or may not be notable. DGG (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what "COI" stands for. But my statement was in response to Gavin Collins' statement that this article is an "attempt at product placement." It was no such thing. It was an attempt at a Wikipedia article. That's all. He was reading in to it something that wasn't there. It's a bit unusual to have someone who doesn't even know me tell me what my intentions are. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi 00:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think DGG means that, even if you do not own or profit from the commercial product, and even though you wrote the article in good faith because you like the product, that does not mean that the article itself rises above the level of PR for the product. Nor does it mean that if you have an interest in the product, financial or otherwise, that is is reason to delete the article. The decision to keep or delete is based on the quality of the article, not on COI issues. (COI stands for conflict of interest, and that conflict need not be financial. It may be that you are not neutral on the subject, perhaps because you are a fan of the product, so it is difficult for you to write a neutral, encyclopedic article on it.) --Mattisse 02:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the explanation. To clarify, the only thing I'm a fan of is of creating an article about a product in wide use within this specific genre; that is, an article about a notable product. (Not a day goes by that I don't hear an advertisement for this product. It's a part of our culture, and I think that warrants an article.) I thought this was what Wikipedia was for. I think this article, if allowed to survive, could be a valuable repository of information, if only it could be allowed to develop. Most articles do not spring forth fully formed. Many start as stubs, as this one has. Also, again, I have linked site that discuss the product (though do not sell it), and which contain reviews of the product -- some of which are negative. So, I don't understand how this could be perceived as biased in favor of the product.
- I think DGG means that, even if you do not own or profit from the commercial product, and even though you wrote the article in good faith because you like the product, that does not mean that the article itself rises above the level of PR for the product. Nor does it mean that if you have an interest in the product, financial or otherwise, that is is reason to delete the article. The decision to keep or delete is based on the quality of the article, not on COI issues. (COI stands for conflict of interest, and that conflict need not be financial. It may be that you are not neutral on the subject, perhaps because you are a fan of the product, so it is difficult for you to write a neutral, encyclopedic article on it.) --Mattisse 02:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what "COI" stands for. But my statement was in response to Gavin Collins' statement that this article is an "attempt at product placement." It was no such thing. It was an attempt at a Wikipedia article. That's all. He was reading in to it something that wasn't there. It's a bit unusual to have someone who doesn't even know me tell me what my intentions are. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi 00:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- COI by itself is not a reason to delete, nor is lack of COI a reason to keep. Many people write articles on things they know about and like, in perfect good faith, but the articles are none the less nothing more than PR for the product, which may or may not be notable. DGG (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "The decision to keep or delete is based on the quality of the article, not on COI issues." So far, I don't see what is wrong with the article. It's a stub, but so are many articles. And I don't see any conflict of interest whatsoever. I think the article is pretty balanced. "It may be that you are not neutral on the subject, perhaps because you are a fan of the product, so it is difficult for you to write a neutral, encyclopedic article on it." I think the article is pretty neutral. Is there any specific reference that you think is non-neutral?
- So far, it doesn't seem that anyone is criticizing the content of the article, but the perceived intent of the creation of the article. (The perception being that I created it as PR for the product.) This is why I continually state that I did not start it as PR for the product. This product doesn't need a Wikipedia aricle for PR; its infomercial is on every night. But someone studying the conditions of agoraphobia, stress, anxiety, infomercials, pop psychology, etc., may find this article useful -- if only it's allowed to survive. So far, the only complaint about this article is that it is "PR" for the product. If anyone has any concerns with the content of the article, that would be helpful. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi 10:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sorry but there's not much of encyclopedic contents here - just saying that a product exists and sells well. The external links don't provide much of information either. Pavel Vozenilek 03:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The reference to sales was an attempt to establish the notability of the product. To my knowledge, high sales and longevity makes a book or product notable. With regard to there not being much here right now, that's because this is still a stub. With regard to the suggestion that this isn't encyclopedic, it fits perfectly within the category of Popular psychology, which is a very large category and had existed for some time before I started this article. If the category "Popular psychology" itself is encyclopedic, then wouldn't the articles that fit within it also be notable? If not, then why have a category at all? Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi 04:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This article is considered medicine-related (a treatment for a psychological disorder) per note above by Expresso Addict. Please note the Arbitration Committee recently ruled that such articles must include references citations of the following type: Proposed decision/Appropriate sources.
Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader.
- It might be helpful to you to read the linked Wikipedia policies on Verifiability and Reliable sources. For example, are there controlled studies indicating the program is successful in treating anxiety and depression? Or would the passage of time and/or the placebo effect be just as effective? --Mattisse 12:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been studies of the program, but the only place I can find them are on the site of the producer of this program. I didn't link to the studies published on the site because I thought others would say that is "advertisement". http://www.stresscenter.com/ -- Andrew Parodi 17:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I might add, it's very biased to suggest that this is "pseudoscience". "Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific or is made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the basic requirements of the scientific method." This is self-help. Lucinda Bassett has never claimed the program is scientific. She suggests that the reader/listener should always consult a psychologist or doctor before using the program, and that it is not meant to take the place of therapy or medication if that is what is needed necessary by one's doctor. -- Andrew Parodi 17:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This article is considered medicine-related (a treatment for a psychological disorder) per note above by Expresso Addict. Please note the Arbitration Committee recently ruled that such articles must include references citations of the following type: Proposed decision/Appropriate sources.
- 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.