Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visual Reading

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. ‑Scottywong | babble _ 16:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Reading

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

I originally tagged this article with a 'bias tag'. However, upon further review, I've come to the conclusion that this article should be deleted (or, at least, drastically edited.) I find references to "visual reading" in the context of reading, but this is a general phrase that does not appear to have anything to do with the technique Hyo Sang Shin supposedly developed. The only thing I can find related to Shin + "visual reading" are links to the book he's selling. All of the research/references appear to be about general concepts of speed reading, not anything Shin developed. Finally, the claim that students are reading 1,000 wpm w/ good reading comprehension is almost certainly utter pseudoscience garbage. (Either that, or this guy deserves a noble prize, because this claim requires near super-human abilities.) JoelWhy (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joel,

It looks to me that you are clearly upset about my request to substantiate your attack on the article with any scientific evidence. If you are upset, it does not give you the right to pour your emotions and call other people's work "garbage". How much do you know about speed reading? Did you actually bother to read about "visual reading" method? If not, I suggest you do your homework first before pouring dirt over other people's heads. I am considering raising a complaint about your libelous remarks about the author of the book and the method. Please remove your libelous and unsubstantiated remarks if you do not want the issue to be escalated any further.

As I wrote before, I welcome any constructive critique of the article.

Kind regards, Natalia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.3.170 (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Escalate" the issue to whomever you like. The scientific evidence has found that speed reading classes cannot improve a person's reading abilities to 1,000+ WPM without massive sacrifices in comprehension. With the exception of a tiny number of people who have had "abnormal" brains, giving them a fairly amazing ability to read at tremendous speeds (e.g. Kim Peek), studies have demonstrated that the human brain appears to be incapable of reading at 1,000+ wpm without tremendous sacrifices to reading comprehension. This page is reselling repackaged pseudoscience and it should be deleted for that reason alone. But, to make it easier for the other editors, the most straightforward reason for deleting this page is that this concept is found in a singe book which lacks notability.JoelWhy (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just, M., Carpenter, P. The Psychology of Reading and Language Comprehension. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1987.

Noah, T. "The 1,000-Word Dash." Slate. Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC, 18 Feb. 2000. Web. 15 Oct. 2010. <http://www.slate.com/id/74766>

Rayner, K. "Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research." Psychological Bulletin. 1 Nov. 1998, Volume 124, Number 3: 372-422. JoelWhy (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joel, Being scientific means providing a well balanced point of view. Your point of few is obviously biased... The discussion on how speed and comprehension are connected is in no way conclusive. Science is full of inconclusive discussions and unanswered questions. The references you cite are in no way representative of all the research into reading and comprehension. Moreover, the two references you provide are more than 10 years old. Newsweek interactive is not a scientific journal. What makes you think that book lacks notability? The author's method is patented in South Korea, and the author is due to receive patents for his method in the United States and the United Kingdom. The book has this information. I hope you had a chance to look at the last pages of the book prior to making your judgement of lacking notability. Moreover, Shin's method has been tested for more than 7 years and the book contains case studies to support his method. I did complain about your comments and calling other people's work "garbage". Kind regards, Azbukva Azbukva (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The claims made by Shin are the same claims which have been made by a barrage of charlatans. All you have presented as evidence to support the claims that Shin has been able to provide his students with near-superhuman abilities is a book authored by the "researcher", patents, and anecdotes. This is not science. I call Shin's claims garbage and pseudoscience because that's precisely what they are. In any case, we're not getting anywhere here. I will wait to hear from other editors for their input.JoelWhy (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is about a speed reading technique from a non-notable book; the article has been padded to look legitimate with extensive amounts of synthesis and promotional wording. I was unable to find any reliable secondary sources that discuss the book or the method (that is supposedly the article's subject) at all. Chillllls (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to add that Azbukva doesn't seem to understand what notability means in Wikipedia terms. When experienced editors talk about notability, we don't mean it in the way that it's most commonly used, i.e. an abstract, subjective quality; notability for Wikipedia is actually fairly specific, see WP:GNG. Non-notable isn't an insult to Shin or the book, it just means that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Chillllls (talk) 03:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I would like to point out that Notability Guidelines which you referred me to clearly state the following:

For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or: Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject[6] for advice on where to look for sources. Place a {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors. If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.

Neither of the editors has approached me regarding this issue before placing "deletion" tag on the article. I can provide more evidence to support the notability criteria for Shin's method, including publications in other media sources. The deletion tag was placed on the article not for notability criteria... I believe the person who placed the tag thinks that Shin's method is pseudoscience garbage, and that is clearly an insult. What else can you call it? Constructive criticism?Azbukva (talk) 10:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a deletion tag on the article because I found no evidence of notability. That's part of the job of new page patrolling. I placed the NPOV tag because the article is full of pseudoscientific claims, but NPOV is generally not a reason to delete an article. If you have evidence of notability, please update the article and editors (myself included) will support the article's inclusion. We will then edit the article to comply with NPOV. However, I see no reason to edit the article until first seeing that it's notable of inclusion.JoelWhy (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azbukva, a few minor issues first: there is no need to post your message on both my talk page AND the AfD page. I've watchlisted the discussion, so I'll see when you post. Also, there is no need for you to include examples of the notability templates on this page. Most experienced editors are familiar with the notability templates and also the notability guidelines.

To the substance of your message: the templates that you list are for articles where the notability of the article's subject is unclear, i.e. if there is some coverage of the subject in reliable secondary sources but it's debatable whether the subject is discussed in a significant manner or if the subject of the article is discussed in secondary sources but it's debatable whether the sources are reliable. This is not the case here. The subject of the article is discussed in ZERO secondary sources, so its notability is not in question. It's simply non-notable. In such a case, it's not a violation of Wikipedia policies to nominate the article for deletion. It's actually the correct thing to do. When you place an article into the encyclopedia (article namespace), you're attesting that the subject of the article meets the guidelines for inclusion to the encyclopedia. It's likely, judging by your comments here, that you didn't even realize that there are notability guidelines. Wikipedia does not exist to provide a free method to promote a book, which is how the article appears currently.

Concerning Joelwhy's comment of "garbage," that was worded unnecessarily strongly. However, elements of the Shin's claims start to venture into the realm of pseudoscience because the current scientific consensus is that reading speeds in excess of 1000wpm are not possible without a significant reduction in comprehension. Please see WP:FRINGE about why such claims need to be supported by reliable secondary sources. This point is irrelevant because the article subject is non-notable in the first place.

You claim that you can provide reliable secondary sources indicating the subject's notability. Please do so. All that you have done so far is sidestep valid criticism of the article as it is written. Complaining that people are maligning the subject of the article is not a valid reason to maintain the article's inclusion in Wikipedia. The only way for the article to survive the deletion discussion is if you prove that the article's subject is discussed in sources that are independent of the subject itself. Chillllls (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant independent coverage about this reading technique or the book that would establish that the topic meets Wikipedia'd inclusion guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Speed reading. Doesn't seem notable enough for its own page but seems worth a section at the suggested target. TerriersFan (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What do you think is worth merging? It "seems" like there is referenced material because a bunch of the addition of primary sources and general references on speed reading. -- Whpq (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, fails GNG, no reliable third party sources. The only verifiable stuff in this article is about speed reading in general, not this particular technique. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 14:03, 17 April 2012 (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.