Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autism Research Institute

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 no consensus. SpinningSpark 17:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Autism Research Institute[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. There are, as far as I can tell, a grand total of three articles [1][2][3] in what could be considered reliable sources about the institute, and all three are in relation to negative issues with chelation therapy. There is simply no significant independent coverage of the subject. The article seems to have been created as a kind of attack page and reverse WP:GREATWRONGS, which makes it unsuitable for inclusion at best. As a disclaimer, I initially looked into this as a request from an editor with COI, I attempted to fix it rather than delete it, but gave up after realizing that I was getting nowhere and in any case my search for sources and information seemed to turn up nothing that could salvage it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covereage fairly substantial here (major investigative newspaper story). Discussed fairly extensively in Gil Eyal (2013). The Autism Matrix. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9780745656403. Listed by Quackwatch here, mentioned on ScienceBlogs here, here, here, here and here. Popular Autism Research Institute conferences mentioned here. In Lisa A. Kurtz (2008). Understanding Controversial Therapies for Children with Autism, Attention Deficit Disorder, and Other Learning Disabilities: A Guide to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. p. 126. ISBN 9781846427619. Substantial discussion in, Kaushik Sunder Rajan (2012). Lively Capital: Biotechnologies, Ethics, and Governance in Global Markets. Duke University Press. pp. 361–. ISBN 0822348314. Discussed in, Mitzi Waltz (2003). Pervasive Developmental Disorders: Diagnosis, Options, and Answers. Future Horizons. pp. 156, 293 etc. ISBN 9781932565003. and in Lynn M. Hamilton (2009). Facing Autism: Giving Parents Reasons for Hope and Guidance for Help. Doubleday Religious Publishing Group. pp. 67, 306. ISBN 9780307569035. Mentioned in Chantal Sicile-Kira (2004). Autism Spectrum Disorders: The Complete Guide to Understanding Autism, Asperger's Syndrome, Pervasive Developmental Disorder, and Other ASDs. Penguin. p. 127. ISBN 9780399530470. Discussed in Chloe Silverman (2011). Understanding Autism: Parents, Doctors, and the History of a Disorder. Princeton University Press. pp. 291–. ISBN 1400840392.. Description of DAN! certification in, Seth Mnookin (2012). The Panic Virus: The True Story Behind the Vaccine-Autism Controversy. Simon and Schuster. p. 264. ISBN 9781439158654. Multiple books refer to this organization some with discussion, many books include citations to publications by this organization. Some of the publications of the organization are cited by authors in journal articles etc. Frequent mentions of DAN! protocol or certification in discussions of or websites of doctors. That ought to be enough to qualify as notable.

It would seem someone with COI wanted to remove all negative discussion of the treatments advocated by this organization and failing that would like to see the article go away. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A few points below:

The Autism Matrix - A grand total of five mentions, three of which are index- or bibliography-related
Lively Capital - 8 mentions, 4 index or bibliography-related
The Panic Virus - 14 instances, half of which are index- or bibliography-related. Seems to concentrate on the DAN! protocol
Understanding Controversial Therapies.. - Three mentions, trivial coverage at best, concentrates on the protocol
Understanding Autism: Parents, Doctors.. - Eleven results, five index- or bibliography-related. Rimland and the protocol again
This is most decidedly not about the institute itself
This is an article about Wakefield and ARI is mentioned in passing only on page two. Notability (or notoriety) is not inherited
And I saved these two books, Facing Autism and Autism Spectrum Disorders: The Complete Guide... for the end. It's amusing and not a little hypocritical that you would even use these as example of coverage, since it's positive towards Rimland and the Institute. They would be immediately declared as fringe as the subject and thus would never be accepted as a reliable source if someone wanted to add them as counterweight. It's the old catch-22 with all these articles
Blogs are not reliable sources, unless we accept also fringe blogs. Last I heard we don't

Finally, two points. One, given your contributions to this article (a sample here) and the use of sources sympathetic to the subject above, I assume you simply did a Google search for the subject. Your argument seems rather impressive until one realizes it's basically WP:GHITS. Second, I resent your insinuation about the COI issue - the editor with a conflict of interest asked me to help them with this, I did my WP:BEFORE (apparently more effectively than you) and I brought to AFD. That kind of attitude is what fosters the toxic environment we've managed to create for COI editors around here (as if the fringe topics weren't toxic enough already) and I wish there was less of it, not more. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest actually reading the sources instead of using the GHITS approach. You will find the discussion ARI is extensive, the authors don't repeat the name often they refer to Rimland in his position as director or to the DAN! project a part of ARI. I provided links to quite of few of the discussions of ARI below. Again read the sources and in context ARI and its child DAN! are the subject of extensive discussion.

I stand by my assertion that there was an attempt to whitewash the fringe treatments advocated by ARI followed by an AFD when clear policy based argument was presented for retaining current medical knowledge on these treatments (and etiology theory). Those who have a COI with articles presenting widely discredited and especially harmful and dangerous treatments don't need to be insulated from the valid criticism from mainstream academia. Those who are going to advocate for an organization whose DAN! protocol was used by doctors whose patients died from treatment and those who advocate for Wakefield's ideas as legitimate are going to be confronted with what has been published in reliable sources on the subjects.

The use of sources for establishing notability and the reliability of sources for content are two separate issues. I would think an editor with some experience would know that. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Non notable institute. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Between the institute and the DAN! project there is enough secondary material to satisfy WP:GNG (see MrBill3's list above). The article title might change to "DAN! Project". As an aside, Bernard Rimland might be better merged in too. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eyal 2013 very extensively discusses Rimland, ARI and DAN! in multiple chapters here. Rajan 2012 published by Duke Univ. Press devotes an entire chapter to discussion of ARI and DAN! here. A page about DAN! in Kurtz 2008 here. About 10 pages discussing Rimland's founding and activities at ARI in Silverman 2011 published by Princeton Univ. Press here. Two pages on ARI, listed as #3 of "Ten things to do first" in Hamilton 2009 here. Description of contacting ARI and discussing their ideas on autism in Seroussi 2002 here. Two pages of discussion of ARI, Rimland and DAN! in Lambert 2010 here. Considerable discussion of ARI in Oller & Oller 2010 here. Discussion of ARI and its advocacy of chelation in Fitzpatrick 2008 here (not to mention DAN! is virtually the subject of the entire book). Discussion of the ARI checklist in Osteen 2010 here. Listed in The Encyclopedia of Autism Spectrum Disorders here. Discussion of DAN! conference and use of their diet treatment in Millan 2010 here. How does that not qualify as the substantial coverage needed to establish notability? Rimland may stand on his own for his initial work. I don't have a strong opinion on changing the name but ARI is the parent institution. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment about source

Tsouderos & Callahan 2009 it was stated by another editor "This is most decidedly not about the institute itself" I beg to differ.

"Doctors, many linked to the influential group Defeat Autism Now!, promote the therapies online, in books and at conferences." "'We feel some urgency that we can't wait for 10 or 20 years,' pediatrician Dr. Elizabeth Mumper, medical coordinator for the Autism Research Institute, testified in a special federal court that examined the issue of autism and vaccines. The nonprofit institute is the parent organization of Defeat Autism Now!" "Address those undiagnosed immune, digestive, neurological and metabolic issues, and the symptoms of autism may improve, Jane Johnson, executive director of Defeat Autism Now!, wrote in an e-mail. Johnson said more than a thousand parents have contacted the Autism Research Institute to say their children have recovered or nearly recovered from autism." "Both Johnson [of DAN!/ARI] and Teri Arranga, director of Autism One, said solid science supports their approach to autism" "No other treatment is more emblematic of the world of alternative therapies for autism than chelation. It is also a potent example of the approach's flaws and risks. Chelation is one of the highest-rated treatments on the Autism Research Institute's parent survey, and a Defeat Autism Now! consensus statement calls removing metals from the body 'one of the most beneficial treatments for autism and related disorders.'" "In fact, Jordan's troubling results were based on a lab test that is common in the world of alternative autism treatments and is practically guaranteed to give incredible results." "Both Shaw and Johnson of Defeat Autism Now! said the labs are identifying real problems..." "...filed complaints with state medical boards against the boy's two Defeat Autism Now! doctors..." "Both family practice doctors are stars of Defeat Autism Now!, having trained thousands of clinicians, according to Johnson. They are listed on the group's online clinician registry, a first stop for many parents of children with autism seeking alternative treatment. To be listed, doctors need only attend a 13-hour seminar held by the Autism Research Institute, sign a statement saying they agree with the group's philosophy and pay a $250 annual fee Johnson told the Tribune that doctors linked to her group mostly focus on diet and vitamins. Yet a recent clinician seminar held in Dallas covered many highly technical specialties: immune problems, digestive issues, methylation abnormalities, mitochondrial dysfunction and detoxification. As long as doctors continue to attend seminars every two years, they can remain listed. As of this month, 350 physicians, naturopaths, chiropractors, nurses and others were listed on the Defeat Autism Now! U.S. registry for state-licensed health care providers." "Of 300 U.S. Defeat Autism Now! clinicians who answered a question about supplement sales for the registry, 80 percent indicated they sold the products to patients." "A disclaimer on the registry site states that the Autism Research Institute does not 'guarantee competence, skill, knowledge, or experience' of those listed. Johnson said the providers sell supplements to ensure quality control. One physician on the registry was Dr. Roy Kerry of Pennsylvania. In 2005, a 5-year-old with autism had a heart attack and died while being intravenously chelated in his office, according to court records. Less than a year later, Kerry was added to the registry." "Defeat Autism Now! continued to list the doctor until Nov. 5, a day after the Tribune inquired about his inclusion. Johnson said the group had already planned to drop him this month because he had not filled out paperwork on his medical license."

To my reading the above contains extensive discussion of ARI and its DAN! program with multiple quotes from officials in DAN!/ARI. How exactly is it "decidedly not about the institute itself"? Apparently the BEFORE mentioned above was not done as well as asserted. Apologies for the extensive quoting but how else am I to illustrate that the article clearly discussed ARI? - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although this is perhaps not a clear cut case, I have to come down as keep; this, for instance, strikes me as a good example of non-trivial secondary source coverage. The fact that there are a lot of instances of trivial and fringe mentions shouldn't discount genuine ones. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment on source

Rajan 2012 was described by another editor as "8 mentions, 4 index or bibliography-related" although this may be a GHITS evaluation of the source, Rajan goes into considerable detail on ARI starting with,

"The Autism Research Institute is neither the largest nor the best-funded of the parent groups involved in research on the autism spectrum disorders. However, understanding their work is crucial for understanding the ways in which families with autism intervene in medical knowledge production and the complicated ways in which commercial, scientific, therapeutic, and professional interests collide in an organization that seeks to recruit practitioners as well as patients."

The author then provides 14 pages of discussion on the specific subject of ARI's work. This seems to very clearly be the type of scholarly analysis of an organization required for notability. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment on source

Eyal 2013 characterized by another editor as, "A grand total of five mentions, three of which are index- or bibliography-related" actually contains extensive discussion of ARI.

"The research institute he [Rimland] opened in 1967 - originally called Child Behavior Research Institute (CBRI), then later changed to Autism Research Institute (ARI) - allowed him to maintain close connections to parents and persue his own agenda, crafting a viable career as an autism research scientist outside academic or government medical institutions. For the next two decades, Rimland used ARI as a platform from which to promote alternative biomedical interventions in autism, especially megavitamin therapy, supplements and diets." The author provides multiple pages of discussion on Rimland's use of ARI as a platform...

"In 1987, Rimland began to publish his own newsletter, the Autism Research Review International (ARRI)." Note that ARRI is officially a publication of ARI.

The author discusses Rimland's checklist for autism at some length including this telling comment, "The form was intended to be used primarily by parents, who had to send it to ARI once it was completed. The institute, essentially Rimland and an assistant or two..." Eyal goes on, "What was Form E-2 designed to do, if it was not primarily a diagnostic tool? It was a research tool meant to build a database [the database described in multiple sources as ARI's] that would allow Rimland to investigate biological variables and biomedical treatments through a direct exchange with parents." So the form is sent to ARI, the database is an ARI database and the discussion is not a "grand total of five mentions" but a complex discussion of ARI, Rimland and DAN!.

"To follow the story of Rimland, ARI and DAN!, therefore, is to follow a genealogical thread that does not lead one from the roots to the tree, from heterogeneous origins to a settled identity, but like a rhizome splits apart, wraps around, then spreads out and disapears into the earth."

Clearly the author discusses ARI through discussion of the activities of its director Rimland and its program DAN!. The discussion of "the story of Rimland, ARI and DAN!" covers many pages and spans several chapters. As Eyal stated ARI, DAN! and Rimland are so intertwined as to be comparable to a single organism. This makes the characterization "a grand total of five mentions, three of which are index- or bibliography related" a blatant misrepresentation of the source. This source obviously contains non trivial and extensive scholarly discussion and analysis of ARI. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DAN! is a part of ARI, the DAN! protocol is the product of DAN!/ARI. If sources "focus on the DAN! protocol" they are discussing the activities of the subject of the article. Extensive discussion of the activities of the subject of an article in multiple sources contribute to the notability of the subject. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either stubify and protect (suggested subification leaves only the current lede) or delete and salt. The article's history shows that it's both a fertile ground for SPAs and socks, and a huge time-sink for experienced editors. Wikipedia is under no onus to cover everything which there are reliable sources for (if indeed there are reliable sources) and undoubtedly the passage of time will make many of the current issues quibbled about redundant due to the appearance of multiple, high-quality secondary sources. I invite editors to consider the opportunity cost of their time editing wikipedia---are there really no other articles can should focusing on? Stuartyeates (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply "a fertile ground for SPAs and socks" not exactly a policy based argument is it? Nor is "a huge time-sink for experienced editors". "if indeed there are reliable sources" "due to the appearance of multiple, high-quality secondary sources" as at least 4 high quality secondary sources have been given it seems you are making a proposal without even bothering to look at the references given. "are there really no other articles can should focusing on?" you are welcome to work on whatever articles you choose as is any editor, perhaps since you haven't checked the given references or presented arguments your efforts are better directed elsewhere. Pardon the low level of civility, but after giving references, having them dismissed and providing detailed information on several references, "if indeed there are reliable sources" is dismissive and shows a proposal made without consideration. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bernard Rimland, who is clearly more notable than the institute he founded. Jinkinson talk to me 13:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Bernard Rimland. There is actually very little in-depth coverage of this organization from secondary sources independent of the subject matter. Evidence of this is that the preponderance of sources in the article are either primary sources from ARI or secondary sources that discuss related issues (i.e. autism, vaccines, chelation therapy, etc) but give little to no discussion about ARI. The in-depth coverage alleged earlier in this discussion appears to be primarily a discussion of Rimland. Location (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a merge I am the editor with a potential COI mentioned by user:FreeRangeFrog. I never put the page on my watchlist, so I'm afraid I didn't notice the AfD discussion until just now. I did not realize that the Bernard Rimland page had buckets of poorly sourced promotion on the Autism Research Institute. So if/when the page is merged, I'd suggest replacing the entire poorly-sourced/promotional "Autism Research Institute" section on his page and the promotional sentence before it with something neutral and sourced, such as "He founded the Autism Society of America and the Autism Research Institute, which at-the-time advocated for alternative autism treatments."(Source: The New York Times). CorporateM (Talk) 18:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see any good source. I see no source which is talking about this organization, but only some sources talking about something else which talk a little about this organization alongside the main topic of discussion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per MrBill3's sources, there is enough press and books to keep the article. Frmorrison (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A WP:FRINGE organisation, taking donations, therefore we should be suspicious that it is self-promoting for WP:ADVOCACY reasons. It is appropriately in Category:Pseudoscience. However, it exists, it is out there in reliable sources, readers will expect to find some coverage of it, and we do not censor pseudo-science. No strong opinion on the merge proposal, but probably it should be smerged if the opening paragraph can't be sourced to a reputable independent secondary source and the first reference is to be to quackwatch. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This organization describes a lot of medical practices that may fall under WP:FRINGE if editors don't pay attention to WP:MEDRS. That being said, there's many problems with this article right now, but it seems to satisfy WP:GNG Karzelek (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -I agree that it is WP:FRINGE, however, i also think as many others do that this does in fact have plenty of reliable sources to support its remaining here on wikipedia. I do not see where it fails WP:GNG rules.--Canyouhearmenow 12:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm the editor with a COI. I wanted to point out that while the article may appear sourced, because it does in fact have many citations that are reliable secondary sources, most of those sources do not even mention ARI or only briefly mention them. We have this problem often (with COI editors usually) where non-notable article-subjects are given the appearance of notability by making it "look" sourced, when it isn't actually. I imagine that if the organization were notable, the controversies mentioned by user:Karzelek would exist, however at the moment they are fabricated by citing the org's press releases to state their views, then citing sources about autism (that do not mention ARI) to explain that those views have been discounted (original research). I find that it is very easy to remove promotional content from Wikipedia, but there is a reflexive defense to never remove negative content under the "censorship" banner. CorporateM (Talk) 13:40, 25 July 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.