Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapid Release 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. Nakon 00:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid Release Therapy

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

Non-notable product. Checking the sources, almost every one is either a press release or an ad. The exceptions are two academic papers which make no mention of the product, and as one was published in 1968 this is unsurprising. I couldn't find anything viable online. Bilby (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nom. Wgolf (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no WP:MEDRS sources; WP:PROMO Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above CorporateM (Talk) 01:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Smacks of commercial advertising. Sourcing is uninspiring, including a reference to "PR Web." Carrite (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons mentioned by wgolf. BakerStMD 00:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer nom lacks sources and clearly Promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2015 (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.