Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverse Therapy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:CSD#G11, WP:COI, and that's before you even start looking at the content. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverse Therapy

Reverse Therapy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Article created by DrJohnEaton (talk ยท contribs) about a therapy created by Dr. John Eaton. Google search seems to find an awful lot of self-generated entries, but precious little in the way of Reliable Sources. Looks a lot like advertising, not clear at all this is a Notable practice. Fan-1967 01:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, appears to be vanity. Or at least stubify. Mallanox 02:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy close - copyvio from [1]. So tagged. Not similar enough to be a speedy, though. MER-C 02:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete; close to a db-copyvio, but I'd be inclined to say {{db-spam}} given circumstances. Add to that conflict of interest for good measure. --Dennisthe2 02:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Per article Talk page, author asserts that it's not a copyvio, and in any case grants permission as it's from his site. Not relevant to reasons for nomination. Fan-1967 13:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems like total pseudoscience first of all, then per nom. Scienceman123 talk 21:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as it is merely advertisment for non-notable pseudoscience. --Ezeu 00:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
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.