Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaporous hyperoxia 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vaporous hyperoxia therapy

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

This is an advert created by a block evading sock of a spammer. Speedy G5 was declined because someone else cleaned it up a bit but it's still a poorly sourced promo piece. The award won is not major, it comes from a single day conference that had "almost 250 registrants". 5 awards were given out at the xpo that "featured 14 medical device companies". Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Of the 14 inline refs the last half are unrelated to VHT and are there to verify "alternative" treatments. Of the first half, one is about the broader subject of ‘hard-to-heal’ wounds and predates VHT (4), three are PR releases (1,6,7), one is a patent listing (2), one is a company listing (3) and the other has a trivial mention and is primary (5). The further reading is about general wound management, not VHT. If in doubt put aside other considerations and delete this spam, stop rewarding bad faithed editing, deny the spammers the fruits of their labour. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Needs proper refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:40, 24 September 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.