Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cycloidal vibration technology

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. WP:SNOW NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cycloidal vibration technology

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

Term is invented by a single company; promotional article is merely an advert for that company. No sources provided that would support any claims of effectiveness per WP:MEDRS. Fails WP:GNG by having no coverage in reliable sources independent of the company. RexxS (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is definitely an advertisement. Very few independent sources. QuackGuru (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thanks to RexxS for sorting out that huge list of sources that turned out not to be MEDRS, so the lack of support for this article became clear. --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per RexxS's rationale, the page is like an advert written by the company. Mramoeba (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator; pretty much all of the sources are patents. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 03:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spammy and no decent references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PROMO, patents are not sources. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 15:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mainly promotional. Lack of sources as well. Adamtt9 (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2017 (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.