Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rejuvenator


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 21:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The Rejuvenator

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable product. A Google Books search for "The Rejuvenator" barometric therapy brings up nothing, as does a Google News search. A Google News archives search actually brings up two hits ( and ), but upon closer inspection, they're just advertisements masquerading as news articles. It is also to be noted that the author of the article (Hollisrisley) has an apparent conflict of interest as the inventor of the device according to the article (Hollis Risley). Overall, the device is unworthy of an encyclopedia article due to the lack of independent coverage. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 21:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Unambiguous advertising. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete probable G11. Not notable. QU TalkQu 22:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete No references, no indication of wp:notability.    Reads like an advertisement.    As a sidebar, from a technical standpoint, this thing is snake-oil. North8000 (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete- No coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2012 (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.