Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RERTMT

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RERTMT

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

Another user has suggested on the article talk page that this article could be a hoax, and if not a hoax it fails notability criteria. I only bring this here as part of an effort to disposition articles tagged with {{hoax}}. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm the editor that originally added the hoax tag. I couldn't find any Google, Google Books, or Google Scholar results for the phrase "Rapid Emotional Response Through Music Therapy" or "RERTMT". I gave the author the benefit of the doubt and allowed time for them to add sources. Two sources were added to the article and while both are about music therapy, I couldn't find a mention of "Rapid Emotional Response Through Music Therapy" or "RERTMT" in either. The Aldridge book uses the work "rapid" 4 times according to Amazon, but none of them used it in that context. The Gold paper never mentions the term or acronym in its abstract. I'm not convinced that this phrase or acronym exists, and if it does exist but the only proof is a mention in a paper that is insignificant enough not to be mentioned in the abstract then it fails WP:GNG. If any reliable sources establish the use of this phrase or acronym I would support redirecting RERTMT to Music therapy, but otherwise it would be an implausible redirect and should be deleted. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At worst this is a hoax, at best it's a neologism. Either way, it should be deleted. Andrew³²⁷ 07:43, 29 May 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.