Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Detensor

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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Detensor

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

I approved this from the draft, Draft:The Detensor for which I know regret. The product looked legitimate, until I saw this. Comes out this is just a mattress, written by some COI or paid editors. Think this should be deleted or be taken to its draft. —UY Scuti ^Talk 07:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 07:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please don't blame User:UY Scuti for the claim of WP:PAY or WP:COI, as that is _my_ strong interpretation after getting sucked into another "what the heck is this mess??". The accumulated behavior pattern of the article author would make most anyone quite suspicious. (see the notes I plopped onto User:UY Scuti's talk page, followed by the author's "my hobby") So far the article refs are only to websites selling the gadget, one of which prominently features the inventor's face (oh, and the trademark registration site?). How much credit are we to give to a foam pad that's been around since 1978 but seems to not have any independent studies? Oh, and I found the reason for the sudden "rush of interest" by so many "different editors" in this commercial product, press release "Detensor Returns to US After 28-Year Absence". And I again apologize to User:UY Scuti for involving them just because they were doing a good turn for Wikipedia. Shenme (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be conflict of interest related promo spam with likely sockpuppeting going on as well. — Cirt (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2016 (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.