Rapid resolution therapy : Google scholar, books, news search turns up nothing.  I encounter "accelerated resolution therapy" and "rapid transformation therapy" too, though.  These all seem to be just marketing buzzwords, I cannot see a single news article or peer reviewed study or university endorsement/publicity.  The only two sources which I could find to specifically refer to the term which wasn't on a therapist's personal website, was: - [23] Which has a link to J Connelley's website (which is flagged as phising by my ISP so I'm not going to check it).  The article seems to ramble about a lot of topics, it is not peer reviewed, and writes as though RRT is a cure-all.  - [24] .  This one puts RRT in the same sentence as "tapas acupressure technique, emotional freedom technique, thought field therapy, body psychotherapy, and biodynamic massage".  Sure looks like psuedoscience to me, and I cannot make out anything substantive about RRT in this article other than the author likes it, and that it can supposedly treat "anxiety, panic attacks, PTSD, sexual trauma, childhood trauma, sexual violence, guilt and shame, social anxiety, rage and resentment, insomnia, addiction, and phobias and fears".  Darcyisverycute ( talk ) 17:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions .  Darcyisverycute ( talk ) 17:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There might be enough coverage to keep the article but probably only in stub form with most of the content removed.  I think it should really only state who created it, the intended use, and the lack of studies to confirm its efficacy.  There are some references and books on Google Scholar and ProQuest including https://www.proquest.com/docview/1418171748/17C57E2356AB44A8PQ/19 to support inclusion however.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 23:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just to note, that source you provided is paywalled and I could not find a safe alternative download for the article.  It does not mention RRT in the first few paragraphs of the visible free preview.  It is also a magazine article, which are generally not subject to academic review.  Darcyisverycute ( talk ) 05:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well this is quite the mess.  It does not seem to be notable, and it has a promotional feel; further, the name RRT is trademarked; and the topic is as nom indicates close to fringe medicine.  The sourcing is poor, and worse than it looks: 1 is RRT's founder Connelly's page on Psychology Today, so it is not a reliable independent source.  2 is about "inspiring stories".  I found a URL for it and the text does not mention "Rapid resolution therapy".  If the claim is only the preceding sentence then it is just off-topic; if it's the preceding two sentences (of the lead) then it fails verification.  3 is RRT's founder Connelly's book on RRT, published by "Rapid Resolution Therapy" so it is not a reliable independent source.  4 is about approaches in general, not RRT, so it's off-topic.  5 does not mention RRT, but the paragraph it claims to support does, so it fails verification.  6 failed to load, appears to be a dead link.  Its title is on PTSD so the comment on 7 and 8 below probably applies.  7 and 8 do not contain the words "rapid" or "resolution".  The entire paragraph they support is off-topic, on PTSD not RRT.  9 is Elsevier's Scopus welcome panel requiring a login, no use for anything.  10 is just a Google Scholar search, not a valid citation.  It appears therefore that the article as written is entirely without reliable sources.  The items retrieved on Google appear to be purely commercial.  The items retrieved on Google Scholar are not much better, with "helpful tips for counselors", personal statements, and woo-woo articles such as Bowles ("For survival, humans need safety. Without safety, the thriving brain does not work to its full potential.") There is no sign of a systematic review as required by WP:MEDRS .  We should DELETE this article as non-notable, probably fringe, and making unverifiable medical claims.  Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 14:57, 26 September 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete