Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bioregulatory medicine

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. Even discounting the single-purpose account !votes, there is consensus here that this is synthesis at best and at worst promotional of a concept that has apparently not received significant secondary coverage. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bioregulatory medicine

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

The manifesto of some form of alternative medical science without any indication that it enjoys any kind of backing or support, let alone a scientific evidence base. JFW | T@lk 13:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as synthesis (and it's a manifesto too). At first glance it may appear to be well sourced but the sources generally don't mention "Bioregulatory medicine". bobrayner (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most of the article is blatant WP:SYNTH (sources don't actually use the term, which appears to be a neologism; could not find a WP:MEDRS compliant source discussing the term in any detail). Clearly promotional. Yobol (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article seems to be advanced and integrative as there seems to be increasing number of books and scientific articles about Bioregulatory medicine; lot of sources/citations to corroborate concept. Clearly should stay. Biomediccentre (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)— Biomediccentre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: account created 22/5, this is the contributor's third edit. JFW | T@lk 18:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You could stop the article from being deleted if you added those scientific articles to the article. Pubmed has nothing. JFW | T@lk 18:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely keep as article as it is on the new scientific frontiers of interdisciplinary science. Found plenty of citations, so do not understand reason for delete, as it seems dogmatic view. Wikipedia is rightly updating new scientific advances, and should not be only commenting on old science. Bogorodica (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)— Bogorodica (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: editor's first edit on Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 18:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH. May be able to merge whatever is left with Alternative medicine assuming we find sources showing notability.--McSly (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per advanced new interdisciplinary trend in science. This seems to be a combined approach between Alternative and Allopathic medicine, so it should stay and weed out parts that are WP:SYNTH.--not registered (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.212.110 (talk) — 217.155.212.110 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I don't think deleting it is the proper solution. I think we can make edits to the article that removes the parts which violate WP:SYNTH without removing the page completely. Adamh4 (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that after removal of all SYNTH, there is no evidence of notability based on independent sourcing. Yobol (talk) 01:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to remove all SYNTH, and keep article in remainder form. Disagree that there is no notability, as there is plenty of corroborative scientific evidence, and it seems that notability in Bioregulatory medicine like in any system applied scientific approach of interdisciplinary nature needs to look notability in that context. Bogorodica (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody is systematically deleting References from the article in order to create impression of lack of notability; references that refer to homestasis or bioregulation (which is same meaning) do refer to Bioregulatory medicine; reference validity is in its meaning, rather then verbatim correlations--not registered (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep,this page exemplifies the right step in consciousness that medicine is taking! definitely keep it up or merge elsewhere! knowledge like this needs to be shared! — Preceding unsigned comment added by contribs) 15:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC) — Evolve1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Hello to all, i am a Medical Doctor from Greece specialised in Oncolgy, my opinion about Bioregulatory Medicine is not to delete this truly Medical Paradigm but i-you and all of us, have to do what passes from our hands to PUT IT AS A LESSON INSIDE MEDICAL SCHOOLS AROUND THE WORLD, DOCTORS HAS TO HAVE SPHERICAL APPROACH TO MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE, WE ARE TREATING HUMAN BEINGS NOT IDEAS AND MONEY. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FROM MY DEEPEST AREAS OF MY HEART. [[User:kuvades7|kuvades7] (talk) 10:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)— kuvades7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I'm fully supportive of this page and think that the references that are provided in support of Bioregulatory Medicine are appropriate. The citations are naturally from different medical sciences, because medicine is a unified clinical methodology. 92.1.64.130 (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppets: I do hope that whoever closes this AfD notices the extensive sockpuppetry on one side of the debate. bobrayner (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
wikipeople express their views believing in consensus, but above editor who asked for deletion in first place, believes his decision should be above all others, hence does not hesitate from smearing campaign.Bogorodica (talk) 00:14, 2 June 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.