Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bioregulatory medicine (2nd nomination)

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bioregulatory medicine[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; article that was moved here from draft version was huge load of WP:SYN, wrapping anybody associated with systems biology (like Leroy Hood) or personalized medicine under this umbrella. There are no reviews in Pubmed] discussing this kind of "medicine" and a look at the International Society website shows something pretty FRINGEy. Did a google search too and that only came up with all kinds fluffery. There are not enough independent sources to create an article; not even enough popular media sources to write about a cultural phenonenon. This appears to just be a neolgism from 1994 that has gone no where. If last AfD is replicated we may get a crush of socks coming....Jytdog (talk) 04:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the concerns already outlined by the nominator. With the synthesised material stripped away, all that remains in this article is essentially a claim that bioregulatory medicine is notable by virtue of there being some associations that are concerned with this across several continents. I looked at the UK-based site. It claims to maintain a specialist register, although in the UK regulation of doctors is something that falls to the General Medical Council, including specialist registers. There is not a single mention of "bioregulatory" on the GMC website. There are other types of practitioners with voluntary register that are looked after by the Professional Standards Authority, but again not a single mention there either. Looking at the website of the UK bioregulatory foundation, it is run by a organisation that has changed its name several times and is currently the biomedic foundation. It is registered with the Charity Commission and has a declared income of around £50,000 a year. [1] Other parts of this UK bioregulatory website refer to a limited company. Profiles of the people associated suggest the company deals with selling educational materials aimed at an alternative medicine audience. So I think WP:FRINGE applies here too. Drchriswilliams (talk) 11:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nom and Drchriswilliams are correct, this is definitely WP:FRINGE. If anyone's in any doubt, try this: "Bioenergetic Health - realignment of bioresonance, quantum biofield and deblocking energetic points and associated feelings." Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no idependent verification of notability. Look like nothing but a new promo buzzword, akin to "holistic". All sources are form "bioreg" practicioners. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:40, 25 October 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.