Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Core synchronism

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Core synchronism

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

A non-notable alternative medicine modality. No sources found discussing it on google scholar and only three references on google books. The first two are references to a guy who practices CS (i.e. in the "about the author/s" section it mentions this) and the third is a wikipedia reprint. There do not appear to be any reliable sources that substantively discuss it, and Wikipedia is the third link to show up on google search with most of the rest on the first page being people who do it. I recently gutted the page since most of it was unjustified or used a series of unrelated articles to advance a synthesis. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fringe medical concept; article admits it's pseudoscience; virtually unsourceable; and essentially WP:Complete Bollocks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's excellent research. This appears to be somebody's personal invention and has not received notice outside of their particular circle. Non-notable even for fringe science. MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete per all above, fails GNG. but why is it categorized as a society topic? --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 06:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'cos I hate categories, the initial AFD autotemplate doesn't list medicine as a possible category, and I'll be damned if I'm going to put it in with "science and technology"

WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:42, 11 February 2012 (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.