Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ground regulatory system

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ground regulatory system

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

No sign of significant coverage in reliable sources required per WP:GNG (that is, zero). Also rather dubious human biology with no WP:MEDRS sources. It gives no indication of the mainstream (required per WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE), position and presumably can't because I couldn't find any sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could make the pedantic argument that this belongs at WP:RFD since it was a redirect immediately prior to nomination for deletion, but the redirect to applied kinesiology hasn't stuck before, so we might as well take a look on the merits. And those merits are lacking. This is WP:FRINGE material that doesn't even have significant currency in the alternative medicine context of AK, which is already pretty fringe stuff. And mainstream WP:MEDRS publications aren't going to touch this with a pole. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find no indication that this concept or theory has received enough notice for inclusion here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Google, Google Books and Google Scholar searches turned up nothing qualifying as substantial mention by reliable independent sources. Fringe even within the fringe community, and ignored completely by real-world scholars. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:43, 21 August 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.