Deletion of Cycle theory

Comment: mdash; as a compromise.  Article is certainly insufficient as currently written, and needs to be held to a higher standard. However, following the links in the '''See Also''' or ''External Links'' (?), you can also see a respectable webpage and a number of links to other related organizations, as someone documented above. Some of you may not remember or know about ''Biorythms'', which millions swore by (And sometimes 'At'! Well, certainly some daze, I did! ) for a few years back when computers first became common in the office. Basically, I'm saying this is a stub and no worse than many I've stubmbled across herein. The given links suggest there is a lot of room for improvement and clean up.  ALSO means rejecting it out of hand as psuedo-science doesn't mean these folks may in fact someday be able to explain say Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle or something YOU PERSONALLY view as appropo to science. I PERSONALLY, however recall a mention and discussion of ''Cycle Theory in an upper level Economics course in 1974''. Is this article well written&mdash; Hell No. But are the specious objections listed above because one only made a passing stab at looking into a topic they haven't been exposed to a correct and well informed vote&mdash; I don't think so. One of the criticisms of this forum is that far too often people don't take enough time to examin the topic and delete promising article topics willy nilly out of hand in misguided youthful exuberence. '''Doing Something does not equate to to doing ''the right thing'''''. If you're unqualified in this forum in particular, don't vote on something. Experience is a wonderful thing and it tells me that stranger things than this research have occured. Most topics in particle physics for starters&mdash; perhaps we should toss out String theory and Quarks&mdash; I'm sure they are equally familar to most of the voters back in April
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: incredibly badly written (personal fave "Holy Gail equation").  Many things worth studying have cyclical dynamics, this says nothing encyclopedic about any of them.  Not quite , but closer to 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Patent nonsense (WP:PN||WP:CB)

Comment: Though there are many studies of cyclic processes in different forms of science, I see no independent evidence for the existence of a coherent discipline known as "cycle theory" as defined on the article page, one which tried to be a "unified theory of cycles". The key question here is not whether one can find times when various economic models are described a cyclical, but whether or not there exists a "cycle theory" as a disciplinary field. It seems, from a superficial look at the links offered here, that the author is trying to carve out some sort of new interdisciplinary approach. That's good and well, but unless there is independent reference to this from a mainstream source of some sort I don't think it passes , and does not belong on Wikipedia. If/when it becomes a notable disciplinary approach, we'll be happy to have an article on it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: it is not an established science and this is not a |crystal ball
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Cycles Research Institute since it's not immediately obvious that it doesn't exist , '''merge''' (slowly and painfully) the others with it.  Studying rhythms is one thing, but they don't ''have'' a cycle theory yet, and Wikipedia is |not a crystal ball. (Didn't Fourier or someone work out the real cyclical math a few hundred years ago
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)