Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flowform


 * 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. Insufficient independent reliable source material and WP:V. Jreferee   t / c  02:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Flowform

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is written with lots of claims about the benefits of flowform that seem overhyped and undersupported (... the angle of the hydrogen atoms to the oxygen is at the ideal state for water to hold its greatest energetic potential...) The tone resembles that of a book review or infomercial, rather than an encyclopedic article. I can't find enough information about the topic to make me think that the subject itself is notable, even if the tone was adjusted Joyous! | Talk 16:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * comment this article has already been deleted once, at least according to the edit summary for the creation of the present article. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * comment A different version of the same article was speedied in May 2007 with the summary "Pseudoscience. Lacks reliable sources. No indication of notability. Advertising?" by User:Premeditated Chaos. --Joyous! | Talk 17:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) thanks! I was just about to ask if it was CSDG4, but since it was speedy, the answer is no... Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete without major revisions. There is clearly an artform, perhaps even a notable one, involved in this article. The science that is discussed, though, is at best, very poorly expressed, and parts of it seem exceedingly implausible. This might make a usable art entry with modifications. More references would certainly help. Tim Ross ·talk  17:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * delete It sure is pseudoscience, the question is whether it's notable pseudoscience. IMHO, the books provided are published by the Rudolf Steiner Press are not independent of the subject as required by WP:N.  I think the Wilkes book is clearly not independent, and am inclined to view the Schwenk book similarly (it's not clear to me that it serves as a secondary source for the topic anyway). Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, So I wrote the article- and I would ask that this not get deleted just because some of the scientific parts are not clearly understood by someone who does not have the full understanding of what is going on.

I understand your concerns over the "psudoscience". But perhaps before dismissing it you might actually do some research to find out what its all about.

The parts about the angle between the atoms of the molecule- I got that directly from a well known physisist- Nassim Haramein- though there is more for me to learn on that subject. But I understand its not refrencable material- so we'll take it out. Soon we'll be able to refrence it. I'm still working on figuring out how to refrence material within the wiki medium- its not the most user friendly thing.

All that aside- the flowform is a well established art medium and worthy of attention with a history and international acclaim. Many of the benefits are qualitative experiences- and of course we live in a society that understands very little about quality- a thing that is very difficult to measure and quantify.

So I will amend it, if it helps, so that it doesn't claim anything that can't be backed up. Again, this is something that is a part of a much larger movement- the Waldorf and Biodynamic movements- which have a lot of things in them that can't be explained by conventional thinking- and yet they have proved themselves remarkably. The flowform is right there with them.

PatrickPHawk (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Patrick P HawkPatrickPHawk (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi PatrickPHawk, In order to avoid deletion, you don't have to argue that the claims presented in the article are true, you just have to provide evidence that the subject of the article is widely talked about. That criterion alone is supposed to decide which topics are included.  For a full explanation see this explanation of the WP:N. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep-For now under this condition, Patrick, clean the article. I am not concerned that it is tagged pseudoscience by some but that is all the more reason to be clear about the scientific principles at work in the art. There is plenty out there on water vortices that could support the effects you are trying to express. Maybe you could define the art and others may contribute with more technical knowledge of the effects.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Is notability being claimed as pseudoscience, as homeopathic medicine, as oxygenated water, or as an art form? I don't see enough of any of them, or even in combination. All I see is the title of one book, published by a private press. DGG (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep! So I will be ammending this very shortly- Holiday is upon us so not much time at the moment. For those who percieve it as a "psudoscience"- I would challange you to broaden your horizons, and lift your minds out of the materialistic, compartmentalized reality that is ever-so pervasive these days. There is some deep ecological science at work in this invention/art form- and I can pull information from other sources to back it up, it just takes more time. The combination of science and art in a single invention is rather rare and worthy of attention- the two fields don't have to be mutually exclusive. The philosophy that flowforms are based on is the same that birthed Waldorf education and Biodynamic agriculture- and there are well documented articles here that speak to the success both of these have had in the world. (By the way DGG- there are two books, and several websites. The notability is based in its presence as international phenomenon with over 30 years of applications and research, not the book that the inventor wrote to tell the world about what he discovered and how he came to it- like most inventors do). PatrickPHawk (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)PatrickPHawkPatrickPHawk (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC) Nov, 23, 8:00pm
 * Delete The article pretty much needs to be purged and rewritten anyways. Mikemill (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.