Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravitation water vortex power plant


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Gravitation water vortex power plant

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Every reason to believe that this is a self-promotion advertisement article that is created by the very proponents of a technology product that has dubious citations and barely any technically plausible and viable explanations. Please also note that the commons images accompanying are uploaded apparently by the same person whose 'creation' the article is describing about. Viswa Prabha വിശ്വപ്രഭ talk 06:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I almost AfDed this myself some months ago, when I first saw it. However looking further, it seems to be a credible device and worthy of inclusion here.  It's a real device: they've been built, they work. They're not (despite the appearance of the word "vortex") some woo-woo science nonsense based on the lost writings of Tesla. They even have aspects to their build simplicity and low cost where they show advantages over other more factory-made run of the river hydro designs. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I just searched for mentions of the Subject matter on Google Scholar and there is some brief reference (by brief I mean I didn't go into the articles themselves rather went over what the context was) of the apparatus and it's technology. It seems that this is more than self promotion, maybe just a poorly written and cited article? Thelost byte (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep These exist, they are in use, and they have been the topic of a fair amount of published research . One can see some repeated names among those authors, but that's the case in most specialized tech research areas. Article could use some love and some of these refs, but doesn't strike me as promotional at this point. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article should probably contain some practical information on uses so that it is more clear that this is not just a concept, but it does have encyclopedic value. Natureium (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Despite the unfortunate fact that the device's legitimately descriptive name reads like pseudoscience Mad Libs, this is a real thing, and has received more than passing attention in scholarly sources. It has even been included in a comparative technology review in Applied Energy, which is easily one of the major titles in the field. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2018 (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.