Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flowform

Flowform

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)