353:
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).
314:-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.---
278:
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
274:
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
352:
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.
247:
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
270:
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
288:
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
331:
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.
140:) 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
263:
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.
226:
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.
129:
178:
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
267:
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.
17:
157:
this article has already been deleted once, at least according to the edit summary for the creation of the present article.
138:... the angle of the hydrogen atoms to the oxygen is at the ideal state for water to hold its greatest energetic potential...
66:
319:
102:
97:
106:
136:
The article is written with lots of claims about the benefits of flowform that seem overhyped and undersupported (
404:
282:
PatrickPHawk (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Patrick P HawkPatrickPHawk (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
89:
36:
222:
without major revisions. There is clearly an artform, perhaps even a notable one, involved in this article. The
403:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
271:
working on figuring out how to refrence material within the wiki medium- its not the most user friendly thing.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
315:
179:
366:
358:
362:
354:
389:
370:
343:
323:
302:
298:
257:
253:
239:
208:
204:
199:(ec) thanks! I was just about to ask if it was CSDG4, but since it was speedy, the answer is no...
190:
166:
162:
148:
93:
71:
385:
237:
60:
187:
145:
85:
77:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
248:
similarly (it's not clear to me that it serves as a secondary source for the topic anyway).
294:
249:
200:
158:
381:
339:
227:
53:
183:
141:
123:
290:
49:
334:
279:
proved themselves remarkably. The flowform is right there with them.
380:
The article pretty much needs to be purged and rewritten anyways.
397:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
48:. Insufficient independent reliable source material and
119:
115:
111:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
407:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
361:) 04:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)PatrickPHawk
289:explanation see this explanation of the
7:
24:
291:WP:N#General notability guideline
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
390:02:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
371:04:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
344:03:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
324:06:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
303:06:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
258:18:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
240:17:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
209:18:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
191:17:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
167:16:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
149:16:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
72:02:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
424:
400:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
180:User:Premeditated Chaos
316:Iconoclast.Horizon
415:
402:
373:Nov, 23, 8:00pm
234:
127:
109:
69:
63:
58:
34:
423:
422:
418:
417:
416:
414:
413:
412:
411:
405:deletion review
398:
228:
100:
84:
81:
67:
61:
54:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
421:
419:
410:
409:
393:
392:
347:
346:
326:
308:
307:
306:
305:
275:and quantify.
261:
260:
242:
216:
215:
214:
213:
212:
211:
194:
193:
170:
169:
134:
133:
80:
75:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
420:
408:
406:
401:
395:
394:
391:
387:
383:
379:
376:
375:
374:
372:
368:
364:
360:
356:
351:
345:
341:
337:
336:
330:
327:
325:
321:
317:
313:
310:
309:
304:
300:
296:
292:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
280:
276:
272:
268:
265:
259:
255:
251:
246:
243:
241:
238:
235:
233:
232:
225:
221:
218:
217:
210:
206:
202:
198:
197:
196:
195:
192:
189:
185:
181:
177:
174:
173:
172:
171:
168:
164:
160:
156:
153:
152:
151:
150:
147:
143:
139:
131:
125:
121:
117:
113:
108:
104:
99:
95:
91:
87:
83:
82:
79:
76:
74:
73:
70:
64:
59:
57:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
399:
396:
377:
363:PatrickPHawk
355:PatrickPHawk
349:
348:
333:
328:
311:
281:
277:
273:
269:
266:
262:
244:
230:
229:
223:
219:
175:
154:
137:
135:
55:
45:
43:
31:
28:
312:Weak keep
295:Pete.Hurd
250:Pete.Hurd
201:Pete.Hurd
159:Pete.Hurd
56:Jreferee
382:Mikemill
231:Tim Ross
130:View log
86:Flowform
78:Flowform
224:science
184:Joyous!
176:comment
155:comment
142:Joyous!
103:protect
98:history
378:Delete
329:Delete
245:delete
220:Delete
107:delete
46:Delete
350:Keep!
124:views
116:watch
112:links
16:<
386:talk
367:talk
359:talk
340:talk
320:talk
299:talk
254:talk
205:talk
188:Talk
182:. --
163:talk
146:Talk
120:logs
94:talk
90:edit
50:WP:V
335:DGG
128:– (
388:)
369:)
342:)
322:)
301:)
293:.
256:)
207:)
186:|
165:)
144:|
122:|
118:|
114:|
110:|
105:|
101:|
96:|
92:|
52:.
384:(
365:(
357:(
338:(
318:(
297:(
252:(
236:·
203:(
161:(
132:)
126:)
88:(
68:c
65:/
62:t
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.