The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Does not seem to meet the WP:GNG criteria a search on the web brought up very little in terms of reliable secondary sources. I just found self-published websites and a couple of blogs. Domdeparis ( talk) 21:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I have changed the title and the name used for him to Johann Grander which I should have used at the beginning. The subject of the article is evidently of some considerable importance in industry and paramedical therapy in multiple countries and the fact that the supposed process named after him may not yet be widely covered does not mean it will not have some importance. As I have restated in the Talk page stating why deletion would be a big mistake, there appears to be a process named after and invented by this man that remains mysterious but is in use in industry from Europe to Asia and deleting his name is wrong fro Wikipedia, when lots of people might well want to know who this man is and what can be said to be known about what he is claimed to have invented. If they only have self-published stuff by his fans and family to go on, they will remain misinformed! Iph ( talk) 23:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
He is covered in German Wikipedia [1] and if it is fine there it should be fine in English!
It is like Homeopathy: the man invented something that is quite a big subject for enthusiasts and much talked about, and to ignore him and it is only to encourage the proponents of pseudoscience rather than to cover it. To exclude it would be like demanding the deletion of the articles on Homeopathy and its inventor. Somebody needs to translate the much longer German article on Revitalized water but I don't have time now. Iph ( talk) 00:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm with others on this question. Although main stream science doesn't accept the concept of Revitalised Water, we have to remember that, at one time, science didn't accept the existence of continental drift, rogue waves or above cloud lightning, either. These were all subsequently proven to be real. The main thing that intrigues me about this is the industrial factor. Businesses don't normally continue to spend money on equipment or processes that do not provide the intended benefit. They, after all, have accountants that can quantify any improvements (or lack thereof) in terms of actual dollars, and technical staff who can see first hand if there are any improvements in their processes. Pat Lawless — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resinguy ( talk • contribs) 04:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Does not seem to meet the WP:GNG criteria a search on the web brought up very little in terms of reliable secondary sources. I just found self-published websites and a couple of blogs. Domdeparis ( talk) 21:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I have changed the title and the name used for him to Johann Grander which I should have used at the beginning. The subject of the article is evidently of some considerable importance in industry and paramedical therapy in multiple countries and the fact that the supposed process named after him may not yet be widely covered does not mean it will not have some importance. As I have restated in the Talk page stating why deletion would be a big mistake, there appears to be a process named after and invented by this man that remains mysterious but is in use in industry from Europe to Asia and deleting his name is wrong fro Wikipedia, when lots of people might well want to know who this man is and what can be said to be known about what he is claimed to have invented. If they only have self-published stuff by his fans and family to go on, they will remain misinformed! Iph ( talk) 23:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
He is covered in German Wikipedia [1] and if it is fine there it should be fine in English!
It is like Homeopathy: the man invented something that is quite a big subject for enthusiasts and much talked about, and to ignore him and it is only to encourage the proponents of pseudoscience rather than to cover it. To exclude it would be like demanding the deletion of the articles on Homeopathy and its inventor. Somebody needs to translate the much longer German article on Revitalized water but I don't have time now. Iph ( talk) 00:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm with others on this question. Although main stream science doesn't accept the concept of Revitalised Water, we have to remember that, at one time, science didn't accept the existence of continental drift, rogue waves or above cloud lightning, either. These were all subsequently proven to be real. The main thing that intrigues me about this is the industrial factor. Businesses don't normally continue to spend money on equipment or processes that do not provide the intended benefit. They, after all, have accountants that can quantify any improvements (or lack thereof) in terms of actual dollars, and technical staff who can see first hand if there are any improvements in their processes. Pat Lawless — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resinguy ( talk • contribs) 04:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)