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 as a week has shown no Delete votes and there have also been no objections since the recent noticeable improvements (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Kinetic degradation fluxion media

Kinetic degradation fluxion media (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been subject to very significant changes during its life . In its current form it describes a type of water filter that removes chlorine and some other constituents. There are very many such filters on the market and the issue here is, is this particular filter notable? The references provided include two (refs 6 and 7) which actually refers to a totally different filter made by a company called Amafilter and which is used for making filter-cake from grossly contaminated process waters, such as in the coal industry. This shares the same acronym but is a totally different product. The other references include very lightweight books. One reference is in a chapter called "Nine ecofabulous ways to save water at home" and no evidence of any effectiveness is given. Lengthy debate on the article talk page has failed to flush out any substantive references to support notability and currently it fails WP:GNG   Velella   ^{Velella Talk}   10:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment Previous AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KDF-55 (article has subsequently been rewritten). Discussion after AfD/rewrite is Talk:Kinetic degradation fluxion media Widefox; talk 12:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete or Merge Keep (to say Water filter due to permastub) Lots of shallow sources doesn't make a quality article. Seems destined to be a WP:Permastub. This seems a balance between WP:NPRODUCT (where it may be borderline or failing per Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product.. especially if there is no realistic hope of expansion. If a non-notable product or service has its own article, be bold and merge it into an article with a broader scope (for example, an article about the type of product) or follow one of the deletion processes. and Permastub. Considering this started as a product advert (see WP:SPAM), there's just not enough in-depth sources to write a balanced article with the vast majority of sources being ads/promo. For products with health implications (drinking water) we should be thinking of WP:MEDRS for efficacy. It's brass. It's a water filter. We have those article already. This doesn't have such depth of sources, but may be worth a line in another article for example if there's a source detailing other such products. Widefox; talk 12:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep: With 8 reliable sources including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and coverage in several scientific texts, the assertion that this article fails WP:GNG seems absurd. The topic has clearly received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The subject's coverage in McGraw-Hill's "Materials Handbook: An encyclopedia for Managers, Technical Professionals, Purchasing and Production Managers, Technicians and Supervisors" alone should have prevented this AFD. Toddst1 ( talk) 14:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Which doesn't address the depth of coverage / permastub issue (and per nom "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail" WP:GNG). Passing mentions can be discounted for notability, rubbish sources too (per above), and two sources for the wrong product. "8 RS" just isn't true, and is the wrong metric for a permastub. This is way off the mark for the threshold required for drinking water claims i.e. regarding MEDRS, which also is unaddressed. We should be cautious about repeating such claims as properly sourced. Fundamentally, as currently written, it's a WP:COATRACK - seemingly a novel material, to hang a product article on. From what I can make out (it's not a good article), that's brass, and a water filter. Widefox; talk 14:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Another non-RS. I question ref 4. (R. A. S. Hemat (2004). Principles of Orthomolecularism. Urotext. ) as a RS for the claims here - see orthomolecular medicine. Widefox; talk 16:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

I've removed the source and found another highly reliable source to replace it in supporting one statement, and removed the other statement entirely. No more unreliable source. Toddst1 ( talk) 17:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Except that's not true, as "6. and 7." above are for a different product, and the type of sources aren't reliable for some types of claims - MEDRS type argument etc not addressed above. Widefox; talk 17:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

I removed that section. This version seems to be [1] agreeable, and it's a permastub. Widefox; talk 18:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Toddst1 (see my comment below for analysis of sources - there are not 8 RS as some are demonstrably not-RS for the claims they made). There is not one single source at WP:MEDRS level, are you happy with the lack of proper RS and leaving claims with non-RS sources for those claims with the health implications? Widefox; talk 12:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 05:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The post-cleanup revision looks acceptable. The secondary sources "Water efficiency in buildings" and the "Materials handbook" adequately demonstrate notability. I am not concerned about whether the article is a perma-stub: it should be as long as reliable sources allow, and no longer. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

"Water efficiency in buildings" and the "Materials handbook" are passing mentions. GNG says "in detail". Which two or more sources are "in detail"? It is your opinion that those passing mentions satisfy GNG? NPRODUCT hints at avoiding permastubs. Widefox; talk 01:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply

No, they are not passing mentions. They are the subject of an entire paragraph in "Water efficiency in buildings". I have not been able to check the other source. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 01:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply

"Materials handbook" does not have a section devoted to it, according to its TOC [2], but has one on "ACTIVATED CHARCOAL" where KDF has a couple of sentences. How can GNG be satisfied? Also per GNG "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is an advert for a brass filter product. Real RS talking about the science are things like [3] which talk of "Brass Dezincification and Other Corrosion" where zinc is released into the water. Do we know if this is DZR-brass? We don't know. The science says it is brass that gets corroded, but we can't really say that as we have no source specifically for this KDF material (which is just brass) as it may be WP:SYN. The talk page details expert opinion on these issues with the vast majority of sources of this product being non-RS, allegedly bogus snake oil. As we cannot write a balanced non-stub to counter the non-independent claims there isn't the verification in those sources for the claims, or countering them. WP:NOT. Seems fine as a mention in another article per GNG If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article We just don't have enough depth of sources to say if this is any different from all the other brass filters, so can't say if the primary claims are OK or not, or the claims of this whole article is an almost a COATRACK / WP:POVFORK of water filter and brass. As a product we just don't have the depth of sources to say much and have to fall back on couple of sentence mentions. Widefox; talk 03:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply

If it is the same as something else, then the solution would be to propose to merge the content to a different article. I don't think the existence of brass water filtration systems should count as a point against the existence of the content of this article. If and when an article brass water filter actually exists, then we can discuss merger of those two articles. But I don't see deletion of an article about a notable concept to be helpful, until there is a suitable merge target. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply

(see my !vote, a merge to water filter is fine). Just to reiterate - we have a product that claims to remove chlorine from water by releasing zinc chloride into the water ("Homes that heal" source). That source claims zinc chloride is "harmless for humans". We just don't have real RS to say any of this, but two scientists here are shouting this glaring lack of RS. As I said, this is borderline GNG but we cannot repeat such claims without WP:MEDRS type sources where there are none here. In case I'm not being clear, "Homes that heal" is not an RS for this claim (for context see zinc chloride#Safety and the aqueous aspects - yes this is all WP:OR as we don't have RS). Widefox; talk 11:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Here's a MEDRS secondary source: M.J.O’Donnell; M.Boyle; J.Swan; R.J.Russell; D.C.Coleman (2009), "A centralised, automated dental hospital water quality and biofilm management system using neutral Ecasol maintains dental unit waterline output at better than potable quality: A 2-year longitudinal study", Journal of Dentistry, 37: 748–762, doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2009.06.001. Here is the relevant quotation: "The carbon medium was supplemented with 15% (v/v) Kinetic Degrada-tion Fluxion (KDF) KDF-85 filter medium (KDF Fluid Treatment Inc., Three Rivers, MI, USA), which is effective in controlling the build-up of bacteria, algae, fungi and scale in granular activated carbon beds as well as reducing iron and hydrogen sulphide from municipal or other water supplies. KDF filter media consist of granulated, high-purity copper and zinc alloys that are designed to inhibit microbial growth in filters, remove or reduce chlorine content, iron, heavy metals and hydrogen sulphide by a redox (approx. 500 mV) process. The final stage of pre-treatment consisted of passing the water through a KDF-55 fine filter unit. All filters were sized to permit a minimum flow rate of 3000 L of water per hour. The KDF-85 filter medium and the granular activated charcoal medium are certified to NSF International Standard 61 for water treatment plant applications. KDF-55 filter medium is certified to NSF International Standard 042 for drinking water treatment units." However, I am not convinced that every source needs to be MEDRS. Water filtration is not just a medical issue, but also one of civil engineering, home design, etc. I will add some more sources. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Good find. It was me that added in the antimicrobial properties of copper to the article to get some facts in there. Nobody is disputing that. Still, see MEDRS for " Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content" (emphasis MEDRS) - that is a primary source! The point is to use a review paper - so a secondary. Agree with you about the article doesn't need to be using MEDRS sources unless and until there's "biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources" ... "medical content in any Wikipedia article" (emphasis MEDRS). Widefox; talk 12:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply

No, it's a secondary source on KDF. It is a primary source on the subject of research, which was an entirely different product. A primary source would be the original patent, marketing materials, or original research published on the KDF system. A secondary source presents a view of the subject that is one step removed from the primary source, often containing an analytic or evaluative claim. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply

See MEDRS A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of current understanding of the topic,. It's presumably an independent source from KDF, and a secondary about KDF yes. Agree it's a primary source on the medical aspects of KDF ie it's own research, which is the medical claim. It's not a review paper is it, per MEDRS?! Widefox; talk 13:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Per that guideline: "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials." We aren't citing it for "unreliable or preliminary information" like "in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials". We are citing it as a secondary source, not a primary source. Even per the standard set by WP:MEDRS, which I'm not really convinced is warranted anyway. If it is warranted, please be specific about what medical claim you would like to see a secondary source for. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply

You agree it's not a review article, so literally not a secondary per MEDRS, right? It's that simple. A primary or secondary isn't defined by incorrect usage, but explicitly defined, quoted verbatim. Do you agree?

Have to say, well done expanding and finding RS. That looks like a solid RS for notability. Agree with you - this is only for any material about water with connotations for humans (MEDRS defined here " WP:Biomedical information") but the Daniel Fourness source isn't an RS - it's a masters thesis - a primary not an RS unless proved otherwise per WP:SCHOLARSHIP only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence (so 1. doesn't help for notability, and 2. help for this article and should be removed 3. is used along with another source for the same sentence so to prevent WP:SYN suggest you remove it), "Homes That Heal" is clearly not a RS for it's own topic "Harming Your Family's Health." i.e. medical claims and so per the nom could/should be completely removed here as a non-RS. Widefox; talk 15:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply

MEDRS does not say that a source is a secondary source if and only if it is a review article. Many articles, both inside and outside medicine, summarize other sources as well as conduct original research. These are primary sources on the topic of the research, but can be secondary sources as well. It depends on how the source is used. And, as I've already said, I don't think MEDRS is the correct standard anyway, since we aren't substantiating medical claims. But, even if it were, I think we've met that criterion. I think the masters thesis is ok because it is publicly accessible, and corroborates the mechanism of action as discussed in other published, peer reviewed sources. There is no SYN because the same information appears in both sources. I disagree the it does not contribute to the notability. More independent sources contribute to notability, regardless of whether we accept them as factually reliable and vetted by the scholarly community. In any cade, all of these issues seem increasingly peripheral to the question of deleting this article. It is quite clear that there is in-depth treatment in multiple independent reliable sources, so GNG is amply satified. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 16:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply

A secondary MEDRS source is not what you think it is. "A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources" (been over this). If you don't agree with that verbatim that's up to you, but that's MEDRS. Saying that, I agree it's only for biomedical material which (currently) most/all of this isn't biomedical, the topic concerns treating water for humans, and health (of water) is, so broadly construed it is, and at least one source used here (and the primary sources) make such claims. keep that in mind. The Masters thesis is by definition not an RS, so I've removed it per above. Widefox; talk 19:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply

The issue of water treatment is one of civil engineering as well. There are not just medical aspects to it, so demanding that all sources must be MEDRS is an unreasonable standard in light of WP:NPOV. Specific health claims are indeed governed by that guideline, however the article makws no health claims whatsoever, merely that the filtration system neutralizes some biological activity, and that it also removes some chemicals fron the water. Neither of these facts are medical, and neither is even all that controversial. As far as I can tell, you're only insisting on ridiculous standards of sourcing for its own sake, not because you actually wish to challenge any specific statement in the article. That is already a misguided and problematic attitude for a Wikipedia editor to hold. But, in any case, some of the sources clearly do meet MEDRS. They are secondary sources that summarize available information, based on other sources, rather than primary sources that describe the original experiments. For example, the above source cites the NSF certification. You could argue that the NSF certification is a primary source, but any peer reviewed article discussion the details of that NSF certification is, by definition, a secondary source. This is obvious, isn't it? It might also be a primary source in other respects. Context matters, and in this case the sources are being used properly as secondary sources. You can find out more about primary and secondary sources at WP:PSTS and the links given there, if you still are confused. Also, above you stated that there is only one MEDRS source. I count three of them: two published in Dentistry journals, and one a literature review (!) regarding copper leaching. So, I find this continued argumentation to be very puzzling, when the sources obviously meet all requirements that we normally impose on sources, even under the most restrictive applicable guidelines. Please, WP:REICHSTAG already. I am quitting this discussion now, and trust that the closing admin has a brain and is able to determine which arguments actually have merit (although I admit to assessing the actual likelihood charitably around 75%). Have a nice day, Sławomir Biały ( talk) 22:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Long answer didn't answer the pertinent question - the quoted definition of secondary in MEDRS. If one doesn't agree with MEDRS definition, one cannot build any argument quoting "MEDRS" can one? We do agree there's medical aspects, and that the current content doesn't have such explicit claims. It's a straw man argument to say anyone is asking for MEDRS for all sources. This filter is used for human drinking water? Yes? At my first edit article had "These by-products remain within the drinking water, but are not dangerous" [4]. That needed MEDRS yes? There's no dispute that specific content has gone now so we're in agreement it's irrelevant now... but the scope of the topic - as shown in sources used in the article, and the vast and numerous consumer marketing claims etc - focus on the health/safety of drinking water/human shower water e.g. "Healthy water for our body" [5], and we both agree those claims aren't (at this moment) in the article. Coming back to the nomination, there's no claims in the article now as there's no RS for those claims. (and ignoring ad hominem, any closing admin can verify MEDRS, and see above that nobody is claiming all sources need to be MEDRS. If we must include a Masters thesis to make this look well sourced, then job done, but it doesn't count as an RS - the links above are all that's needed to verify that's not correct). I do agree with you that as secondaries for civil engineering this has at least one RS. The nom is about why emphasis on this product, when there's others etc. Widefox; talk 01:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Yes, the three sources I referred to above meet the exact letter of MEDRS. Period. So, even if we were citing them for medical claims (we aren't), they meet even that very strong standard. Discussion over. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 01:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Just seen the "Robina Ang" source - looks good, so that must be at least 2 RS by now so passes GNG. Well done. It is a content issue to address the WP:BALANCE and WP:WEIGHT using a good source like that, which is MEDRS standard (as per def at MEDRS). (!vote changed) Widefox; talk 01:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment User:Velella please can you review the situation, I closed my AfD early last time and considering the lack of eyeballs last time and so far now, it's up to you if you think the AfD would benefit to run its normal course, thus giving a chance for some experienced editors for further opinions. Widefox; talk 12:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC). reply

I am hapy to review but it would be very helpful if somebody could provide verbatim extracts of the references that are sitting behind paywalls. I am retired and no long have access to academic libraries. I will also set out the issues I have with article on the article talk page rather than further clutter this discussion. The closing admin is already facing a nightmare working through all of this. It would, as already noted above, be very useful to have input from chemical experts. Doc James is one that comes to mind and User:EvMsmile and/or User:Materialscientist might be able to help or know of others who can. I will try and think of others. I will then return here with my considered view. Thanks for your patience.   Velella   ^{Velella Talk}   22:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply

The article has medical (dental) related material and research citations now, so I've tagged as medicine project, and the awareness of the MEDRS standard above is now of practical concern. This was always the standard needed for this topic for how this product is sometimes marketed e.g. drinking water. IMHO Doc James and the others would be helpful. Widefox; talk 22:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• keep but some level of rewrite might be needed. I've never heard of these things, but some degree of the effect is well known and they seem to be widely used in other countries. So we have to avoid being a one product article with excessive promotion, but I think that the underlying concept is notable and belongs here. I can't see that the title makes much sense though; this is either an obscure single product name, or confusing and largely irrelevant. Andy Dingley ( talk) 13:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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.