The result of the discussion was delete. This discussion, and the development of the draft, both seem to have come to a standstill. Numerically, the numbers are five for delete to three for keep. The strongest argument for keep comes from DGG, that we should not let problems with the draft or the fact that it is FRINGE stop the attempt to create an article. Against that I find the arguments of Roches and TenOfAllTrades convincing, combined with the discussion at the FRINGE noticeboard, that there is not actually a coherent subject here with enough credible secondary coverage to write an article. JohnCD ( talk) 22:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the standard is for this, but I think it is probably hopeless that this particular draft will ever be appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia articlespace. The reason for this is that the ostensible subject is only promoted by WP:FRINGE groups and no outside notice of this idea seems to exist. Articles on individual researchers can include their particular claims, but this piece is largely an example of synthesis of similar but separate proposals about weird water behavior. Not sure what the standard is for deleting drafts (the policies and guidelines about this are fairly vague), but we did give this page enough time to develop and I'm fairly convinced that we're not going to be able to address the problems that were brought up. jps ( talk) 21:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
What we have – and despite repeated requests on this point, what we still have – is a very inventive bit of WP:OR (heavy on the WP:SYN) coupled to a serious WP:NPOV violation (centered on WP:WEIGHT issues). The draft has a fair number of citations, certainly, but their application and interpretation is problematic. Actual, direct support for this theory comes down to a number of low-impact primary publications (including some self-published books) by a very small number of authors. In addition, we see a small number of cites to independent, credible sources, from which cherry-picked factoids are pulled out of context to 'support' this theory; these independent papers don't seem to ever use the phrase "liquid crystal water". There isn't any robust secondary coverage of this theory at all; everything directly referring to it seems to come from its tiny cadre of proponents. We're left with a situation where not only is there now outside criticism of the topic, we can't even find outside comment.
What it comes down to is this—without independent secondary coverage, it's impossible for us to write a proper encyclopedia article. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. This discussion, and the development of the draft, both seem to have come to a standstill. Numerically, the numbers are five for delete to three for keep. The strongest argument for keep comes from DGG, that we should not let problems with the draft or the fact that it is FRINGE stop the attempt to create an article. Against that I find the arguments of Roches and TenOfAllTrades convincing, combined with the discussion at the FRINGE noticeboard, that there is not actually a coherent subject here with enough credible secondary coverage to write an article. JohnCD ( talk) 22:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the standard is for this, but I think it is probably hopeless that this particular draft will ever be appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia articlespace. The reason for this is that the ostensible subject is only promoted by WP:FRINGE groups and no outside notice of this idea seems to exist. Articles on individual researchers can include their particular claims, but this piece is largely an example of synthesis of similar but separate proposals about weird water behavior. Not sure what the standard is for deleting drafts (the policies and guidelines about this are fairly vague), but we did give this page enough time to develop and I'm fairly convinced that we're not going to be able to address the problems that were brought up. jps ( talk) 21:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
What we have – and despite repeated requests on this point, what we still have – is a very inventive bit of WP:OR (heavy on the WP:SYN) coupled to a serious WP:NPOV violation (centered on WP:WEIGHT issues). The draft has a fair number of citations, certainly, but their application and interpretation is problematic. Actual, direct support for this theory comes down to a number of low-impact primary publications (including some self-published books) by a very small number of authors. In addition, we see a small number of cites to independent, credible sources, from which cherry-picked factoids are pulled out of context to 'support' this theory; these independent papers don't seem to ever use the phrase "liquid crystal water". There isn't any robust secondary coverage of this theory at all; everything directly referring to it seems to come from its tiny cadre of proponents. We're left with a situation where not only is there now outside criticism of the topic, we can't even find outside comment.
What it comes down to is this—without independent secondary coverage, it's impossible for us to write a proper encyclopedia article. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)