Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Grander

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Grander

John Grander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Does not seem to meet the

• Speedy delete. No
  credible claim of significance. retracted, see later note -IagoQnsi (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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)[reply]

He is covered in German Wikipedia [1] and if it is fine there it should be fine in English!

Him having a German Wikipedia article isn't entirely relevant, as it could very well be that the German article ought to be deleted as well. However, I see on that page that he was awarded the Austrian Decoration for Science and Art Cross, so I retract my speedy deletion nomination. I'm having trouble researching Grander further due to most of his coverage being in German, but at this point I think it's a weak keep from me. His biography written by de:Susanne Dobesch, winning the Austrian Decoration for Science and Art Cross, and various other coverage (like this Vice article) would seem to somewhat indicate notability. The article definitely needs to be heavily improved to better explain who Grander is and why he's notable. -IagoQnsi (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment @

WP:PSI and the fact that businesses continue to spend money on this process is not proof that it is effective or real. Don't forget that businesses are run by people and people can make mistakes and accountants work with the information that they are given. There are no rigorous scientific experiments that prove the claims. The difference between continental drift and this is that continental drift is a theory that was elaborated to explain observations that suggested that the continents were once part of the same land mass. Grander thought that water could transfer information via a mysterious process but not through an observed phenomenon he then invented and copyrighted a processus that would make his imagined theory possible and then made claims about the results of this process that have yet to be proven. If you want an exemple of companies being conned by an imagined process have a look at this one that cost Elf $150 million Great Oil Sniffer Hoax. Domdeparis (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:38, 28 December 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.