Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Environmental metaphysics


 * 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   delete. Nja 247 19:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Environmental metaphysics

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Verifiability/Notability issues. Article appears to consist entirely of original synthesis; can not find any reliable source on the web that provide a definition of Environmental Metaphysics that corresponds with the usage in this article. Google search eliminating Wikipedia duplicates yields only 30-70 hits, with many of those being blog postings and other non-reliable sources. Source cited in intro for a definition of the concept is referring to a concept in environmentalism, not aesthetics. (See: reference) Clay Collier (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To paraphrase Mick Dundee: This is environmental metaphysics:
 * Uncle G (talk) 11:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There seems to be nothing here that would not be redundant to feng shui or qi, and as such this would appear to be a non-notable neologism and redundant title.  I knew that metaphysical engineering could not be far behind! - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There is a paper called Environmental Metaphysics that was published in a book of symposium proceedings in 2001, but it has no relationship to this article, which appears to be pure OR. Looie496 (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Smith & Varzi 2001 doesn't appear to have gained sufficient notability to serve as the basis for a Wikipedia article, and the existing content is dire.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  18:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable OR. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The current article content is not in any way related to the few published uses of the term, which is fairly rare anyway, and appears to be pure WP:OR. -- The Anome (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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.