Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophical Investigations (wiki)


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Philosophical Investigations (wiki)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Apparently non-notable website, trivial mention in the Times Higher Education Supplement doesn't establish notability, and a search - a bit difficult given Wittgenstein :-) - turns up virtually nothing, ie I found one mention on a list of websites. . Dougweller (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability not established. Article might have been created because of this page . Mathsci (talk) 09:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  —AllyD (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Completely non-notable wiki with around 5 users. Barely edited, and no claims of notability. How did this last so long? Canterbury Tail   talk  14:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy keep But suit yourselves! Yes, it was this wiki that highlighted the glaciation fraud first. See: http://www.philosophical-investigations.org/Himalayas

and

"2009-12-20 03:39:09  Himalayan Glaciers Not Melting

[WWW]http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/himalayan-glaciers-not-melting

According to a report in the journal Science, “several Western experts who have conducted studies in the region agree with Raina's nuanced analysis—even if it clashes with IPCC's take on the Himalayas.” The “extremely provocative” findings “are consistent with what I have learned independently,” says Jeffrey S. Kargel, a glaciologist at the University of Arizona, Tucson. Many glaciers in the Karakoram Mountains, on the border of India and Pakistan, have “stabilized or undergone an aggressive advance,” he says, citing new evidence gathered by a team led by Michael Bishop, a mountain geomorphologist at the University of Nebraska.

Having recently returned from an expedition to K2, one of the highest peaks in the world, Canadian glaciologist Kenneth Hewitt says he observed five advancing glaciers and only a single one in retreat. Such evidence “challenges the view that the upper Indus glaciers are ‘disappearing’ quickly and will be gone in 30 years,” said Hewitt. “There is no evidence to support this view and, indeed, rates of retreat have been less in the past 30 years than the previous 60 years.”

Other researchers and noted experts have raised their voices in support of Raina's conclusions. According to Himalayan glacier specialist John “Jack” Shroder, the only possible conclusion is that IPCC's Himalaya assessment got it “horribly wrong.” The University of Nebraska researcher adds, “They were too quick to jump to conclusions on too little data —PerigGouanvic"

These deletionists are part of the 'Global Warming users group'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemtpm (talk • contribs) 22:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think you have the wrong page, we are discussing what is clearly a non-notable website, and although the article may have been created simply to forward your point of view, if it is deleted it will have nothing to do with that and everything to do with our guidelines on notability. Dougweller (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just noticed your edit summary, "We know where you live!", a phrase that is normally used as a threat. Please explain what you meant. Dougweller (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * Oh, for God's sakes, don't turn this into a soapbox. This makes some of the less vocal skeptics (including myself) look bad. Also, delete per above.--WaltCip (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Insufficiently notable Wiki. AllyD (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails the notability criteria of WP:WEB, which sets out what is needed for a website to be considered notable.  In short, the policy requires the website's content to have been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself..."  The policy specifically mentions that press releases, advertising and newspaper articles that merely mention the website are not considered "non-trivial".  Social networking sites and blogs are not "published works".  If the website hasn't been subject of such published works, it can still be notable if it a) has won a notable award or b) it is distributed by a respected, independent medium independent of its creators.  Social networking sites and blogs are specifically excluded from the last criteria.  This website does not pass come close to meeting any of the three notability limbs of WP:WEB. Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No significant coverage. Pcap ping  21:54, 15 February 2010 (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.