Why is it deleted? It's sourced – redirect to Criticism of the IPCC AR4#Projected date of melting of Himalayan glaciers edit

I'm kind of fascinated by the way people try to keep unpleasant stuff out of the Wikipedia by all means. Even a redirect that is sourced by a lot of WP:RS sources is deleted:

News sources edit

See a lot more at Google News

Blogs edit

  • Heritage Foundation
    Government’s Out-of-Step Agitprop on Global Warming "include Climategate, Glaciergate,"
    Rapidly Melting Credibility "There is another lesson from Glaciergate — it is high time to retire the distinction between the “skeptics” and the “consensus science.” All along, several so-called skeptics have complained about the Himalayan hyperbole. As is typical, they were denigrated as outliers or even kooks for doing so. As recently as a few weeks ago, Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC, derided such critiques as “voodoo science,” until he reluctantly had to admit they were true."
  • American Thinker: IPCC: International Pack of Climate Crooks "And "Glaciergate" opened the floodgates to other serious misrepresentations in AR4, including a boatload of additional non-peer-reviewed projections pulled directly from WWF reports."

Redirect to Criticism of the IPCC AR4#Projected date of melting of Himalayan glaciers edit

All these sources indicates very strongly that this term should be an article in itself, or at least be a redirect to either:

or

I propose Criticism_of_the_IPCC_AR4#Projected_date_of_melting_of_Himalayan_glaciers. If no one objects strongly with valid arguments I will create the redirect. Nsaa (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for undeleting this article. It is hard to see why a term as widely used as this, is denied a Wikipedia page, and it invites criticism that Wikipedia is not neutral on the climate change topic. --Pakaraki (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Reply