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. Kurykh (talk) 06:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Wittgenstein[edit]

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

Title of an anthology, used to make a title for an amorphous movement. As the article says, "There is no unitary "New Wittgenstein" interpretation" DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In other news, people are struggling to interpret obscure texts. Stop the presses. It might be possible to have an article about the book "The New Wittgenstein", because at least that's an actual, well-defined thing that stands a chance at being somewhat notable, but that's not what the article purports to do. I'd blow it up and see if someone wants to refocus on the book. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 15:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This content could perhaps augment slightly the "Interpreters" subsection of the "Legacy" section of the Ludwig Wittgenstein page itself, but I don't think it stands well on its own. XOR'easter (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2017 (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.