Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Nominator has withdrawn but this debate has been open long enough and has enough participation for a "keep" close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

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

Couldn't see any reliable secondary sources when searching. I know it's been mentioned in a couple interviews, but an bringing it here to decide if that is sufficient notability. Pirate^Argh!!1! 05:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(WITHDRAWN!!! ) This is probably going to be a waste of time. Withdraw the nomination and someone else can re-nominate for deletion if they like. One of the steps failed when I did the auto AFD so this might not be listed on one of the other pages it's supposed to be listed on. Pirate^Argh!!1! 06:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I withdrew the nomination, it's an obvious keep. Pirate^Argh!!1! 05:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP

I agree with those who voted to "Keep" the VHEMT Article in the first AfD discussion (March 15-21, 2007).

The current Nominator (User: Pirate) appears to have withdrawn his AfD nomination. Therefore, I simply propose (only a suggestion) that this discussion be closed-----with the final finding of "Result is to keep the article Voluntary Human Extinction Movement."

Does the VHEMT Article comply with WP:VERIFY / WP:RELIABLE / WP:NOTE? My findings are that the Article does comply; therefore said Article does not merit deletion. Yet, regarding my findings, I welcome the evaluation of an Administrator.

Attention Administrator:

If needed, "Please" consider assigning the VHEMT Article to WP:RESCUE. My thoughts are that it's better to save said Article through editing (Administrator suggestions are most welcomed)-----whereas, deletion is a "last resort option".

Disclosure. I have made significant contributions to this Article and I monitor it daily against vandalism.
Skyeking (talk) 09:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will contact the nominator, as it seems to be listed correctly now. Ged UK 11:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does seem to be lack of third party reporting. There appear top be just three sources, so I'm not sure its that notable. Im would like to see a bit more notability, and less reliance on thier own material.Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - but we need less reliance on the subject's own website, and more solid sourcing to actual external sources. We also need to stop the obvious case of WP:OWN which Skyeking is displaying. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...What is this? Seriously? Strong delete. Wrightchr (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please do make sure you check the article over the next few days. There's plenty of news coverage between to establish notability (from CBS, Fox, Discovery, the Independent, and MSNBC). Between me adding references and trying to clean up the prose and Orangemike's diligent removal of poorly sourced material, I think it's already much improved, at least in terms of proper sourcing. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Who's the nominator at this point? Looks like Pirate wanted to withdraw, did someone else pick up the ball? --Nuujinn (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe this organization will never reach any real traction, and rightfully so. However, it still has more sources than a lot of other articles, and it is given in a neutral point of view. The notability of this organization is not great, but not bad, considering the fact that it has had multiple interviews and media attention in the past. I would also like to make it clear that the absence of sources is not an issue here. There are sources here, and even if there are a lot of primary sources, there are plenty of other articles that suffer from far worse PR-style writing. I feel this article should be kept, and I would like to know what the rationale for deletion is -- my belief is it is the cult-like purpose of this organization that has turned wikipedians to disgust --and that is not at all a fair rationale for deletion, mind you.--Screwball23 talk 03:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The AFD was made in good faith--when I looked at the article a few days ago, almost all of the inline references went to the org's website. As you say, sourcing is not a problem to do, it just wasn't done. I'll be working on this the next couple of days, so I'd request that anyone who's voted already, take another look later this week. Thanks! --Nuujinn (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to Nuujinn's good work, the notability of the topic is immediately evident. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The general outcome for articles with lots of good sources is to keep them, people known for one event being the only exception. We keep lots of fringe theories and odd stuff here. Bearian (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable shows have featured the founder of this movement speaking of it, as listed in the article. Clicking the Google news link, you see many major news sources mention the movement there. Dream Focus 06:55, 30 April 2010 (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.