Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have expressed views relating to overpopulation being a problem


 * 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

List of people who have expressed views relating to overpopulation being a problem

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This topic does not meet WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom, these sources are not reliable and obviously biased.  Jay  Jay What did I do? 18:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SALAT. This list is just too broad and too trivial, on a par with List of people who have expressed the view that war is bad or List of people who have expressed a preference for dogs over cats. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, I was the person that compiled the article and as far as Bias is concerned I would be as happy to include all references the four mentioned in the article, ,  &  and also any from opposing factions such as from The Truth magazine or from activistpost.com.  If editors here  are happy with the credibility of the organisations concerned and that they are not connected organisations then that sounds good.  The main issue here is notability both of the people listed and that many of their quotes mentioned are frequently used time and time again.  As far as the organisations that compiled the quotations I know that both the Population Institute Canada and Population Matters have large patrons boards that would be the envy of many research/advocacy groups who all have their own Wikipedia pages. PIC patrons PM patrons.  They are notable organisations and I had hoped that the notability of the others would be shown by their content.
 * Admittedly there is a difficulty with the searchability of the title. Population concern advocates or whatever you want to call them don't have easy to use terminology like “environmentalist”.  If anyone has views on a less cumbersome a name for the article that would be welcome.  It is a notable topic with people on both sides of the argument compiling notable quotes from notable people. Gregkaye (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Trivial? The topic has so much controversy that some of the people mentioned have had to really go out on limbs and leave organisations to express them. Gregkaye (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Overpopulation is not trivial. A list of people expressing their views about it (or pollution or prostitution or religion ...) is. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Should we create "List of people who have expressed views relating to cats being a problem" next?, In all seriousness I'm failing to see the whole point of this article.... – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  22:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A problem with cats is never be likely to drive people to starvation or to drive down water table levels to dangerous levels. Away from the world where some people have the fortune to have the spare time to edit Wikipedia others are increasingly pushed into struggle for survival lifestyles. They face unnecessary difficulties that, amongst other things, reduce their chances of education and betterment. Its fine if you do not think that the issue of population is important or that it has as little importance as an issue with cats. And perhaps that's where there is a difference. For me the notability thing is the lack of political attention that is given to the issue of population. Many senior scientists and leaders in their fields say that population is a centrally important issue for all our futures and yet so few senior political figures take on the issue as their responsibility. Peoples of various regions of the world are coming finding it increasingly hard to feed themselves while persisting with unsustainable birthrates that will quite likely end in famine or war. Please don't trivialise this with talk about cats. Gregkaye (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you ever heard of Sarcasm? ... The cat thing was just that... – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  23:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No one is disputing the notability of overpopulation as an issue of concern. It's this list that isn't notable or encyclopedic. Tchaliburton (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow that's great news and I really wish it was true. Its astounding how little support the issue has got and how much resistance has been given in various areas of environmentalism.  Cats have been mentioned twice here for no apparent reason.  I know that you have heard of serious issues and population's one of them.  And there is a notable gap between the conclusions on the topic of some of the worlds leading thinkers and our responses across our societies. Gregkaye (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Now you're invoking WP:SOAPBOX. It's not even a contentious topic. Everybody agrees overpopulation is a problem. We just don't need a list of people reiterating the obvious. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - No indication of the importance.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete — Per nom & several above. Topic is not notable.  List serves no real purpose and does not contribute significantly to the encyclopedia. —&#160;&#160;  &#160;&#160;Bill W.&#160;&#160;  &#160;&#160; (Talk)&#160;&#160;(Contrib)&#160;&#160; (User:Wtwilson3) &#160;&#160;— 17:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ho hum, but see Environmentalist for an similarly meaningless list. Gregkaye (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry If I'm a bit dense here but that link is a list within an article .... This AFD article is just one huge list of meaningless crap?... – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  22:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That list is indeed within an article, where there is a lot more context for the list and, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aside, people are often known for their environmentalist views while simply expressing a view is rarely notable. The subject of this AfD notes people like Confucious, whose contribution was "Excessive (population) growth may reduce output per worker, repress levels of living for the masses and engender strife," at a time when the world's population was 1/2000 of what it is now. The views expressed by those in this list need context, which the list doesn't provide. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment It looks like the likely deletion of this article is being circumvented by some edits to population. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted the changes and asked the editor to begin a discussion on the talk page so a consensus could be reached. —&#160;&#160; &#160;&#160;Bill W.&#160;&#160;  &#160;&#160; (Talk)&#160;&#160;(Contrib)&#160;&#160; (User:Wtwilson3) &#160;&#160;— 17:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. Utterly subjective list with no logical inclusion parameters. Carrite (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The topic is far from trivial, but ... being associated somehow with an issue does not make a coherent list.  My suggestion is to limit the scope of the list, perhaps to something along the lines of Notable population control activists. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete This allows for totally unrelated to notability inclusion, and it is unclear what a view would be. If someone say "overpopulation could never be a problem" do they get included? If they said it once at a bar, and it was reported in a gossip rag do we include it?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2014 (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.