Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Population reduction


 * 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   no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 20:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Population reduction

 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.  —Open4D (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article claims to be about a specific theory which "states that there is a plan to depopulate the world through genocide". No evidence is presented for the existence of such a theory (whether called "Population reduction" or anything else), except as a name coined on Wikipedia for some original research.

There is one sentence hinting at two specific conspiracy theories (regarding AIDS and Swine Flu) that might just be worth forming the start of a List of conspiracy theories alleging deliberate population reduction article, although I wouldn't recommend it. The rest of the article is unsalvagable original research / synthesis. Open4D (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There are countless conspiracy theories in circulation. We should only have articles on those that are notable, as evidenced by significant coverage in relatively mainstream sources. This article does not meet that test.   Will Beback    talk    02:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|15px]] Delete — Possible hoax; not notable. WP:SYNTHESIS/WP:OR all the way; not really WP:NPOV.  m o ɳ o  03:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment There certainly exists a depopulation conspiracy theory and it's being presented by many conspiracy theorists. I also believe there could be presented tenable references to verify its existence. Unfortunately this article doesn't do that. __meco (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Tenable references to verify the existence of a general all-encompassing "Population Reduction Theory"? (One that isn't just an original theory that someone came up with one day?)  At best I have only seen any hint of notability for individual specific conspiracy theories that could go on my hypothetical List of conspiracy theories alleging deliberate population reduction by genocide article, such as Wangari Maathai's (now-retracted) AIDS theory (and even that one was arguably not about an attempt to counter general over-population; it was about an alleged attempt to carry out ethnic cleansing) .  Open4D (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Affirmative. Population reduction by 4/5 or more is allegedly part of the larger Illuminati-Luciferian NWO conspiracy. __meco (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But the article is not about that. It is a (poorly titled) article about "The Population reduction theory", which is claimed to be some sort of general all-encompassing theory of genocidal human population control.  I think this conspiracy theory is original research by the article's creator, and not notable.  Specific conspiracy theories (such as the one you mention, or the AIDS or Swine Flu ones) with coverage in reliable sources probably deserve coverage in Wikipedia but I would argue that this clearly doesn't qualify.  Open4D (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Article lacks cohesion and reliable sources. References 2 and 3 don't support the text, and what the heck does "Genetic use restriction technology" have to do with population reduction?--CurtisSwain (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The article currently has a wild-eyed tone but that just means that it is imperfect. Our editing policy is to improve it, not to cull it.  Such improvement may be done by reference to some of the numerous sources on the topic such as these. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * But what is the topic? Your Google Books link demonstrates the problem quite well; at the time of writing, the top result relates to plant & animal extinction, but the third result seems to be about China's one child policy.  On the other hand, a contributor to the Wikipedia article's talk page added a section linking the term 'Population reduction' to the practice of culling.  And completely apart from any of these more normal usages of the term, the Wikipedia article itself defines the term as a theory which "states that there is a plan to depopulate the world through genocide".  All the text in the article is synthesis in relation to that (seemingly) newly invented definition.  Open4D (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per Warden. -12.7.202.2 (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Search Google news with the word conspiracy added in. There are results.  I added one reference to the AIDS virus conspiracy, from a credible news source, they mentioning government research about depopulation necessary.  Look of books list the conspiracies involving population reduction.    D r e a m Focus  00:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't see any reference for a Population reduction plan conspiracy. Sure, there are AIDS conspiracies, but AIDS does not (as of yet) decrease populations, only slows down growth. So it doesn't belong to this lemma. (At the very least, the article should be renamed "Population reduction theory".) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the summaries that appear from Google news.  Its there.   D r e a m Focus  17:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that the two unique 'Keep' standpoints so far are based on significantly different topics (Colonel Warden's being possibly plant/animal extinction, or human population control, and Dream Focus's being some of the AIDS conspiracy theories) probably actually lends support to my suggested deletion. These are all different topics that deserve to be covered on Wikipedia, but would all be confusing in an article titled just Population reduction.  As for the current text, it would fit well in an article titled An essay about a general all-encompassing conspiracy theory of genocidal population reduction, but such an article should probably be somewhere other than Wikipedia.  (And I don't think anyone will be able to find any Google Books results for that - false positives don't count please.)  Open4D (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and fix it. We have kept lots of badly written articles, and odd stuff, and notable fringe theories.  An article here will assist our core users - students - to do research on this controversy.  It needs more work, more context, more viewpoints, and more and better sources, but it also needs rescue. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But which controversy? An AIDS/genocide conspiracy theory?  Or a less conspiratorial controversy over something like population control or the concept of optimum population?  Or maybe a controversy over the efficacy and ethics of culling?  The discussion page section that I have already mentioned here would imply that the latter type of controversy would be the best (if any) to go on a page called Population reduction, though I am not suggesting that would be the best outcome.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Open4D (talk • contribs) 08:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep there seems to be enough material for an article.  DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 14 May 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.

National Security Study Memorandum 200 is enough justification for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brokendata (talk • contribs) 19:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)