Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Populationist


 * 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. Black Kite 20:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Populationist

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable. Original author is a single purpose account (SPA) that has created a whole circle of articles to create the illusion of notability, which are all included in this AFD. No citations, new terms (NEO), etc. I have already trimmed out all the dupicate external links and the multitude of vague SEE ALSOs, but in the end, I just don't this passing policy. P HARMBOY ( TALK ) 15:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC) 1. Although I've been on Wikipedia a long time I'm not on it enough to be familiar with this AFD or where I'm supposed to respond - the instructions for response to AFD are not at all clear so I would appreciate some guidance if this edit is not appropriate. 2. My entries were not an attempt to create any kind of "circular" link to imitate notoriety or "advertise" - populationist, Wilderness Defense!, and those issues in general are very much related. Wendell, himself, was a Colorado activist of some notoriety due to his involvement in regional controversies related to the environment. Additionally, he's currently heard throughout much of Colorado on his own radio broadcasts at KGNU. 3. Wilderness Defense! was a Colorado nonprofit/charitable corporation that was formally and legally dissolved sometime in the early 2000s - it would seem fitting that information regarding its past existence, history and philosophy, remain accessible through Wikipedia. 5. In my entries I believed I had "sourced" most of this with links to each major subject or website. I would appreciate your guidance (or just a couple of examples!) on how better to source and reference each if what I've already entered doesn't meet with your satisfaction.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by LindaKaySmith (talk • contribs) 04:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Note I redirected one of the 2 articles that had identical content, keeping the one with more external links for convenience.12:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable walled garden. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable term, with vague definition and trying to tie together disparate ideas. Third party independant sources are needed to show notability: the links to the homepages show it is verifiable (ie, it exists) but not that it is important beyond this circle. Papers from sociological journals using the term would be ideal, and national newspaper articles about the people or organisation. The creator sounds in good faith, so maybe userfy, if he want more time to find sources.Yobmod (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2008 (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.