Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Procreation Movement

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. Whatever merging one might choose to do would be minimal mentions, and would not really require attribution to this article (One should use a reliable source for the mention, of course.) Xoloz 15:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Procreation Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

self-promoting article about a non-notable organization, the so-called Anti-Procreation Movement. The media references aren't about this specific organization, but about other organizations with a similar agenda. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)*[reply]

• Delete per WP:RS. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Man It's So Loud In Here 19:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Is the creation of this article counter to the concept of Anti-procreation? I've learned that the three categories of human existence are survival, boredom and entertainment. Now that I know that, what am I going to do?

Maybe you can merge this back into Arthur Schopenhauer. Mandsford 00:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above and merge anything useful and referenced to Arthur Schopenhauer. Dbromage [Talk] 00:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete + Partial Merge This seems to be related to the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement or Zero-population growth movement. Where most VHEM groups are radical environmentalists this group seems to be radical followers of Schopenhauer. I would add mention of it to the VHEM page but I don't think it really needs its own page. Jmm6f488 05:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested above. The major source, the NYT article, is not actually about the subject, just about those who do not wish to have children for whatever reason, or subsidize those who do--which is a much less drastic matter entirely.DGG (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2007 (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.