Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voluntary Human Extinction 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Not sure, but if Steve Pavlina was removed, maybe this one fails the notability criterias too. --Taraborn 20:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Notable world recognsied movement. Article presennt in four diferent languages (thus far). Please see Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. This article could use attention and cleanup.--ZayZayEM 02:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Manik Raina 09:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable movement attracting continuing press attention - the latest 7th March. MSNBC TV appearances etc... clearly show this group is notable and that a well referenced article can be written. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if more resource, otherwise BJAODN.SYSS Mouse 13:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if all additional sources found are added to the article Alf^Photoman 15:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. VHEMT has been around for some time, I remember running in to them years ago. The article is in need of sourcing however. I just added one, in fact, but it could stand some more work - no reason to delete it though. Arkyan 16:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep MSNBC cite goes a long way toward satisfying sourcing. Also video journalism, like print journalism, is just as valid as cites you can click and view. The question is: "is it reliable, verifiable and persistent?" It does not need to be convenient. Edivorce 18:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per everyone else.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems notable. Frankly, I think they're smoking some serious crack cocaine, but hey, I'll let 'em do their thing. --Dennisthe2 22:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Personally, I wouldn't mind if they made themselves extinct, but they've gotten enough cable-news attention to make them notable, if nutty. Realkyhick 23:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. seems notable--Fang 23 20:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote It's odd. I've seen it on many places down here, but not as an organized movement. An article about the principle, instead of the movement, would be more notable. 201.84.18.140 12:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Well put, something to chew on. --Dennisthe2 16:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - it is about the principle, which this fellow ("Les") called a movement. But whatever.
• KEEP - event though I'm not logged in. I wouldn't bother except that I added the comment above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.232.51.243 (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• KEEP --Crocadog 20:09, 19 March 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.