A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 31, 2013 and October 31, 2015.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

International development Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International development, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of international development, including such areas as appropriate technology, microfinance and social issues, on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International developmentWikipedia:WikiProject International developmentTemplate:WikiProject International developmentInternational development articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Following up on their Social Media Bootcamp, we were contacted by the UNFPA about ways to get this article started, in ethical keeping with our guidelines. I have given them some advice about NPOV and encyclopedic style, which I believe they have made a good-faith effort to implement here. Of course, Wikipedians can and should scrutinize this article to more fully ensure that it adheres to all of the right standards!-- Pharos ( talk) 01:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm proposing that most of Day of Seven Billion be merged into this article, with the (small amount of) actual science from that article merged into a Population article, probably Projections of population growth. The notability of the day is entirely due to the action campaign, rather than any underlying facts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Hmmm. The 7 Billion ACtions page recieved only about 5% of the Day of 7 Billion's pageviews on the 31st. Also, see Day of 5 Billion and Day of 6 Billion, I don't remember any "X Billion Actions" planned for them? Buggie111 ( talk) 19:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC) reply

The Day of Five Billion and The Day of Six Billion stubs should be merged into United Nations Population Fund; there's hardly anything there. The Day of Seven Billion probably should be merged somewhere, but it has (inappropriate, as estimated in July 2010) world population estimates, and other material which probably should be somewhere. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. Both articles have been grown to reasonably large texts and the subjects and content is reasonably independent. Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC) reply

  They're reasonably large texts not related to the subject.

  1. The July 2010 population statistics probably should be somewhere, but clearly not at Day of Seven Billion.
  2. The "Choice of Date" should be at United Nations Population Fund or "United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division"; the alternative actual estimated dates belong in Projections of population growth, as do similar discussions at The Day of Six Billion.
  3. The wikitable at the right needs to be fixed (the article says that USCB predicted 2012 for 7 billion), and should probably follow either the UN organization or somewhere in Population growth.
  4. The first chart at the right fails WP:NOTNEWS; it's appropriate as of the time the chart was generated, but even past population may change significantly.

  That doesn't leave much that belongs at that topic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC) reply

  • By this logic you may dismantle every third wikipedia article, I am afraid. However I do agree with some of your points. At the same time the 7G Day artile lacks of somke directly relevant content. For example, many counties declared their own 7G Baby. I will add this. Staszek Lem ( talk) 15:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Staszek Lem ( talk) 15:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose Per Staszek Lem's above comment, the dismantling goes to the extremes and still would leave text that probably would be big enough for DYK. I also agree that the symbolic baby ID's should be added. Buggie111 ( talk) 18:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 7 Billion Actions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{ dead link}} tag to http://www.unfpa.org/public/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111024144450/http://www.7billionactions.org:80/about to http://www.7billionactions.org/about
• Added {{ dead link}} tag to http://www.unfpa.org/public/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply