Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Environment

WP:DSENVIRONMENT

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Environment. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Environment|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Environment. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Environment/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Environment

Brad Farmer

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There has been a lot of IP nonsense in the history of this article, so while I agree with the IP's PROD, I think this merits an AFD. Farmer has been cited, but since OA isn't sufficient I don't see WP:BIO level coverage Star Mississippi 21:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Australia. Star Mississippi 21:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looking at the sources currently in the article there is borderline notability. Online I have also found quite a bit that can also contribute towards WP:GNG ([1][2][3][4]). I will add what I can to the article. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have semi'ed the article due to the blanking, but not this discussion. If someone feels I should not have done so as nom, feel free to amend. Star Mississippi 00:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The World Challenge (competition)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a business competition, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for business competitions. The main notability claim on offer here is that this existed, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself -- making this notable enough for a Wikipedia article would be a matter of showing that it passed WP:GNG on its sourceability, not merely of stating its existence. But the only source here is the self-published website of the thing itself, rather than any evidence of third-party coverage about it, and a Google search didn't find much else.
I'm willing to withdraw this if a British editor with much better access to archived British media coverage from 15-20 years ago than I've got can find the sourcing needed to salvage it, but it can't just be kept in perpetuity without sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Events, Environment, and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can’t find any third party coverage, the competition itself seems to have fizzled out in 2008/9, and there doesn’t seem to be any sources talking about it as having happened at any point after it stopped. Can’t seem to turn up further coverage on the winners either, so THEY don’t seem to be notable either… Absurdum4242 (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SouthSouthNorth

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG. No in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. C F A 💬 01:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and South Africa. C F A 💬 01:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of storms named Hugo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD undone by author. WP:NLIST not met here. Did a search and could only find Hurricane Hugo as the main topic. Although it is a WP:SETINDEX, it is still required to meet the notability requirements of a WP:STANDALONE. Conyo14 (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as author. Harmless storm index article. It seems that the nominator isn't at all familiar with these types of pages (and I've created numerous SIA's). The name Hugo has been used in more than one basin, so the name perfectly qualifies for a storm index article; and there's a strong possibility that it gets re-used in the future since it has been included in the list of names for the 2024–25 European windstorm season. No valid reasons for deletion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SIAs don't have to be a notable topic themselves but may be a list of topics that are notable on their own.

Noah, BSBA^Talk 14:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEOTHER - the 1989 hurricane is very obviously the primary topic. Hatnotes linking the two pages should do the job. Java Hurricane 18:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm aware of WP:SETNOTDAB, and it doesn't change my view: where a SIA consists of only two entities, where one is clearly the primary topic (and in this case, the other entity, the 2018 windstorm, doesn't even have its own article), hatnotes are a more efficient method of handling the situation than a full-fledged list. And as for Yoris's argument, WP:CRYSTAL applies - future systems sharing the name can be handled at the time they actually happen.

On a side note, I'm interested in knowing why a SIA about systems of the same name is not, in practice, a disambiguation page. Java Hurricane 19:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support hatnotes if it weren't common practice to create a storm index with only two entries. See Category:Set index articles on storms, which is filled with lists containing only two entries (e.g. List of storms named Andrew, List of storms named Beta, List of storms named Evelyn, etc.), so for consistency's sake this one should be kept as well. And I hate making a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, but I just couldn't avoid it. Also, I don't think the winter storm is relevant enough for mentioning at the Hurricane Hugo article (not even as a hatnote), since hurricanes and winter storms are completely different weather systems, and it would be odd for someone to confuse them both. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the latter point there also exist counterexamples - such as 1935 Labor Day hurricane's hatnote. Don't think it is even that odd to confuse tropical and non-tropical cyclones - the term "storm" can be quite ambiguous for an uninitiated reader. On the former point, I repeat my previous question. Java Hurricane 12:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But that's likely because the 1935 hurricane is unnamed (i.e. has no official name), and was named "Labor Day" because it made landfall on that exact date. However, I see no counterexamples for storms that have official names, at least none that I could find. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per javahurrincae Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cyclone Yoris and Noah - don’t see any valid reasons for deletion. Absurdum4242 (talk) 05:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are three topics in the SIA. Tavantius (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDGE of Existence programme

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I noticed while editing the following article, that the two overlap significantly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDGE_species. I propose housing the EDGE methodology and the programme under one article. Oignonne (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Environment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge EDGE species to EDGE of Existence programme: Not enough material to warrant two articles, but neither fails GNG. Narrower topic should be merged into the broader topic. UtherSRG (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. asilvering (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hairshirt environmentalism

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dicdef expanded into an essay, poorly sourced; fails WP:N — The Anome (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be copied from the Virgin Design Page source, with no other verification. The USA Today page is no longer accessible. Not listed at all in Wiktionary. The creating editor only made one other edit, and it was not related to this subject. — Maile (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I would recommend a regular delete and not speedy delete, as it could be rolled back, and so a copyvio averted. Regular delete vote here is more definitive than a speedy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for advice - changed to regular Delete — Maile (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like a neologism that hasn't really caught on, should be captured as a neologism. Sadads (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2024 (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.

Laboratory for Energy-Related Health Research Superfund Site

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to establish notability. None of the article's sources appear independent of the subject, and are thus not reliable enough to support a claim of notability. A quick check before the nomination did not turn up any other sources with significant coverage which would help. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and California. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping for AfC reviewer Garsh2. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The following articles exist:[5] [6][7]. The first two constitute significant coverage. The third is a passing mention but worth noting nonetheless. Additionally, I would argue some the government sources in the article may be secondary, as well as number 5. Garsh (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Garsh2: I saw the California Aggie article in my search but did not mention it here as that publication is a campus newspaper run by students at UC Davis; see their Instagram profile. The Sacramento Bee article looks good, but I'm highly skeptical of the reliability of ToxicSites (citation 5), and I'm not sure if the government sources are independent enough to count towards notability as the site seems to be managed by the US Department of Energy. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ten Million Club Foundation

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is almost entirely written by someone who admits to a close connection with the subject, and the sources are all either articles about overpopulation in general, or from the foundation itself. So, I think it should be deleted due to lack of notability and potentially acting like an advertisement.Felix Croc (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I knew I missed something in the process :P Felix Croc (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: I think the same, the article is written as an advertisement and with unreliable sources, YouTube is not a credible and permitted reference. Alon9393 (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't you be voting delete then? LibStar (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User has been indefinitely banned from WP. gidonb (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since passing NORG. The references at Nlwiki, Delpher, and Google Books are substantial and sufficient for NORG. gidonb (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is NORG Felix Croc (talk) 13:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since when is notability on another wiki a good criterion? I got an article I made myself deleted when I used that reasoning Felix Croc (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NORG is the same of WP:ORG. The other question does not make sense. It's like asking a random person why the Earth is flat. gidonb (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thoro augh discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Three of the four sources in the article are not reliable. The sources recently indicated aren’t either. That leaves one single source (Tamburino & Bravo, 2001). Even without reading it, this last source is a primary source and not directly about the actual subject of the page herein. In sum, that means this page is essentially original research, which is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia and something that we have never published. Bearian (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gidonb above and this page is a nice entry in Wikipedia's overpopulation collection. The topic is of value, and sourcing seems adequate to keep it around as a page needing a couple more references. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skagit Environmental Endowment Commission

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP for not having significant coverage of independent, reliable sources for verification. Cassiopeia talk 00:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 00:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think with enough digging that sources could be coughed up. I have three sources ([8][9][10]) but they might be WP:PRIMARY or may not do enough coverage of the topic at hand. ✶Qux yz ✶ 00:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is kept, I might work on improving this article. ✶Qux yz ✶ 00:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Narwhal reference is excellent! I can't see the text of the Seattle Times one. See also this article in BC Studies. It's hard to imagine that a binational commission with jurisdiction on the environment wouldn't be notable. Nfitz (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Environment proposed deletions