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

Michelle Regalado Deatrick

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

I do not think this woman is notable. 🄻 🄰 11:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Poetry, Environment, and Michigan. 🄻 🄰 11:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete assuming that members of county boards of commissioners are not considered inherently notable. Regardless, article is massively promotional and refbombed with all manner of fluff pieces and non-independent sources (e.g. her organization's social media pages). If kept, should be reduced to a stub. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

G. Sundarrajan

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

No indication of the subject meeting WP:GNG. I am unable to find sufficient coverage from independent sources. JTtheOG (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Environment, and Tamil Nadu. JTtheOG (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic does not adhere WP:GNG and it lacks WP:SIGCOV in multiple reliable resources. B-Factor (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Nepal earthquakes

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. A google search also doesn't bring up any especially deep coverage. Creator submitted a draft to AFC which I declined on the same basis. Article already says no major damage or casualties were reported. A large portion of the article also fails to discuss the main subject rather, an overview of Himalaya tectonics. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article provides valuable information about the event, highlighting its importance of Himalayan tectonics and seismic activity. While there were no major casualties or damages, the event holds importance in understanding the region's geological behavior. The article goes beyond just reporting the event; it connects it to scientific studies and ongoing discussions about seismic risks in the Himalayas. Such information is crucial for researchers, students, and anyone interested in the region’s geology, making the article a useful and relevant resource for Wikipedia readers. NAUser0001 (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NAUser0001 then why don't you work on Geology of the Himalayas. Because the earthquake doesn't seem to be the main subject. Wikipedia is not the place to have entries for such minor events Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a response that isn't obviously made by AI. Thanks. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:22, 2 January 2025 (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/2025 January 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Nepal. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:EVENT. Dawnseeker2000 19:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, The earthquake is only 5.3 plus no major damage and casualities Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Water Project

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

This article about a non-profit is currently only sourced to the organisation's own website and to a BBC article that provides a WP:PASSING mention that a group of hackers donated money to the organisation. The only other sources I was able to find were a WP:HUFFPOCON op-ed by the organisation's CEO [1], a WP:MEDIUM interview with the CEO [2], and a few press releases like these [3] [4], none of which would be considered independent. It was also featured in the 'nonprofit spotlight' section of Philanthropy News Digest in 2018 [5], but this seems more like a repackaging of information from their website rather than anything that could be considered SIGCOV. Overall it seems like an charity that's doing great work, but I don't see anything that suggests it meets WP:NONPROFIT. MCE89 (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Africa. MCE89 (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unicef and various giving websites mention this project, but nothing for RS we can use. Sourcing in the article is primary, so not helping notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Did a big search and couldn't find anything independent to satisfy WP:GNG Waterfelt (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Westchester County tornado

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

Wow, I've never AfD'd an FA before. Anyways, this tornado is not notable as there was no coverage past a few days after the event, with one mention three months after the event, too low for a tornado in my opinion. Fails my criteria as well. If this article were to be made today, I'm 100% sure it would no longer exist. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NEVENT and there is no WP:LASTING coverage. It's rarity, much like its rating, means absolutely nothing if no sources consistently talk about. Notability concerns were also brought up during the FAC, so I'm not sure how it passed. E_F⁵ 04:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. E_F⁵ 04:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It got a lot of coverage at the time of the event and still gets mentioned as a notable NY State/Northeast tornado after many years (for example, here, here, here, here, and here). Plus, this isn't a crappily written stub, it's an FA, so there's some readable text there (though it looks like it needs some updatilng), and if it's even a close call, I'd rather preserve the content. Plus, all the reviewers at FAC (and GA and any peer review) must have thought that it was notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't consider any of those sources WP:INDEPTH. An article's class has little to do with it's notability in this case; the article was FACed in 2008 and standards... weren't as high back then. Was going to take it to FAR but realized it likely isn't even notable. This isn't the first time a tornado GA/FA has been at a delete/merge venue, see this discussion which almost ended with a GA being merged. E_F⁵ 13:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom – Whilst the article is an FA, most of the coverage occurred during the initial aftermath of the tornado, with none of the sources presented above, or those from a search, including continued significant or in-depth coverage of the event. Optionally, a merge to Tornadoes of 2006#July 11–12 is a possibility. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Although some news coverage still exists, it is mostly in the form of "tornadoes in New York are rare" or something along that line, and not much about the actual tornado.

the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no lasting significant coverage. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting since we are considering deleting an FA. Also, there is a proposal to Merge this article which needs due consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Environment proposed deletions