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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Environment.

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[edit]

Myth of superabundance[edit]

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

Term was coined by Stewart Udall in his book 'Quiet Crisis' and seems to be restricted to that and then article was heavily beset by WP:OR and lacking ins sources outside of original research. I believe that the content that remains would find a better home on the Stewart Udall page itself as a subsection or as a brief mention beside his published works. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Samoht27 (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination, WP:ONESOURCE. Orange sticker (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zwartbosch Private Nature Reserve[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, tagged since 2019 Greenman (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find any sources other than maps and Tripadvisor listings. Does not meet [WP:GNG]] nor WP:CORP. LizardJr8 (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of books about waste management and recycling[edit]

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

A list of a few books about Waste management and recycling. Nothing to show that such a list has any intrinsic notability. Sources are for lists of books or links to google pages or library pages featuring specific books. The real bibliography for this topic would run to many thousands of books. This is a very small sub-set weith no indication that they are particulalrly relevant etc. There is a chance the list might be notable if the list was of notable books, but it isn't. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's Recycling#Further_reading with a selected bibliography, and Waste management is welcome to have one too. If you're just looking for a list of books, use Google or your library's card catalog, not whatever this is. Reywas92^Talk 22:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Lists of technical books shows other list like this, but the things listed have their own articles. This one has no articles for any of the books listed, and only two for authors, one of which is Carl A. Zimring with no signs of notability. Dream Focus 20:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ion Exchange (India) Ltd[edit]

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

fails WNCORP , no sufficient reliable sources, nor general notability BoraVoro (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Environment, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am ready to update the article based on your suggestions. Please let me know what changes are required on the page Akhare 2024 (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have added some more citations to the page Akhare 2024 (talk) 05:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WNCORP. Bakhtar40 (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon Trade Exchange[edit]

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

Article was created evading a salting. No real evidence of notability - none of the sources provide in-depth, independent coverage * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Environment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP/WP:SIRS. On WP:LIBRARY all available sources are press releases, like those already representing most of the sources in the article. Jfire (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Clarkson floods[edit]

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

This event does not meet WP:NEVENTS. This is only a minor flood with minor damage and no injuries. This will not have a lasting effect. Steelkamp (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Steelkamp (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom. No lasting impact to meet WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. LibStar (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not seem to be the sort of event with enduring notability. – Teratix ₵ 09:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant event that took place in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.189.11.78 (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being "significant" is not a criterion for notability. You need to demonstrate how it meets WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is significant about it? Will people care about it in ten years? – Teratix ₵ 07:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Clarkson, Western Australia per nom's rationale. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 06:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:EVENTCRIT: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Not a particularly notable natural disaster. AusLondonder (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as with many unfortunate incidents or minor disasters, relevance is typically limited to the affected region/country. Without WP:SUSTAINED coverage, ideally internationally, there is no demonstrating it has a WP:LASTING effect and therefore, cannot be adjusted to be notable. I wouldn't object a condensed version being merged into Clarkson, Western Australia. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I object as well to merging with Clarkson, Western Australia. The floods covered more than just Clarkson. The article claims that Clarkson, Butler, Joondalup, Currambine, Ridgewood and Mindarie were all flooded or at least received warnings. I still think a straight up delete would be the best course of action. Steelkamp (talk) 10:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I also oppose merge. LibStar (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was more thinking that I would not have any particular concerns if it were mentioned it in an article relevant to the region, rather than a full-on entire merge (hence "condensed version"). I am not familiar with the geography of the region, but appreciate that if it affected multiple places, then mentioning in only one article would not always be appropriate (although the title of the article itself mentions Clarkson, so this seemed to be the worst affected I would imagine).

Fundamentally, my preference is in agreement to delete, which I !voted for. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Floods in Australia - I agree that its not notable on its own, and that it shouldn't be redirected/merged with the Clarkson article, but there is another reasonable redirect target --DannyS712 (talk) 07:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even mentioned on that list, and why should it be? It's not a very significant flood. – Teratix ₵ 07:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, 11 days after the flood and no one is talking about it anymore. It has been out of the news since 1 day after the flood. This flood simply is not very signficant. Steelkamp (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect And add to Floods in Australia, per DannyS712.12.11.109.231 (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Way Out with Jurriaan Kamp[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 12:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Environment, and Netherlands. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The network it's on, EarthX, doesn't have an article; it does have some distribution on major pay-TV systems in the US, but like other channels like AWE, it's basically a dumping ground for vanity project environmental documentaries even Tubi can't bother to deal with like this show. The WP:SPAness doesn't help here, either. Nate • (chatter) 23:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm probably going to end up agreeing with the Delete vote, although I'm still looking to see if there's more sources, but I feel like I have to point out that the fact that the network it's on (EarthX) doesn't have an article is not a valid reason for deletion. The network actually looks like it could easily have an article, as there's a lot of secondary sources reporting on it. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Little Rock tornado[edit]

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

Article was not at all ready for mainspace and it currently fails WP:LASTING. Practically the entire article is a direct copy and paste from the meteorological synopsis and damage summary for this tornado in Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023. This article was created by me, in draftspace, doing a direct copy/paste of the damage summary so I could locate LASTING impacts (14,000 bytes). In this edit an anonymous user copy/pasted the entire meteorological synopsis section from the outbreak article (11,000 bytes). To note, the article is only 26,000 bytes. The entire article is a CONTENTFORK copy/paste, which was not ready for mainspace at all and was being edited by SOCKS. Either delete or draftify back like it was, but it clearly should not be an article right now. As a second note, the draft was submitted to AFC by a user who had not edited the article at all. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 13:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to draft Why didn't you just move back to draft? This was unnecessary. ChessEric 06:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChessEric: If it was moved rather than deleted, I would want it as a userspace draft not actual draftspace. The issue here is in the draftspace, SOCKS (both Andrew5 & Lokicat) find it and try to "improve it", plus even if it wasn't pure anonymous SOCKS involved, there is copyright issues involved (due to the copy/pasting mess) and people were able to get it through AfC from draft-space into mainspace without me, the original draft creator, even being aware. With all that, this is more of a TNT method (i.e. delete it and then redo it in userspace). Heck, the whole thing as it is right now is a copy/paste from the outbreak article so in 5 seconds, I could redo it in userspace. So yeah, don't think of this AfD as a true "delete it due to lack of notability", but more of a TNT request that is also using notability and the dang copyright and copy/paste issues as the backing for that TNT request. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why you should have just put it in draft and rewritten or paraphrased some of it. Plus, the event details are fine and the section on the main page can be shortened. Plus, believe it or not, the SOCKS have actually made some helpful edits. The AfD was not the way to go. Plus, this tornado inflicted significant damage along its path in a major metropolitan area, so I think it will easily meet WP:Lasting. I'm not saying an article is guaranteed though. ChessEric 13:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t doubt that and again, I’m not saying this won’t get an article. For reference this entire edit is a copyright violation. Making it a draft again will not get rid of that. The SOCk reverted edit is also a copyright violation, as both are just a copy/paste of another Wikipedia article without any reference that content came from another article. That could be easily solved with an inter-wiki link, but it just makes the edit history weird and talk page weird. Legit, the history itself needs to be TNTed and then as this is at this point a near 100% direct copy/paste, I could create User:WeatherWriter/2023 Little Rock tornado with a copy/paste of the damage summary and basically restart the whole thing before the SOCKs came along. Did they help? Sure. Did they save maybe 5 minutes of work only though? Yes. It is better to literally TNT this, get rid of the copyright violation and just restart. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a courtesy ping for ChessEric. Just for reference look at User:WeatherWriter/2023 Little Rock tornado. The new draft, made in minutes, is already 3,000 bytes larger than this article and doesn’t involve the SOCKs in the edit history nor the two very large copyright violations. The TNT is basically to clean-up the SOCKs and copyright violations from the edit history, since chances are high, the draft was pushed into mainspace by one of the two SOCKs well before any clean-up edits could occur. So yeah, don’t think of this AfD as anything with notability. This is truly a WP:TNT to remove the SOCKs from play. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the section in Tornado outbreak of March 31–April 1, 2023. We are becoming way too lax in giving individual tornadoes article. In no way should this, 2023 Pasadena–Deer Park tornado or 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado have standalone articles. Stand alone articles should only be if the information absolutely cannot fit in the section, such as the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado. I highly doubt that this article can be much more than a WP:CFORK of the section. The readable prose is around 53,000 bytes, which per WP:ARTICLESIZE puts it in a grey area if a split is needed. But I don’t think this is the tornado, given its limited impact. A redirect to the section is a good idea because it’s highly unlikely this tornado will achieve notability outside of the tornado outbreak. 148.76.84.29 (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC) (Confirmed and now-blocked SOCK) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Due to the copyright violations as mentioned above, we could either do a delete and redirect closure, or WP:RD1 the copyright violations. 148.76.84.29 (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)~~ (Confirmed and now-blocked SOCK) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For some laundry-free discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'm confused by the nominator's stance here. You state "Either delete or draftify back like it was" but in the discussion comments, it looks like you are arguing against a move to Draft space. Please be clearer because if draftifying (to any previous version) is acceptable, then we can close this AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per usual, WeatherWriter is endlessly yapping about irrelevant crap that makes the discussion impossibly hard to follow. His rants can be found in numerous AFDs and discussions, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midwestern U.S. floods and tornado outbreak of June 2021. User should likely be topic banned for disruptive editing at this point. 99.196.129.143 (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC) (SOCK strikethrough.) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just semi'ed it so we reach a consensus without socks. I have relisted this but don't consider myself involved. Star Mississippi 00:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Any thoughts from more independent editors?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 05:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Environment proposed deletions[edit]