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

W3G Marine

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

Out of the sources supplied, 1st 2 are primary, 3rd is dead. the 4th one seems ok. But a search for sources yielded little in terms of sigcov. Fails WP:CORP. Only 1 article links to this 2010 in Scotland. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Environment, and Scotland. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Though the sources referenced in the article are not reliable there seem to be some sources out there that could pass notability. Mekomo (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

APFIC Objective and Key Achievements

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

Entire article is written like a promotion. Only source mentioning APFIC is its own page and a document at fao.org, its parent organization. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Asia. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has an entry in this Dictionary, this Dictionary, and an entry beginning on page 627 in International Organizations and the Law of the Sea of which only the first page is viewable. The Encyclopedia of Ocean Law and Policy in Asia-Pacific takes the time to document when various countries became members of this organization. It's organized by nation, so the coverage is across multiple pages. I think this highlighting within an overview of each country indicates some importance. There is also some coverage in [1], [2], Best.4meter4 (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subaqueous volcano

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

Synonym of submarine volcano, I propose that this article is turned into a REDIRECT which leads to Submarine volcano. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The term "submarine volcano" refers to volcanoes under the ocean whereas "subaqueous volcano" is used to describe volcanoes that formed under lakes.

Volcanoguy 00:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The term seems universally to be used to refer to all underwater eruptions, with submarine eruptions forming the marine subset. For illustration, see the editorial and pretty much every contribution in this FES special issue on subaqueous volcanism. If the article is meant to refer to lacustrine volcanism, which to some degree seems to be a recognized sub-category, then it will have to be renamed; and reworked, because it currently is happily covering submarine volcanism - e.g., those Honshu deposits are submarine, and there is a section "Seafloor exploration". --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yup, this is supported by all the literature I found, hence why I nominated the article. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: I never claimed subaqueous is only used to describe volcanoes that formed under lakes. A subaqueous volcano is simply a volcano that formed underwater, thus I wouldn't have a problem with merging submarine volcano into subaqueous volcano since submarine volcanoes are basically a type of subaqueous volcano along with lacustrine volcanoes. Volcanoguy 23:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question.The term seems universally to be used to refer to all underwater eruptions, with submarine eruptions forming the marine subset. If the submarine volcano is a subset of Subaqueous volcano why are we merging Subaqueous volcano to submarine volcano? It should be the other way around with subaqueous volcano being the parent article. Obviously the subaqueous volcano article would need substantial rewriting, but as the umbrella term it should take precedent over "submarine volcano" which could be a subsection inside the parent article.4meter4 (talk) 09:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From a hierarchy persperctive, I think it would make more sense. But on the other hand, almost all subaqueous volcanoes appear to be submarine (not surprising), so while it's not the technical parent term, it is by far the most frequently encountered one. There are presumably cases where we put the main article at the dominant sub-topic rather than at the infrequent parent topic? Eh :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae Got you. It might do a service to the world though to merge submarine volcano to Subaqueous volcano because I am seeing the fallacy that subaqueous volcanos are different than submarine volcanos on layman discussion threads and even the kidspedia webpage for volcanos which made the same claim as Volcanoguy. It's clearly a place of confusion that is a common error among amateur volcano enthusiasts. If our coverage merges to subaqueous volcano and presents submarine volcanos as a type of subaqueous volcano (and we could also cover lacustrine volcanism on that page) we would be the first encyclopedia to help solve that widely held errata among the general public.4meter4 (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4 (talk · contribs) I don't know which of my claims you're referring to, but I don't have a problem with merging submarine volcano into subaqueous volcano. I think those involved in this AfD misinterpreted my first comment as meaning subaqueous volcanoes occur only in lakes which is not what I meant. Volcanoguy 22:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chin Gouk

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

Marked for notability concerns since 2014. Most of the sources are articles by her rather than third party coverage to meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Low citation count as well. LibStar (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Environment, Australia, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not seeing much grounds for encyclopedic notability here, looks like a meritorious but not unusual career so far. Plant pathology citations are generally fairly low in my experience, but there's only a single coauthored paper with moderate citations (59) that I can see. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, most of the references are not significant and fail WP:GNG Kaizenify (talk) 05:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. I could find nothing beyond publications and citations and passing mentions.4meter4 (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Wynne–Parkin tornado

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

This article was first brought up on a project-space talk page by someone, although I can't remember exactly where. Seems to fail WP:NWEATHER from a cursory glance, no significant, lasting impacts, wasn't the deadliest tornado of the outbreak (which I know isn't a valid deletion reason), and over half of the references are to the NWS. E_F⁵ 20:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Tennessee. E_F⁵ 20:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed Deletion Only 13/30 resources are from NWS, which makes up 43%, so you saying over half are from NWS is hyperbolic. This caused a lasting impact in the city of Wynne and the tornado is talked about through articles to this day. Just because it wasn't the deadliest doesn't mean it doesn't deserve and article, using that logic, the Greenfield Tornado shouldn't get an article because it wasn't the deadliest tornado of the outbreak sequence, so yeah, how l the amount of death the tornado caused is not a valid reason to delete the article. Hoguert (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair with the Greenfield tornado rationale, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. E_F⁵ 20:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay comparing articles is not really a good argument on my part but I still stand by everything else I've said Hoguert (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it a bit early to gauge a "lasting" impact, only one year after the event? Geschichte (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usually (at least with tornadoes), discussion of a tornado six months-or-so after the event shows the tornado’s lasting impacts, which I don’t see here. E_F⁵ 22:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Draftify – For stand-alone articles on individual tornadoes, I look for a couple of things. (1) Is there lasting impacts and lasting coverage, (2) if out of draftspace, does the article have the potential to pass GAN (since to me, that helps establish if it deserves to be split from the outbreak article), and (3) size of article vs outbreak section.

Based on a quick Google search, I see lasting coverage, with several articles published related to the tornado and/or damage caused over a year later (examples: [3][4][5][6]) Two of those articles are related to the High School, so I see lasting impacts as well just based on those articles. In fact, searching "2023 Wynne tornado" and setting the news articles to start at the most recent shows an article within the last week related to the tornado/damage. So lasting coverage (WP:LASTING part of WP:Notability) is a checkmark.
Does it have enough to pass GAN? In my opinion, yes. It 100% needs some work done, which is why I also mentioned possible draftification. However, as a writer of several stand-alone GA tornado articles, roughly 20k bytes is the minimum for GAN potential. I know size itself is not factored into GAN, but 20k bytes or more in size most likely will give enough detail-based length for a successful GAN. This article has over 25k bytes, so a checkmark there.
Size comparison between 2023 Wynne–Parkin tornado & the parent section Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023#Wynne–Parkin–Turrell, Arkansas/Drummonds–Burlison, Tennessee. The section in the outbreak article, which is specifically for the damage path, is 11.5k bytes. The stand-alone section for the track is 13.4k bytes. An aftermath section specific to the tornado adds 2.4k bytes. The meteorological synopsis section is not unique, so that size does not count and neither does the introduction. So in all, the stand-alone article has roughly only 4,300 bytes (aka characters) worth of additional unique-to-the-tornado content. The outbreak section cites 3 sources for the tornado track, while the article cites about 23 sources for the track + aftermath sections. To me, the additional byte length is probably the sources. Therefore, there is not much unique-to-the-tornado content in the article. For me, this is the main reason I would say draftify rather than delete. To me, this point is an X.

More unique info over the outbreak section would for sure make it notable for an article. I am ok with it remaining an article itself under the ideology of WP:FIXIT occurring. I do not believe this should be deleted, but at the present moment, I am leaning against it remaining in mainspace without additional information being added to the article/aftermath section. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent analysis, I should probably use the “would it be a GA” test more often. I would also support draftification, as it’s clear a lot of work (kudos to Hoguert) was put into this article. E_F⁵ 22:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of sources to verify notability. There's still news coming out this year to back up the claims for lasting coverage. Also, I believe it was ChessEric who stated this shouldn't have an article - it was under the discussion for retiring WP:TOOSOON deletions when sources unambiguously do exist, and it was in the context of the Little Rock tornado. Departure– (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - The section fit in the article and doesn’t have to be split off. ChessEric 06:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or draftify per The Weather Event Writer.4meter4 (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No in-depth significant coverage of the organization. C F A 💬 20:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Italy. C F A 💬 20:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the head communication office at the Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change (CMCC). The Center is an international research center that collaborates in many international projects and initiatives, such as

-- the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that have selected us as the Focal point for Italy

-- the European Environment Agency for which we coordinate the European Topic Centre on Climate Change Aaptation and LULUCF (ETC CA)

-- we provide climate predictions and forecasts for Copernicus Climate Services and for Copernicus Marine Service

-- we have research collaborations with leading research centers around the world, the latest one is with Princeton University High Meadows Environmental Institute

We will add this information, other international relevant activities, and related sources to the page. I hope this is enough to maintain the article on Wikipedia. Buonocoremauro (talk) 10:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Buonocoremauro. Thanks for that info. Please take a look at the message to you and User:Manusantagata79 I am about to leave on the talk page of the article about some guidelines English Wikipedia has about Wikipedia:Conflict of interest which might seem strange to academics or might be different on Italian Wikipedia. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Keep Although I would not be able to cite all the content I have added a couple of cites and should be able to find more if needed to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you added help with WP:NCORP notability. C F A 💬 15:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have now added ^[1]

I don’t speak Italian but hopefully someone from the Italy project can take a look Chidgk1 (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, but that's one source. We'll need more than one to show notability. C F A 💬 16:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Il meglio della scienza del clima è al Cmcc". la Repubblica (in Italian). 2023-05-06. Retrieved 2024-11-11.

Weak keep I’m seeing a large number of climate science books and journal articles citing data/research generated by the CMCC internationally in examining EBSCOE, JSTOR, google books etc. There a lot of passing mentions of the organization in that kind of literature. While technically not enough to meet WP:NCORP this is a case where I think the topic is encyclopedic based on its broad scholarly impact along the reasoning at WP:NACADEMIC. Lastly, it’s possible there are foreign language sources not easily found in searching in English as this organization does research globally. I grant you that this is not the strongest argument, but international scope is covered in our WP:SNG at WP:NONPROFIT. I'm not really seeing any benefit in deleting an article on a government funded/founded climate research organization attached to multiple Italian universities.4meter4 (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NONPROFIT says Organizations are usually notable if ... The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. and The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization., but if this is an IAR keep I'm not going to debate it. C F A 💬 00:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023 mid-south U.S. floods

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

Nominating yet another one of my articles for deletion for the same reasons: it fails WP:NSUSTAINED too. Most of the coverage for this event is only when the flooding took place, and that's about it. There's this article regarding the aftermath, but other than that, there's nothing else to be found. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge to Floods in the United States (2000–present), but given that this event kinda occurred in a localized area, I'm unsure if that's a good alternative for deletion in this case. Either way, this fails WP:NEVENT on the basis of sustained coverage, which this article doesn't really have. ~ Tails Wx 04:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, Alabama, Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee. ~ Tails Wx 04:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Floods in the United States (2000-present), which seems to be an appropriate place to mention this (and again, shocked it’s not already there.) However, unlike July 2023 Western Kentucky floods, there might not be enough to put in there, thus I’m not opposed to outright deletion. 74.101.118.218 (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Floods in the United States (2000-present). Agreed that this fails WP:NSUSTAINED as a standalone article, but the list article allows for shorter descriptions of the rainfall records and disaster response details contained here. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 20:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Environment proposed deletions

[1] "Il meglio della scienza del clima è al Cmcc". la Repubblica (in Italian). 2023-05-06. Retrieved 2024-11-11.

[1]