Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Environment

WP:DSENVIRONMENTWP: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

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 keep. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Turkey water crisis

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

per WP:DEL#REASON #8. Article does not meet WP:GNG per WP:NOTNEWS.

Most of the article seems to cite low quality news sources. This issue can be covered with DUE weight in Drought in Turkey Bogazicili (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Bogazicili (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and strongly oppose merge. This is an appropriate WP:SPINOFF of a notable topic that would be highly undue weight in the proposed merge target. It has been covered in reliable sources such as Reuters [1] [2], France 24 [3] (more marginal from the AP [4]), and will have significant impacts in the future. Consequences such as the noted agricultural impact (which is based on a report from the Foreign Agricultural Service of the USDA) are certain to have further social and economic impact (e.g. hunger, loss of jobs). There are already background concerns of limited access to drinking water in the country Katzrockso (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS.

Ongoing water issues should be discussed in articles such as Drought in Turkey. We also need high quality WP:Secondary sources in line with WP:Scholarship.

The entire article shouldn't be sourced with low quality news sources. Bogazicili (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Category:Climate change by country — Maile (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: There is actually Climate change in Turkey, which is GA. Climate_change_in_Turkey#Water_resources gives a much better coverage than 2025 Turkey water crisis Bogazicili (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your keen eye and diligence here. — Maile (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like the users above me mentioned, this is an issue not just regional but also global. It has place on Wikipedia and i find strange that someone like you @Bogazicili: who has a: "Global Warming and Climate Change Barnstar", would suggest to ignore such an issue. But i took notice of you comment about sources, i will find more and better ones TonyFerro (talk) 06:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not strange. I am actually very consistent, I prefer high quality sources in line with WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I don't prefer bunch of low quality news sources being stitched up to create an article.

High quality sources in 2025 Turkey water crisis can be moved to Drought in Turkey and Climate_change_in_Turkey#Water_resources.

You also seem to be a new editor, but you have already created several new articles from scratch. Congratulations! Bogazicili (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, if you see High quality sources that can be move to the article i created, that's great. It would be very helpful if you point them out, so i can keep improving the article about the - 2025 Turkey water crisis. TonyFerro (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's an article about a single year, so I think it is a WP:COAT Bogazicili (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks interesting, a contractual issue and duly referenced 201.225.7.211 (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2025 (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.

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. ✗plicit 02:55, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sugarloaf Fire

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

Wildfire article that does not meet WP:WILDFIRE-NOTE or WP:EVENTCRIT. Smaller wildfire that will not have a WP:LASTING impact, and this source states the fire was not fully suppressed, typically meaning the fire was not a major threat. This seems like a WP:ROUTINE event. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 01:21, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The page has barley been updated since 2018. And was relatively small, with no structures destroyed, and no injuries. I agree, the page definitely doesn't meet WP:WILDFIRE-NOTE. Not to mention, the article is kind of a stub-start class-ish article. That is not going to help it's case. There is a chance it could wound up as a redirect to a potential 2018 Colorado wildfires page. CostalCal (talk) 06:57, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 10:14, 11 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Delete agree with nom; looked around for other sources, came up with nothing, then a merge target, but don't see one. [5][6] are the sources currently present if anybody from 2036 is reading this and feels like adding it to a list of wildfires in Colorado. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 21:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Small fire within a remote area. I'm sure the natural world in that area was impacted in longterm way, but in terms of our purposes it doesn't demonstrate sourcing that passes WP:EVENTCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete might not seem small, but there are people that individually own more land than this fire burned. Per 4meter4, delete the non-notable fire. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-aside from the handful of broken links in the citations area, additional searching shows lack of sustained coverage since the event, interestingly getting a "Lower Sugarloaf Fire" more recently, but this is another area altogether describing a newer event.Lorraine Crane (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2025 (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.

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 no consensus. Lack of participation to form sufficient consensus; WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 00:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FERN

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

It appears that all sources cited in the article about this organization originate from its official website. Moreover, from Google search yielded no third-party profiles or independent coverage about this organization , with minimal news visibility regarding the organization itself. 日期20220626 (talk) 08:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, Belgium, France, Netherlands, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So far I have found https://www.ft.com/content/2b398d0f-7e47-47e0-b0d0-85faa593a7f9 https://www.weforum.org/organizations/fern/ , an academic source and a couple from Politico all of which I have added. But I have no objection to anyone drastically pruning the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 10:42, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability. I pruned all the primary sources, irrelevant sources, and passing mentions. Of the 8 sources left, half aren't even about Fern and 1 is a dead link that looks like it was a primary source Schnookums123 (talk) 03:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:46, 22 October 2025 (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.

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. RL0919 (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Pennock Democracy School

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

Article is ostensibly about a small scale online learning program marketed as a "school" with essentially no notable sources (references listed seem to just be a smattering of books related to the goal of the "school", and there is little to indicate any success of even attendance of the program). The program appears to have come about and ended 20 years ago. Possible COI between article and creator. A MINOTAUR (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Pennsylvania. jolielover♥talk 16:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This organization is only mentioned in passing or with regards to the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, which barely warrants a paragraph in the article Environmental personhood. Any description of this school provides only information about Pennock himself and barely anything about what it is or its operations. I don't think Pennock meets GNG either. -- Recon rabbit 19:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't have enough significant sources or they are just mentions.Darkm777 (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable little org and fails WP:SIGCOV. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:00, 11 October 2025 (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.

Environment proposed deletions