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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Perivoli Foundation

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

Entirely promotional and seems to fail WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Environment, Africa, and United Kingdom. jolielover♥talk 06:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

The entry on The Perivoli Foundation meets notability and verifiability standards and is supported by independent, reliable sources demonstrating significant impact in Sub-Saharan Africa. It's neutral/factual. For clarity: all citations are from third-party sources - media and academic - not from any Perivoli website or affiliated materials. Also now linked from related Wikipedia pages such as Perivoli Schools Trust, addressing orphan concern.

For these reasons, the article should be kept. ~~~~ Angloscotty (talk) 17:22, 27 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) 02:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I agree the article needs trimming of promotional content. However, this likely passes WP:NONPROFIT. It is international in scope and it has been covered by multiple independent publications. That said, many of the sources are largely interview based which draws into question independence for the individual articles (not the publications themselves as a whole). This is what makes it a weak keep.4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 2 November 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 merge to Tornadoes of 1998. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 15, 1998, Minnesota storms

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

Not seeing WP:LASTING coverage of this event. Could be a subsection of Tornadoes of 1998. ^EF⁵ 14:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List_of_North_American_tornadoes_and_tornado_outbreaks#1990s e.ux 16:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. e.ux 16:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. e.ux 16:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Tornadoes of 1998, since it is notable enough for a section. 185.104.139.73 (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Didn’t mean to double vote; the connection is very shaky. Feel free to remove one of them. 185.104.139.73 (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed one of the copies. Left guide (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tornadoes of 1998 per WP:ATD. Like the nom, I could not find continued coverage. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 01:04, 28 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 redirect to List of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks#1990s where the subject is mentioned. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Late-October 1996 tornado outbreak

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

Not seeing WP:LASTING coverage of this event. ^EF⁵ 14:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Minnesota, Nebraska, and South Dakota. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some coverage here: https://www.theweathernetwork.com/en/news/weather/forecasts/this-day-in-weather-history-october-26-1996-26-tornadoes-in-the-u-s-midwest ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the article you cited's usage of the same photo and caption from this article and the otherwise obscure status of this outbreak, I suspect this may be a form of circular reporting, not of facts but of notability, in that the Weather Network article might not have been written if there wasn't a Wikipedia article to go with it. Departure– (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_North_American_tornadoes_and_tornado_outbreaks#1990s: - has its entry there. e.ux 16:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. e.ux 16:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. e.ux 16:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any sort of lasting coverage per nom, and the scope of impact is where I wouldn't expect to find any from now. Unusually strong for Minnesota, but ultimately doesn't seem that notable. I disagree with a potential merge to the List article as that's a list of "notable" outbreaks that this page may or may not fail--no prejudice to keeping/removing existing material for this article from there--and note also how the list doesn't have concrete inclusion criteria, so this may or may not qualify to begin with. Perhaps a list to a List of Minnesota tornadoes would be appropriate, assuming such a list gets written. This discussion makes me think how many recent events we have articles for also might not have LASTING coverage, but that's neither here nor there. Departure– (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To an appropriate list of tornado outbreaks as redirects are cheap. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Eva UX. While I did find some coverage in this news article, this isn't significant coverage that would count towards WP:NEVENT and only specifies one injury. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 01:12, 28 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 merge to List of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks#1890s. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1891 Missouri tornado

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

Fails GNG. No major coverage after 1891, outside of database entries, and a single (dead) user-generated source is all that's given outside of those two. I don't think this should be treated any different from more recent tornadoes with no lasting coverage. Departure– (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - unless we had Tornadoes of 1891 or List of Missouri tornadoes, then there would be a logical target to redirect this article to. As it stands, that many fatalities is noticeable enough for me. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any viable alternatives to deletion, yes, but I don't think that means we should completely discount deleting an article that otherwise fails GNG. Departure– (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are. See my !vote below. e.ux 16:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG. High fatality amounts do not necessarily correlate to a storm’s notability. ^EF⁵ 23:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. After a quick search, there were not many reliable sources to establish notability, possibly because this tornado happened over 130 years ago. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but no objection to a selective merge to maybe Audrain County, Missouri, or restoring to merge to a list. I found a couple sources published a while after the tornado with passing to brief mentions, normally in reference to the idea of "tornadoes in Audrain",[1][2][3][4] so it's got some significance in a local way, but these aren't really enough to build a good event article, imo. (Honestly, we should have a "tornados by state or large county" style set of lists; they've almost got to be notable in aggregate and it would be a good way to preserve information on ones that had local impacts) GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 06:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are typically lists for both every US state and by year (i.e. List of Iowa tornadoes and Tornadoes of 2021) and this would pass the inclusion to criteria for one of those. Problem is nobody's written a List of Missouri tornadoes or Tornadoes in 1891, and it might be a while before someone does. Tornadoes in Chicago took me long enough to write to where I wouldn't consider making a new page of the same magnitude on a whim - though I concur one is needed here. Departure– (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Departure–: I'll start the latter soon; Grazulis is a life-saver. ^EF⁵ 15:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right! um.... okay nobody ask me what naming system I was looking for the state articles under. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 17:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List_of_North_American_tornadoes_and_tornado_outbreaks#1890s e.ux 16:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the above target, seeing as their is at least enough notability for a mention somewhere on wikipedia 185.104.139.73 (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the above target as there is enough info for list inclusion. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no consensus here yet. As an uninvolved editor, we typically seek out an ATD in these AFD discussions but that was only brought up at the end of the discussion period so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect With/To List_of_North_American_tornadoes_and_tornado_outbreaks#1890s as an ATD. Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List_of_North_American_tornadoes_and_tornado_outbreaks#1890s per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some coverage in Gnewspapers, but nothing extensive or much after the event... I don't see notability due to the lack of sourcing. If we had some articles discussing it, there could possibly be an article... Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 27 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 merge to Turkish nationalism. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 08:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Animal name changes in Turkey

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable as a stand-alone subject, but worth merging into an appropriate target that remains to be chosen.

The article suffers from verifiability and citation issues (including over-citation in the lead and a lack of citations in parts of the article body). One section is tagged as outdated since 2020, although no specific reasons are given. I think all of those issues can be addressed by the merger.

The 2013 AfD (also on notability grounds and for WP:NOTNEWS) resulted in "no consensus". The closer stated that "merging has been proposed, but what the merge target is is not quite as clear". The only target that was seriously considered was Turkification. My proposal here is to merge into Turkish nationalism, as it looks like the better fit to me. I also considered Xenophobia and discrimination in Turkey as a target, but that subject may be too narrow.

P.S. The previous AfD suffered from civility issues, including personal attacks against the nominator, as noted by the closing admin. I hope we can avoid that here. Renerpho (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Environment, and Turkey. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 01:11, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I don't have strong opinions on where to - perhaps Fauna of Turkey? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chidgk1: Fauna of Turkey would imply that the range of these animals is limited to Turkey, which is not the case. Renerpho (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Renerpho That article also covers animals which are not endemic to Turkey however if anyone else has a better idea of where to merge to I defer to them - your suggestion of Turkish nationalism is fine by me Chidgk1 (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An update would be helpful. Have scientists or their organizations outside Turkey accepted the name changes? Has there been a reaction from Kurdish or Armenian scientists or government agencies? LeapTorchGear (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LeapTorchGear: I don't see how that could be done without being WP:Original Research, because there are no sources. As far as I am aware, the proposal has been completely ignored by scientists outside of Turkey, and beyond the initial "news flash". I don't think there have been any news reports about the issue (in English) since 2013, so I don't see what there is to update. For sources from Kurdish or Armenian scientists specifically, we would need someone who can search through sources in these languages and in Turkish. Renerpho (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know about the Kurdish languages or Armenian Wikipedia but unfortunately I am not the only person who finds Turkish Wikipedia a hostile environment and have more or less given up on it. I see their article only has one Turkish source and that is over a decade old. Chidgk1 (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Definitely should not be a standalone page, but I am unsure where to merge. Geschichte (talk) 08:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see no consensus here at all, and it might take more than one week to gather enough knowledgeable, interested participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I agree with @Renerpho, Turkish nationalism seems the most suitable target for the merge. Morekar (talk) 06:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Turkish nationalism per @Renerpoho RealStanger43286 (Let's talk!) 14:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Turkish nationalism.4meter4 (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Xenophobia and discrimination in Turkey, although Turkish nationalism is my second choice. Bearian (talk) 01:58, 28 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sydani Group

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

Fails to meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Charlie (talk) 02:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Nigeria. Charlie (talk) 02:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Health and fitness, Education, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the organisation/corporation meets the Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. It passes WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC when the available multiple sources are combined. There are several sources in the article that demonstrate WP:SIGCOV and from reliable independent third-party secondary sources. Here[[5]] the corp is mentioned 42 times across over 30 sentences in this scholarly research paper. In this [[6]] the corporation is mentioned 18 times across over 10 sentences. Here[[7]] the corporation is mentioned 13 times appearing in over 7 sentences. This[[8]] comes from a very reliable third-party independent source. Here[[9]] the founder and the corporation are discussed extensively passing the significant coverage criteria. These[[10]][[11]] are also very reliable and with significant coverag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogmatists (talk • contribs) 07:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dogmatists first off, I understand your frustration, but I think you're (understandably) underestimating just how strict WP:NCORP, and specifically WP:ORGDEPTH are. Sources need to discuss the company itself, and in detail too.
Going through your links one by one: the first link is written by employees of the org and is thus not independent. The second link has one sentence of independent discussion on the org (the rest are from an interview which would be a primary source). The third link doesn't say anything at all about the org, it's just mentioning some stuff they did (see WP:ORGDEPTH). The fourth link has the same issue as the second link. The fifth link I'm like 70% sure is covert advertising and regardless it's an interview, and thus a primary source. The sixth link is definitely the best except for the fact that this outlet doesn't seem to disclose sponsored articles despite allowing them according to its media kit, and finally link seven says it's a sponsored post at the top of the page. Perryprog (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it passes WP:GNG. Though not all sources cited provide WP:SIGCOV and not all the pieces are reliable pieces, there are a number of reliable sources and pieces in the article to pass. Piscili (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG per the sources listed above. I have analyzed the sources and they are WP:RS that give WP:SIGCOV. Willy Bond (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NCORP with the current sourcing. My analysis of the sources as of this revision is below. Perryprog (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:Perryprog
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Healthwise			Organization is barely mentioned.	✘ No
Independent	~ Overwhelmingly promotional tone, and they seem to accept sponsored content but I can't find any articles from them with such a disclaimer, which makes me think it's covert advertising.	See previous.		? Unknown
Anambra (2025-08-17)			Does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH.	✘ No
Frontiers	Written by employees of Sydani	They claim there's no conflict of interest??		✘ No
Vanguard (2025)			Barely mentioned.	✘ No
Punch (2023)			Does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH.	✘ No
Guardian Nigeria	Interview with no synthesis, not a secondary source. Also seems like covert advertising but that's besides the point.		Doesn't really meet WP:ORGDEPTH.	✘ No
Punch (2024)			Passing mentions	✘ No
Daily Post	Sponsored article.		Still doesn't meet WP:ORGDEPTH.	✘ No
Anambra (2025)			Passing mentions.	✘ No
Nigerian Observer	Accepts sponsored posts but I can't find any articles where sponsership is disclosed, meaning this could be a covert ad. Final paragraph also is extremely suspect.			✘ No
Tribune (2023)			Passing mentions.	✘ No
Vanguard (2024)			Passing mentions.	✘ No
Tribune (2024)			No discussion of the organization itself.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hoping that editor arguing for a Keep outcome could respond to the source assessment table results which offer a dismal outlook on sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this source assessment is flawed. Before commenting in this AFD I reviewed the sources and found a few reliable sources with significant coverage of the organization. The piece by PubMed Central which can be seen here [12] is a scholarly article with significant mention or discussion about the subject of this article. But the Pubmed Central peer reviewed article does not even feature in the source assessment table. This piece[13] by Anambra Daily is reliable and the coverage is significant enough to count for WP:GNG. This piece[14]] by the The Nigerian Observer focused solely on the subject of this article. The article has a clear byline, it has no disclaimer and there is nothing to show that it is a paid for or a sponsored article. That also counts for notability. There are two pieces from The Punch. The subject of this article features prominently in this piece[15] by Healthwise published by The Punch and this piece[16] and the other sources contribute to pass WP:NBASIC. Piscili (talk) 09:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Piscili, your first link is written by employees of Sydani Group, so it isn't independent—it's also "Frontiers" (as in "Frontiers in Public Health") in the source assessment table which is the journal it was published in. (I probably should've linked to each source in the assessment table, so sorry about that.) While I do agree that that Anambra piece is good, it isn't significant enough coverage to meet WP:ORGDEPTH: Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the [...] organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements [...]. Nothing in this article actually talks about the company itself—it's all about this one thing the company did, which is not the same thing—there aren't really any statements that provide information about the company, which as I understand is the key thing here.
For Healthwise, I'm not sure I can agree that the org features prominently in that article—they are barely mentioned, and it's almost all mentioned as part of an interview, which isn't a secondary source. The only mention of the org that's outside of the interview is in a single sentence. The other Punch piece seems to be based on the same interview and has the same issue.
Finally for the Observer, I will concede that this isn't a definitive reason to dismiss it, but accepting payments for sponsored posts (as their media kit says they do) while also not seeing any posts that have any sort of disclaimer that they are sponsored is a pretty big red flag. This in combination with the post being entirely positive and incredibly promotional in tone (just look at the last paragraph) is really stretching it for me that this was independently written. If there are posts that are marked as sponsored that I missed then I would agree that it's possibly independent, but I strongly doubt that this is the case. (Plus, nearly all the statements in the article are entirely meaningless, insubstantial marketing copy. "The organization is committed to implementing impactful, data-driven solutions that empower communities across Africa and has become pivotal in driving sustainable change." ) Perryprog (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to point out, the Anambra piece appeared word-for-word in a different newspaper with a different attributed journalist - so I'd say chances are, it is company PR. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, funny that I missed that. I thought it sounded familiar but I had assumed I had just looked at that source earlier in the mess of tabs I had open. Perryprog (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Perryprog appreciate your analysis, it helped a lot. Charlie (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per source assessment table provided by talk, the subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. The Observer article is highly promotional, and the other sources either lack WP:SIGCOV or are WP:PRIMARY.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The source assessment makes a strong argument for deletion. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perryprog's analysis is spot on. Just to remind others, this is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the source assessment this needs to go. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:06, 24 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.

Environment proposed deletions