Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Environment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
Purge page cache watch


Environment

Jack Rechcigl

AfDs for this article:
Jack Rechcigl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page on an academic administrator that was not rigorously checked for accuracy. No evidence of a pass of WP:NPROF, with relatively low publication record. Too many claims (such as selected publications) that fail verification, and evidence from his image of COI. Note that his "research professor" appointment is not a "distinguished" chair, and being a capable administrator does not qualify as a NPROF pass. There is so much dubious information here that I think we must TNT this. Someone can try again later with verifiable information, but my BEFORE suggests this is unlikely to succeed. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely doubt the University of Florida website would allow their employee bios to falsify content of that nature. The UF is the #7 ranked public research university in the United States, and has high visibility. That type of fact would get reported quickly if it were falsified and would ruin an academic's reputation and career if they got caught. Doubting the truthfulness of it seems ridiculous.4meter4 (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4, this page is an exception. Please check the page history and you will find content removal by myself, Christian Edmundson, Iamnilesh0321 and Timtrent as well as removal of promo by Drmies. Even in what is left there is unverifiable information. For instance the 1st paragraph claims he used AI citing an article without a year or volume and a 1999 award report. Of the 4 pubs, the ISBN of the first is to a book by someone else (see recent history wrt Bobby Cohn), while my searches failed to find 2 & 3. Note that the page used to claim that he edited the "Agriculture and Environment monograph series", a series which does not come up in a search. The books all had two editors, he co-edited. I view omitting a co-author as academic dishonesty, but then I have a zero tolerance policy. Last, but not least, note the obvious undeclared COI of the original editor uploading a picture of Rechcigl taken in his garden. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I would not trust any post-secondary institution in the US at this moment, given how they've had to comply with the whims of Mr. Trump in order to keep funding coming through, and the State of Florida in particular. That would be considered a primary source regardless; even in the best of times, we wouldn't use it. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In my view this was borderline to accept. Rather than allowing it to languish I chose to accept it from this draft and allow the community to reach a conclusion. I reman steadfastly neutral when any AFC acceptance ny me is discussed at AfD. This diff shows how much the article has been edited since acceptance. I'm grateful to the nom for alerting me to this discussion. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have to go by what we know. I find no evidence of the honorary/fellow claims. I cleaned up the publications, which were hopelessly incorrect and perhaps misleading, and found he is the co-editor of five of those books (yes, the "Agriculture & Environment Series" exists, though there is no evidence that he was the editor-in-chief or whatever, and three of the books were indeed edited jointly) and has some journal articles to his name. But a search through JSTOR revealed no reviews of those books so it's hard to establish whether #1 of WP:PROF actually applies. Sure, one may feel like being the director of that soil program is a notable thing, but again, that's a feeling (without evidence) and there is no secondary sourcing that supports that. I mean, there IS no secondary sourcing as far as I know. So going by the book, I have to be a Delete. I'm setting aside the other things mentioned here--possibly misleading citations and resume info, COI creation, etc., since they don't really matter for a deletion discussion. Drmies (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There seems to be some confusion here. As the infobox shows, his legal name is John Rechcigl and a search under that name (or just Rechcigl) shows he was elected a Fellow of the ASA in 1998 and of the SSSA in 1999. These are separate the societies with separate boards. The qualifications for these honorary fellowships are similar to those for other societies even if not worded exactly the same, and limited to 0.3% of the members. As a delete vote said in the 2008 AfD, High level recognition by the Soil Science Society of America or International Union of Soil Sciences would tip the balance to notability. He had been made a fellow in 1999, but searching for Jack rather than John makes it hard to find. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Or not so hard to find. The fellow awards in the 5 September 2025 version of this article were sourced to an archived ASA web site. So I am am even more confused. @Drmies, any academic's article can be criticized for sounding like a resume since the material covered is the same. They can be rewritten rather than taking facts out. It is not appropriate to remove the fellow awards and the society references that support them and then say you can "find no evidence of the fellow claims". I know we get swamped with promotional articles, often by admiring students or university PR people. But nobility of a person is independent of the state or origin of an article, and "wonderfulness" can be tossed out as you capably did. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I retrieved the much earlier sources for his being elected as a fellow.
    1. The one from ASA is a real source. I checked the numbers for the fellows of ASA as of about 2012. Counting the list gives ~1,800 total fellows and their membership (from Board meeting minutes) was ~8,000.
    2. The source for SSSA does not have enough information for verification. I even joined SSSA to look at his member profile, and it has no information beyond his name. I therefore tagged that source as unverified.
    3. I have reservations about the Czechoslovak Society of Arts and Sciences as this is an organisation founded and run for many years by his father Mila Rechcigl.
    N.B., I do not have access to the version of the page that was deleted in 2008. Since his being elected as a fellow predates that deletion by 10 years it seems plausible that they were not viewed as notable then. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Gscholar shows he has 2400 something citations, but the discussion above doesn't seem to indicate much else is notable. I can't find any book reviews or news articles about this person, or any confirmation for the followships (besides primary sources), so it's a !decline. Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've added better sources for the ASA and SSSA fellowships, and both are available through WP:LIBRARY. The ASA one, in Agronomy Journal, contains a good page of significant coverage for a biography, though I haven't woven this into the article yet. For me, these fellowships together meet WP:NPROF#3. I agree with Ldm1954 that the Czechoslovak Society of Arts and Sciences one is rather dubious in terms of independence, and can't contribute to notability. I also improved some of the existing references with online sources and added an archive-url link for the CV. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:38, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 Typhoon Rai. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological history of Typhoon Rai

Meteorological history of Typhoon Rai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Typhoon Rai. The Meteorological history section at Typhoon Rai#Meteorological history already comprehensively covers this topic (in fact it is almost the same size if one removes the lead section from the spun out article). Some of the other facts in this article also are reported in other sections of the Typhoon Rai article. I'm not really seeing the benefit to having a separate page on this topic when much of the content is a repeat of the other page. The very little that isn't covered in the main article could be merged as an WP:ATD. 4meter4 (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The entire first paragraph of the Typhoon Rai met history section is composed of dead links, which does not confirm if the paragraph is actually true. The second paragraph is better discussed in the met history article. The third and fourth paragraphs are the same length as the met history article, and the additional analysis section adds relevant information that the met history section can't provide. Many parts of the met history section are unsourced. This category 5 storm, which lasted nine days and had a major rapid intensification deserves to merit its own met history article. If you are willing to hold this discussion, I can add more journal analysis sources, an ibtracs source, an interactive ibtracs source, and much more sources for the expansion of this article. Regards, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 01:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out weaknesses in the content of the parent article, does not justify a WP:SPINOUT. The fact that you chose to create a new and redundant page rather than improve the existing one is the issue here. Editorially it makes more sense to keep this all within a single article. Your article improvements can be moved to the parent article where they should have been made in the first place. Hence why a merge is appropriate here. There isn't a valid reason to have a separate page. I also note that much of the material in the new article is built from WP:PRIMARY source weather data. I question whether the interpretation of that date isn't leading to WP:OR/WP:SYNTH.4meter4 (talk) 02:12, 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 Draftify. Through a headcount, there were 4 votes to draftify, and 2 votes for other (non-admin closure) shane (talk to me if you want!) 18:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The water consumption of AI data centers

The water consumption of AI data centers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Draft article that got moved by author into mainspace without review. Clear fork of Environmental impacts of artificial intelligence article. Might have been, ironically, created using AI. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: To Draft:Water consumption in AI data centers or Draft:Water usage in AI data centers. x2step (lets talk 💌) 17:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax, as it's written to falsely suggest that water is "consumed" instead of immediately being returned to the water cycle. The amount of water actually "consumed" by an AI data center on a given day is less than the amount of water consumed by the process of making a single cheeseburger. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats not how water consumption works. By that logic water is never consumed because it is always returned to water cycle User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Water drunk is consumed in a way that it can’t go directly back to the environment. Water used in cleaning processes fusing it with toxic chemicals doesn’t go straight back, or should't. Water used for cooling does. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times would disagree. So would the BBC. The problems of AI data centers depleting the water table are known. They do consume massive amounts of water in ways that impact the environment; including reduction of available drinking water for people who live nearby. 4meter4 (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an absurd framing. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with draftification if it move things along. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Resisted so more people can see this and discuss its deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, shane (talk to me if you want!) 22:48, 1 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 redirect to 2023 California wildfires. Editors interested in merging can feel free to pull content from the page history. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pika Fire

Pika Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rather small wildfire that does not pass WP:WILDFIRE-NOTE. While this fire impacted air quality in a popular national park, SFGATE states this fire was allowed to burn for forest health because humans were not threatened, showing the Pika Fire will not have a WP:LASTING impact. A WP:BEFORE search did not show WP:CONTINUED coverage, and this appears to be a run of the mill event. Would not be opposed to a redirection to 2023 California wildfires, and would have proposed a merge if this fire met criteria for the wildfire table. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 02:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. x2step (lets talk 💌) 03:02, 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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 05:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Perivoli Foundation

The Perivoli Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

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

May 15, 1998, Minnesota storms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

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

Late-October 1996 tornado outbreak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

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

FERN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Environment&oldid=1319242604"