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

Environmental sustainability of vintage fashion

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

Yet another low-quality student assignment – this is an essay, not an encyclopedia article, and a poor one at that. The page is largely synthesis of unrelated topics and irrelevant sources that are not specifically about vintage fashion. The Benefits section is just redundant to Environmental impact of fashion, implying that buying used goods (obviously) reduces impact. The Growth section is irrelevant to sustainability; the Transportation section has just one source that's irrelevant to fashion; quality control, affordability, and demand are all irrelevant to sustainability and/or fashion.

This was a written by a classmate of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Food waste in Barcelona's author. I always wonder what grade students get when they just lump unconnected things together with poor sourcing like this (it was a study abroad class, so they probably didn't care much). Reywas92^Talk 19:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Environment. Shellwood (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the exact same reasons as Food waste in Barcelona, just replacing "clothing" for "food waste". WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Food waste in Barcelona

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

Article is likely LLM-generated and heavy on WP:OR. No clear reason is given why food waste in this one city is more notable than food waste in, say, Buenos Aires, or Manila, or Des Moines. Sources are mostly about food waste more broadly or about food waste in Spain as a whole. The one exception is Ref. 8, but that's an MDPI publication, which is questionable (see WP:MDPI). Even if we accept that article, we need more sources about this topic specifically. And we can certainly live without the shamelessly promotional closing paragraph about the Too Good To Go app. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Spain. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether or not it's AI, it's yet another mediocre student project. Why do we allow students in classes to create new articles, particularly on overly specific topics like this? They almost always suck, and this is no exception. Reywas92^Talk 02:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See this article and my comment on its talk page. WikiEdu is (IMHO) a terrible idea, and AI has turned it up to 10 and ripped the knob off. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I PROD'd this article earlier for the same reasons brought up in this discussion, and it was declined. This article was created in the early AI days, but recently we launched a required AI training modulefor fall 2025 classes and set up of a monitoring system using the AI detection software Pangram with the focus of preventing AI slop. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Brianda, I strongly encourage the WikiEd program to update its guidance to encourage students to improve existing articles, rather than create new ones. We see far too many pages come to AFD because students pick specific topics that aren't cohesive or notable and then write them like an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. Several of the other articles created in this class have also been deleted, and the rest are similarly tagged as being like essays, full of low-quality content that often synthesizes irrelevant information – these need a closer look too. If students are to make new pages, they should be on discrete topics like biographies....though I suppose it's better to have their inexperienced slop on pages that won't be read rather than more visible ones.... — Reywas92^Talk 18:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Environmental sustainability of vintage fashion. Reywas92^Talk 19:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jackery

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

Redirect to Jacquerie contested, so here we are. Non-notable US power company, undersourced to primary sources, Forbes Sites, LinkedIn and the usual low level corporate desperation sources. Fails WP:GNG and NCORP. Would accept redirect per consensus but note it's not a perfect target so, failing that, deletion would be appropriate. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Saeed

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, no WP:SIGCOV found. Arbaz Thakur (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. Arbaz Thakur (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Environment, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Barely any coverage about the subject. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1935 United Kingdom heatwaves

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

I am not convinced that this is a significant weather event. I've reviewed this article and attempted to find some sources as outlined under WP:BEFORE. Unfortunately, I did not turn up much outside of one British Newspaper Archive snippet from 1935 and an WP:SPS with one line to substantiate the information within the article. The sources that were already present in the article are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS.

I have made comparisons to other articles that are listed in Category:20th-century heat waves, there are a few in this list which I believe also do not meet WP:GNG or WP:NWEATHER. The ones that do however have far more coverage, for example 1995 Chicago heat wave and 1911 Eastern North America heat wave. This one does not have that. I don't think there is anything that couldn't be included at List of heat waves, so I will suggest a merge or redirect, whilst keeping an open mind to anybody that comments in this AfD. I welcome any sources that are found. 11WB (talk) 05:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and United Kingdom. 11WB (talk) 05:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of heat waves: The sources don't make this look like a particularly notable event, even for heat waves, and no content exists at the List of heat waves for a redirect to be appropriate. -- Recon rabbit 18:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist. Is there any more support for a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AMPIN Energy Transition

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Article’s tone is promotional, with sources consisting mostly of routine business announcements such as funding rounds and partnerships with Sumitomo, etc. It also touts statistics and targets (e.g., 25 GW by 2030) sans criticism, and features images scattered across the page (e.g., “CIP Meet” and “Siemens tie-up” promo shots), reinforcing an advertorial feel. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Delhi. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Pandit Deendayal Energy University study provides notable depth and analysis that supports WP:NCORP. though a single analytical source can't establish notability. Most of the remaining coverage appears routine. EmilyR34 (talk) 09:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Rechcigl

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Environment, and Florida. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes criteria 3 of WP:NPROF as an elected Fellow of Czechoslovak Society of Arts and Sciences, the American Society of Agronomy, and the Soil Science Society of America. Also I would say his role as director of two research centers at the University of Florida is pretty significant.4meter4 (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Where are the sources that verify those claims? Just because his site claims these is not enough considering all the other unreliable claims.
2. ASA & SSSA are the same, searches on their site does not find him and the qualifications are not of the level of WP:NPROF#C3 even if he is a Fellow.
3. A search of https://www.google.com/search?q=Czechoslovak+Society+of+Arts+and+Sciences+Rechcigl finds cites for his father (a founder of the organisation), but not him.
4. Only being the top admin of a major university passes WP:NPROF#C6 as stated on the NPROF page and the nom.
Ldm1954 (talk) 18:30, 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. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk 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.
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.

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.

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]

The water consumption of AI data centers

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Artificial intelligence. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy draftify to Water consumption by AI data centers and require to go through WP:AFC. I do think there is an article to be had here, because this is a growing problem of increasing importance and I do think there could be a valid WP:SPINOUT. This is not yet ready for article space.4meter4 (talk) 16:16, 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]

Merge judiciously into Environmental impact of artificial intelligence#Water usage. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 23:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drafity Needs to be reworked and renamed, but the impacts of "AI" are great and devastating. The use of water and use of electricity have both been significantly covered and noted to merit separate articles.←Metallurgist (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify along the lines of the titles suggested by 4meter4 and x2step. There's enough to warrant an standalone article here and the work to edit and merge the content into Environmental impact of artificial intelligence#Water usage would be nearly as much as converting this into a suitable article. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:46, 1 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 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]

Environment proposed deletions