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

[edit]

King's Wood, Corby

[edit]
King's Wood, Corby (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)

No independent refs on the page. Nothing much else found to suggest notability JMWt (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This nature reserve is referenced by Natural England and the Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire. It is notable as a designated nature reserve. "Nothing much else found" is a vague criterion for deletion and incorrect as a matter of fact. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those are independent sources. Both are involved in managing/owning the site. JMWt (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, the Trust manages the site. Natural England is the regulator and the site is mentioned briefly in their database of all local nature reserves. JMWt (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added another independent source. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Local nature reserves are designated as such by local authorities, not nationally. NGEO: Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level ... are presumed to be notable. Dege31 (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the independent coverage is minimal, or in passing. There is little that this article adds that is not already in the list, and I moved the only substantial reference which had been missing. Dege31 (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is not correct that there is minimal independent coverage. It is substantial. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Friend, might I suggest you have a read of Wikipedia:SIGCOV. As the examples there show, short mentions in passing are not substantial. So in my opinion, newspaper articles which are not directly on topic but only mention the reserve in passing are not substantive. Short news articles which are on topic but are simply notices are not normally considered a sign of notability.
And that ultimately is where we disagree. There is coverage, but nothing that says this nature reserve meets the inclusion standard. If we were to allow this one, then we would have to include all the other thousands of English local nature reserves on the same basis. As far as I see, this isn't an SSSI or NNR, it's not an archaeological or geological reserve. Nobody has written a published book about it, nobody has used it as a site for their ecological studies. It's just not that important. JMWt (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are passing mentions which I did not add, but cumulatively support notability. Coverage in the database of Natural England of local nature reserves on its own establishes notability, and there are thousands of articles on them. I see no reason to single out this article as not notable. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's do some source analysis.
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Yes Generic info in a database bolstered with a paragraph of 'what to see' ? Unknown
Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
Yes Yes No This is a map ✘ No
No This is an article on the website of the Wildlife Trusts Yes Database profile ✘ No
Funded by North Northamptonshire Council Appears to be tour guides No Passing mention ✘ No
No This is an article on the website of the Wildlife Trusts Yes Yes ✘ No
Yes Even if the reserve was mentioned, this looks like a press release No The reserve is not even mentioned ✘ No
Yes Yes No King's Wood is only relevant as belonging to the set of relevant parks, not in itself ✘ No
No This is an article on the website of the North Northamptonshire Council Yes No Generic, basic info ✘ 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}}.

Dege31 (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep were the subject of two books by Jeffrey A. Best in the 1980s which the 2020 book "Trees and Woodlands in the British Lands" calls "mighty." I cannot access them or the book "The Royal Forests of Northamponshire" from the 1960s, and at least one research article on trees near road construction from the 1950s. Also some newspaper articles [1] - I'm sure there would probably be more if I could do a historical record search as I see lots of mentions over a period of time. If this is GEOLAND, then we're clearly there, GNG is more marginal but there's enough here to write an encyclopaedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 08:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand your comment. You are basing it on two books you can't access? What is the subject of the books you reference? JMWt (talk) 08:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basing a comment on snippets of books to which you do not have full access to is valid. The article has pages devoted to it in two independent reliable sources, which are cited in the article. There are 7 million articles in English Wikipedia and most of them have problems with uncited statements, unreliable sources and statments not in the sources. Unlike this majority, the article is fully and correctly referenced. It also has more evidence of notability than at least a million articles. I find it puzzling that editors think that they can best improve Wikipedia by devoting so much time to making a case for deleting this article. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to know the names of the authors and the subject of the book. That's not too much to ask when someone asserts that they're enough to show that the notability criteria have been met. That's it. JMWt (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears to be a reference to "King's Wood Corby: Description, History, Explanation of Habitats and Wildlife" and "King's Wood Corby- local nature reserve: Evaluation and proposed management plan" Dege31 (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, those appear to be publications from a Higher Education college (which ultimately became the University of Northampton). Without actually being able to see them, we don't know if they are RS, peer reviewed or anything else. Simply knowing that they exist isn't enough. JMWt (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why isn't it enough? If you want to say they don't establish notability, then it is on you to give a reason why not. You asked for the names of the authors and the subjects of the books. You have been provided with that information. There is no presumption that a source is unreliable just because you find obtaining access to it and checking reliability inconvenient. I recommend reading WP:NEXIST. Ike Lek (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a nature reserve described in multiple reliable independent sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Pekalongan flood and landslide

[edit]
2025 Pekalongan flood and landslide (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)

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most .. accidents ..) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, quantities associated with a subject are not factored into AfD. Yet, that is stating the irrelevant. The relevant information is that, like the above, WP:EFFECTs are factored into AfDs so your argument was already refuted before it was written! gidonb (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. So far what we have is the destruction of multiple buildings and structures resulting in damage estimated to cost 30 million USD, the aid, and a very large amount of deaths for a flood. [2] is a slightly more retrospective article from a few months after the floods discussing the damage in the region and the changes being made to emergency response as a result of the the floods + the relocation of the people in the village. [3], also published a few months after the floods, discusses the fact that the relocations hadn't happened yet, and that the villagers were living in evacuation centres. Last month, there's a passing mention [4] about how the flood had impacted the villager's access to electricity, tying it in to the much broader subject of the monopoly that is Perusahaan Listrik Negara versus a smaller micro hydro plant. Given that we don't have a prohibition on creating event articles until they can be written about in scholarly sources (that can have a year or two turn around at a minimum, so good enough sources literally can't exist yet for pretty much any article about an event in 2025), and this one has already shown lasting effects on the region, keep with no prejudice against a merge should somebody find a suitable page. (And maybe revisit in a few years) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 07:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Environment proposed deletions

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Environment&oldid=1298690685"