Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Environment

WP: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

International charter for walking

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

does not meet notability guidelines per WP:GNG not enough reliable independent coverage of the subject SapphicVibes (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons provided by SapphicVibes.

RedactedHumanoid (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Economics, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I love walking and even race walking, I don't see significant coverage. If you can rescue this, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Green Actors of West Africa

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

This article has been unsourced for 15 years. My searching regarding this organization in english and french have not turned up any independent sources and quite a few that cite wikipedia as a source which is a problem with an unsourced article. (Going through notability backlog) Moritoriko (talk) 06:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Africa. Moritoriko (talk) 06:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If no one has found any sources in 15 years, they probably don't exist. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 12:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. 15 years is a very long time to wait FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 23:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ousmane Aly Pame

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

Subject fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG and a cursory search didn't turn out anything useful. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Senegal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see some sources, but nothing independent. Francisco288 (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Gottfried

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

No indication of significance. References are passing mentions, profiles and interviews. scope_creep^Talk 07:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Businesspeople, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Only the Syracuse source counts towards notability, everything else being a press release, unreliable, or an interview. Bearian (talk) 03:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think this topic is notable as a founder and leader in the green building community, especially with the sustainability concerns of today. Bearian has commented here that the Syracuse source counts. I just added another source which shows the subject's notability with significant coverage from a reliable, independent source (the government's EPA archives): https://archive.epa.gov/greenbuilding/web/pdf/bdcwhitepaperr2.pdf. I also think this USA Today article shows his significance from a reliable, independent source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/25/green-building-big-business-leed-certification/1655367/Jonasstaff (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usa article that uses Gottfried self-published book to expand the article to two small paras. It is WP:PRIMARY. The whitepaper lists references but no reference list, so it can't be verified, which is curious. That is a particularly poor design of a whitepaper. It is also full of adverts and corporate spam. Regarding 2nd ref in the article that was added on the 19 May. It is a passing mention at most. Its not in-depth either. These references are extremely poor and prove most of all that the dude lacks WP:SIGCOV that is independent, indepth and secondary. scope_creep^Talk 00:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep founder of major notable organizations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hunt (editor)

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

This article has existed in a pretty dire state since its creation in 2006. Over the past two decades, a dearth of significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources has been noted. It seems that the subject's alleged notability was inherited from their affiliation with the Green Anarchist publication and their later affiliation with Troy Southgate's national-anarchism.

None of the sources currently cited in this article give the subject substantial coverage independent of these two areas. There appears to be no information that could construct anything resembling a biography about this person. As this article appears to fall short of our notability guidelines on people, I'm recommending this article for deletion; a possible alternative to deletion could be redirecting to the Green Anarchist article. Grnrchst (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Politics, Environment, and United Kingdom. Grnrchst (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Green Anarchism as a suitable alternative to deletion, since he's affiliated with the topic. He is just as affiliated with Alternative Green, but since we have no article on that, I think the former is a better target than some broader article on national anarchism or the political right in the UK. I didn't see enough in a source search that we could use to substantiate a standalone article. czar 13:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The ideal would be a redirect to Green Alternative so I wonder if we should create a stub for that? Otherwise redirect to Green Anarchist would be fine. However, Green Anarchism (which goes to Green anarchism) is far too general and would be a bad move. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley: Was Green Alternative even notable enough for an article? If there's no significant coverage of it, like there isn't of its founder, then I think it could easily be covered by a few sentences in the Green Anarchist article. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you’re right. I’ve got a bunch of tabs open so will look. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see there is currently a Green Alternative page which is a disamb page that doesn’t include Hunt’s group. I’ll add it there. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I took on de-stubifying this article at Project Anarchism, I had lots of tabs open. I've now gone through these and added as much material to the page as I can find. Some of it is from solid reliable sources; some (including more biographical material) is from weaker primary sources. My feeling now is there is enough here to keep the article. However, an alternative that I would also support would be to Rename as Green Alternative (magazine) or Green Alternative (UK) and rewrite it so the focus is on the publication/group not the individual. I would also be happy to merge the content into the (currently badly sourced) Green Anarchist article (but that might give Hunt too much space there). I still have a bunch of tabs open with the aim of improving that article. Pinging previous contributors Grnrchst and Czar in case my edits change their mind, and also John Eden who has done the most solid editing on the GA article and Jdcooper who I believe created this stub. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on the expansion! There are a few different threads here but my thoughts are: (1) The Hunt article still is too dependent on primary sources for basic details—i.e., there isn't enough coverage of Hunt himself in reliable, secondary sources to avoid having to revert to reliable sources—so I think the best bet is to redirect (but to where?) (2) Is there enough content on Alternative Green for a dedicated article? In the linked sources that I've read, AG is just part of the Southgate story and the actual scope of those articles is Southgate's movement in the UK which, in lieu of a separate article, is essentially the scope of National-anarchism. Would it suffice to cover GA in its own article (as it is) and AG in the National-anarchism article, where Hunt is already mentioned? (3) As for where to redirect Hunt, I'd sooner redirect to GA because I read the sources as associating him better with that then AG but if he is equally associated with both, we might want to delete the Hunt link as having no clear redirect target. I think that is a better outcome than redirecting to National-anarchism, where Hunt is mentioned but is not clearly affiliated. czar 01:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vanni forest

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

Article is about forests in the Vanni region without specific mention of a named forest. Sources are either links to sat images or references that does not deal with a location called the "Vanni forest" and the page Natural forests in Sri Lanka already exists. -UtoD 11:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, Geography, and Sri Lanka. UtoD 11:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Move to Forests in Vanni. perhaps Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Alderete

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

In my WP:BEFORE, I found only one reliable independent source with significant coverage of the subject to count towards WP:BIO [1], which I added to the article. The other two sources cited in the article are not independent. I checked WP:NPROF and I think the only criteria that might apply is #1, for citations. Her Google Scholar profile [2] gives an h-index of around 30, which I suggest is borderline; I do note that the article had explicitly been undraftified with this comment respectable h-index, may meet WP:NPROF. I submit that it doesn't, and therefore than an article now is too soon. As an alternative to deletion, I would be happy for the article to be draftified again for future expansion and resubmisssion when notability is clearer. SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Health and fitness, and Environment. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would argue the one article the nom cites as potentially meeting WP:BIO is not in-depth enough count towards significance --- it's largely interview responses. From a public health perspective, the potential link between pollution and allergies/asthma/diabetes was established well before Aderelte's career began (e.g. [3]), so much of her research isn't groundbreaking in the field. I wouldn't even draftify this as academics usually take a while to become notable and it's likely to languish there for years. If Alderete becomes notable in the future someone can rewrite based on newer and better information. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonrfjwhuikdzz if she passes WP:NPROF then she does not need to pass WP:BIO as well. Based on her GS profile and similar cases in the past, she probably passes the bar for NPROF. --hroest 15:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, and I admit I am also generally skeptical of WP:NPROF as setting too low a bar for notability among academics. I'm not a fan of h-index or other citation metrics for establishing notability since I think such metrics skew incentives for scientific investigation. Raw citation counts are also difficult to use since some fields can be much more citation-happy than others.

I took a brief look at three of Alderete's publications based on the weak keep votes, and I'm not impressed by the quality of the science in two so I am still sticking with my delete vote (the third was too specialized for me to understand well enough).

As an aside, the first paper I have concerns with are [4] which throws out measured infant masses in the methods section instead of using averages/standard deviations. I'd expect to get fired if I used such a method. Including standard deviations in mass would likely make the correlations appear much weaker than stated in the paper. The second is this one which does not include income as a potential confounding factor (incomes are generally lower near sources of pollution, and lower incomes mean healthier foods can be unaffordable, so could that be a more reasonable explanation for the observed correlation?). Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I dont disagree with you, I also feel this is a case just at the edge. However, the reason we are lenient for articles of professors / scientists is the Strickland case and the fact that its often fiendishly difficult for Wikipedians to judge academic research quality (and takes up a lot of time). Therefore peer assessment is what we go for and everything else borders on WP:OR. Personally, I am not familiar with the standard methodology for infant weight/length measurements, in some cases outlier removal is a valid method and treating outliers as if they come from a normally distributed set of values is also a mistake by itself. Maybe its just nontrivial to get a baby to hold still in a scale :-) ? I also agree that income could be a confounding factor for the other study, however they do mention they use parental education as a proxy for socioeconomic status so there is an attempt to control for it but there is no evidence to support this choice. Either way, it would be good if the discussion of the results would have included this limitation but it does not necessarily invalidate the whole study. --hroest 13:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep this person (just) passes WP:NPROF#1 with an h-index of 33 and 13 of her publications cited 100+ times. This indicates an impact in her academic field as per guidelines. --hroest 15:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and repair. There were some very strange statements such as her currently being a postdoctoral scholar (at the same time as an associate professor), I removed that one as I don't believe it. Her h-index is borderline, as others have said, but her citation trend is very strongly increasing so I am OK to give her the benefit of the doubt. Someone badly needs to repair the page. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Postdoc same time as assistant or associate professor; such things happen esp. to get an out-of-cycle sabbatical, and because a lot of generally prestiguous awards are technically postdoctoral fellowships; I had two such "postdocs" one during asst. prof and one during assoc. prof. The extra time to work was well worth the slight decrease in pay. Not weighing in here whether this was the case for her. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep While the Provost Award doesn't satisfy WP:PROF 2, it is nevertheless useful to look at what it is awarded for: "These awards will be granted in recognition of a particular piece of research, scholarship, or creative work that has made a significant contribution to the field and that reflects the accomplishments and promise of the recipient" (emphasis added). WP:PROF 1 is: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline". Taken together with the arguments above, it's probably reasonable to give her the benefit of the doubt. h-index counting is silly, and for WP:PROF 1a it's not as if there is a moment when someone's contribution suddenly switches from not significant to significant. What is clear now is that her work is being regularly and increasingly cited by her peers, and at least one panel that evaluated her work determined that it constituted a significant contribution to her field.

a bunch of penguins (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with your conclusion of Weak keep, I have to disagree about two of your statements. First, the Provost award is just that, an award from her employer who is not a disinterested party. It is not a distinguished chair. Her midterm award is more significant as it is more independent, but still not enough by itself.

Second, unless a BLP is in one's personal field, an h-index is the most reliable metric of what an academic's peers think of their work. While you or I may think that one of our papers is wonderful, what counts is whether others do. With standard caveats about math (and perhaps one or two other) and also discipline scaling, h-factors are WP:NPOV. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I should say that I think I'm generally on the "slightly more disposed to give the benefit of the doubt re notability" side of things, so I'd be happy if this turned out to be a keep. However, I am always mindful of not wishing to be chided about accepting dubious articles at WP:NPP! Hence this AfD. @Ldm1954 you mentioned discipline scaling and I would love to know how the subject's h-index sits with respect to her peers and co-authors in the environmental and health sciences field. If she were reasonably above average, then I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination. SunloungerFrog (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep no new arguments beyond above, esp. hroest, and Ldm1954 carry weight for me; only weighing in because a second relist needs another voice. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, per NPROF#1 as noted by hroest and others. In addition to the h-index of 33, of the 13 publications with over 100 citations, she is first author on four and corresponding author on another. One could argue waiting another five years, but as noted above the trajectory seems there. Nnev66 (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Environment proposed deletions