Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Environment

Points of interest related to Environment on Wikipedia: Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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.

Purge page cache

watch

Merlin Environmental Solutions (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 fails WP:NCORP. Majority of the sources are not about the company but about people related to it. And there are also much primary sources in the article. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Alderete (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)

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]

• 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]

Agna Group (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)

Doesn't seem to meet NCORP and I couldn't find much on a WP:BEFORE, but someone more familiar with Albanian sources might have better luck. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Albania. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Advertising, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: As a recent creation with no independent or reliable sources, it should not have hit mainspace in the first place. MarioGom (talk) 09:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Verdical Group (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)

Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 10:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the page pretty much sounds like a big advertisement. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback! I'm new to writing articles, but feel like this company does a lot for the environment and green building and is certainly notable. I will work on notability and can certainly add more reliable references and rework the article to remove the promotional tone. Jonasstaff (talk) 04:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonasstaff: If you have WP:THREE WP:SECONDARY sources, post them up so everybody can review them. WP:NCORP is very specific on what can be included as a reference. A lot of references that have been added to the article PR and branding. If three decent sources please post them. scope_creep^Talk 18:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Cave Conservancy (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)

Subject does not appear to be notable upon search, and cites no references (only one external link, which is to their website). WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Texas. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Tenshi! (Talk page) 15:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I've added a source that might help. There are a lot of sites out there on this subject, as Texas is a kind of paradise for cave lovers. How well that is documented for use as sourcing, I'm not sure. — Maile (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That source does not seem to contribute to WP:GNG or WP:NORG, because it is not WP:SIGCOV (it only has two sentences about the organization). As of right now, there are no sources that are secondary and reliable that are not just a passing mention - which means, there is no real reason to presume that this organization is notable. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ende Gelände 2020 (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 special enough to have a separate article A1Cafel (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Environment, and Germany. A1Cafel (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Babarloi Dharna (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)

Article is not providing the significant coverage. According to chatgpt.zero, 98% of article has been created from Artificial Intelligence. The protests details also provided in the Controversial canals project on Indus River's political developments section. Article also fails to pass the WP:GNG and also edited by only two users. Some text excerpted from Controversial canals project on Indus River and there is no sense to keep the article stand alone. Misopatam (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While there may be concerns about AI involvement, Wikipedia's policies do not forbid using AI-generated text as long as the content complies with Wikipedia’s core content policies — especially verifiability, neutrality, and no original research. The subject of this article has been sourced from the reliable sources and doesn't fail WP:GNG. Meanwhile, some of the portion may be covered under the Controversial canals project on Indus River, but the details specific to the protests are substantial enough to merit a standalone article.The article can be improved by human copy editing, rather than deleted completely. Content that overlaps can be trimmed or consolidated, but the existence of partial duplication is not a enough reason for deletion under WP:ContentFork or WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.If the article has capability, we prefer improving it, not deleting it. The topic is current and may attract more coverage over time and It serves readers seeking specific information, which may not be easily found elsewhere. Issues can be solved by cleanup, therefore I recommend improvement if necessary, not deletion. JogiAsad (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I suggest you to merge the article in the Controversial canals project on Indus River, in which you can create a separate section named Protests and can write the required text in own words with Reliable and independent sources. Thank you Misopatam (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I respectfully disagree with the suggestion to merge Babarloi Dharna into the "Controversial canals project on Indus River" article; because Babarloi Dharna is a specific protest or an event and significant enough on its own, meanwhile The Controversial canals project on Indus River is a larger, broader infrastructure project with multiple issues, possibly including protests. While the two topics are related, they are distinct: Babarloi Dharna is a notable, standalone protest movement that received significant and enough independent media coverage, (i.e news articles, reports, studies, etc.). It is not merely a minor part of the broader canals project, but a major event with its own political and social impact. So therefore it deserves its own Wikipedia article based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines (specially WP:GNG — general notability guideline) and Wikipedia’s notability guidelines (WP:N). Events with substantial coverage in reliable sources merit their own articles. Merging would diminish the independent significance of the Dharna.

  I argue that:

  • • The two topics are related, but not identical.
    • Babarloi Dharna is not merely a subtopic; it is a standalone notable event.WP:N
    • Merging would obscure the full coverage and importance of the Dharna, i.e. Sit-ins itself.
    • Controversial canals project on Indus River is a larger, broader infrastructure project with multiple issues, possibly including protests
    • Merging would downplay an important social movement or event that has independent significance. WP:NOTMERGE.

  JogiAsad (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Cholistan Canal Project. Fails WP:NEVENT. Gheus (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Your merge suggestion isn't relevant to this article. I have elaborated above in details. And it doesn't fails WP:NEVENT. JogiAsad (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Article's title should be changed from Babarloi Dharna to Babarloi Sit-in because former title is not giving news results in search that is why it looks insignificant otherwise the protest has captured significant attention from notable news agencies. If the content of article is artificially generated than it can be easily rephrased or re-written. However, it should not be merged with Cholistan Canal Project as this article covers one the major political movements in the history of Pakistan. مھتاب احمد سنڌي (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So why you have not fixed it or re write it. First improve the article than give the statement that now the problems have been fixed and than vote for the Keep. Misopatam (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure. مھتاب احمد سنڌي (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. I'm taking down your vote for now. Thank you Misopatam (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  cmt.Issues have been fixed, further you can also fix it.

  JogiAsad (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Controversial Canals on Indus River, or Cholistan Canal Project both articles are about the mega project (which has become controversial). It's important to pay attention to the details of a large infrastructure project that has sparked controversy. On the other hand, the article about the Babarloi Dharna/Sit-in highlights a different social and political movement, which covers a public protest against these proposed controversial canal projects.

Combining the protest article with the project-related articles would mix up the topic of dissent with how that dissent is expressed, which isn't right. Just like the Faizabad sit-in is significant enough to have its own article, the Babarloi Dharna / Sit-in article is about the movement against those controversial topics and deserves the same treatment as a standalone article.It is an important civic response, complete with its own timeline, dynamics, leaders, and political effects. For these reasons, the article about the Babarloi Dharna/Sit-in should have its own entry to keep the narrative clear and true to the essence of this protest movement. JogiAsad (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to fix the issues, updated the article as per current status. See page revisions. JogiAsad (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sharjah Sustainable City (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)

There is no reliably sourced coverage of the subject. None of the sourcing in this article is independent of the UAE government, resulting in a ludicrously credulous and promotional article of this UAE government project. Thenightaway (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concerns raised. I am currently improving the article by adding more independent, reliable sources that provide neutral coverage of the subject. Additionally, I am revising the content to ensure a strictly factual and non-promotional tone, in line with Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Given that the project has received coverage in independent media outlets (such as [Shurooq]), I believe the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. I respectfully request additional time to complete these improvements. Below are the links for your reference.

https://shurooq.gov.ae/portfolio/sharjah-sustainable-city

https://www.khaleejtimes.com/business/property/sharjah-sustainable-city-hits-dh2-5-billion-in-sales

https://gulfnews.com/uae/watch-a-sustainable-city-rises-in-sharjah-with-smart-solar-homes-driverless-shuttle-1.86314388

https://www.wam.ae/en/article/dvef0-sharjah-sustainable-city-community-integrating

https://property.constructionweekonline.com/sharjah-sustainable-city-pioneering-eco-friendly-living-and-boosting-uae-real-estate/ 94.203.35.126 (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources are independent of the subject. Thenightaway (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unfortunately, the UAE does not have freedom of press, and there are hardly any newspapers, making coverage on topics that would appear to be notable by residents be limited. Gulf News and Khaleej Times are going to be your best bets for coverage on anything. This project is definitely notable regardless of the bias of the sources. Also, the place has won quite a few awards (see the article), which is a sure sign of notability. jolielover♥talk 19:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – As pointed out by the nom, none of the sources are independent from the UAE government. Svartner (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There are sources independent of the government, though.

  • https://wired.me/culture/sharjah-sustainable-city-urban-farms/
  • https://www.cbnme.com/news/sharjah-sustainable-city-hits-aed-2-5-billion-in-sales/
  • https://gulfbusiness.com/how-shurooq-is-shaping-sharjahs-transformation/
  • https://www.mepmiddleeast.com/projects/sharjah-sustainable-city-unveils-final-phase-of-324-sustainable-villas
  • https://meconstructionnews.com/51678/work-on-544mn-sharjah-sustainable-city-and-23mn-al-hira-beach-project-on-track-shurooq-says
  • https://www.arabianbusiness.com/industries/construction/shurooq-officials-review-progress-on-544-5mn-sharjah-sustainable-city-23-68mn-al-hira-beach-projects
  • https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Sharjah-map-with-the-location-of-Sharjah-Sustainable-City_fig2_370895721

  + many more. Like I said, there are no newspapers in the country 'independent' of the government due to a lack of freedom of press, but there are newspapers & magazines from outside the country covering the place, making the coverage significant & independent. jolielover♥talk 04:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]