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

Fiordland Trails Trust

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

WP:SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Environment. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Eco-Leadership Institute

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

A7 was requested and contested by an anonymous editor when the article was created about a year and a half ago, but I really don't see how there is any credible claim of significance or importance here, much less notability. Some of the sources don't even mention the organisation, and a BEFORE search turns up maybe a few bare mentions. The probability this meets any source-based notability criteria recognised on Wikipedia appears to be approximately null, without even considering the strictness we require for WP:NORG. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Ireland. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I also can't find anything, and fail to see the relevance of some of the (very brief!) content to the subject. The sentences about other researchers seem irrelevant, as does mention of one particular "organisational member" (where the founder used to work). It should be noted that "institute" is not a protected term in Ireland, where this organisation is based. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. The sources in the article do not support the content - not to mind supporting a claim to notability. All representing either trivial passing mentions or (frankly) not even mentioning the subject org AT ALL. A WP:BEFORE search returns nothing else - no coverage in news sources, journals, books, etc. The overt WP:REFBOMBing and clear WP:COI/WP:PROMO issues are also very very difficult to overlook. Has the hallmarks of WP:PAID nonsense. Firm delete. Guliolopez (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Holland

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

At Template:Did you know nominations/Phoebe Plummer, I argued that this BLP does not meet the independent notability standards of WP:CRIMINAL; the article creator disagreed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Environment, and United Kingdom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Perhaps more input from others here. It was a protest, and in some ways exactly the result they were looking for. She was sentenced to prison time. — Maile (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't doubt that Maile66, but is that relevant to the notability criteria? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete pet WP:NOT. The last time I looked, we were not a a hagiography. Bearian (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pump Aid

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

An article based on 2 sources. There's 9 google news hits but on closer inspection most of these are not WP:SIGCOV that would meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Africa, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, Africa, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several citations with non-trivial coverage referenced within the article, including press and academic journals. This WP:NONPROFIT has provided water to c. 1.2 million people. I see no issues with the subject meeting WP:GNG. ResonantDis_tortion 23:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

APFIC Objective and Key Achievements

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

Entire article is written like a promotion. Only source mentioning APFIC is its own page and a document at fao.org, its parent organization. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Asia. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has an entry in this Dictionary, this Dictionary, and an entry beginning on page 627 in International Organizations and the Law of the Sea of which only the first page is viewable. The Encyclopedia of Ocean Law and Policy in Asia-Pacific takes the time to document when various countries became members of this organization. It's organized by nation, so the coverage is across multiple pages. I think this highlighting within an overview of each country indicates some importance. There is also some coverage in [1], [2], Best.4meter4 (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 08:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TNT and because we already have the highly-promotional Asia-Pacific_Fishery_Commission, itself in dire need of clean-up, which already contains word-for-word the same text as the current article. Elemimele (talk) 09:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agreed with OP here. Might not fail any notability guidelines, but it 100% fails WP:NPOV

Aknip (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subaqueous volcano

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

Synonym of submarine volcano, I propose that this article is turned into a REDIRECT which leads to Submarine volcano. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The term "submarine volcano" refers to volcanoes under the ocean whereas "subaqueous volcano" is used to describe volcanoes that formed under lakes.

Volcanoguy 00:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The term seems universally to be used to refer to all underwater eruptions, with submarine eruptions forming the marine subset. For illustration, see the editorial and pretty much every contribution in this FES special issue on subaqueous volcanism. If the article is meant to refer to lacustrine volcanism, which to some degree seems to be a recognized sub-category, then it will have to be renamed; and reworked, because it currently is happily covering submarine volcanism - e.g., those Honshu deposits are submarine, and there is a section "Seafloor exploration". --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yup, this is supported by all the literature I found, hence why I nominated the article. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: I never claimed subaqueous is only used to describe volcanoes that formed under lakes. A subaqueous volcano is simply a volcano that formed underwater, thus I wouldn't have a problem with merging submarine volcano into subaqueous volcano since submarine volcanoes are basically a type of subaqueous volcano along with lacustrine volcanoes. Volcanoguy 23:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question.The term seems universally to be used to refer to all underwater eruptions, with submarine eruptions forming the marine subset. If the submarine volcano is a subset of Subaqueous volcano why are we merging Subaqueous volcano to submarine volcano? It should be the other way around with subaqueous volcano being the parent article. Obviously the subaqueous volcano article would need substantial rewriting, but as the umbrella term it should take precedent over "submarine volcano" which could be a subsection inside the parent article.4meter4 (talk) 09:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From a hierarchy persperctive, I think it would make more sense. But on the other hand, almost all subaqueous volcanoes appear to be submarine (not surprising), so while it's not the technical parent term, it is by far the most frequently encountered one. There are presumably cases where we put the main article at the dominant sub-topic rather than at the infrequent parent topic? Eh :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae Got you. It might do a service to the world though to merge submarine volcano to Subaqueous volcano because I am seeing the fallacy that subaqueous volcanos are different than submarine volcanos on layman discussion threads and even the kidspedia webpage for volcanos which made the same claim as Volcanoguy. It's clearly a place of confusion that is a common error among amateur volcano enthusiasts. If our coverage merges to subaqueous volcano and presents submarine volcanos as a type of subaqueous volcano (and we could also cover lacustrine volcanism on that page) we would be the first encyclopedia to help solve that widely held errata among the general public.4meter4 (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4 (talk · contribs) I don't know which of my claims you're referring to, but I don't have a problem with merging submarine volcano into subaqueous volcano. I think those involved in this AfD misinterpreted my first comment as meaning subaqueous volcanoes occur only in lakes which is not what I meant. Volcanoguy 22:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(noted --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge per above. Procyon117 (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose redirect of Subaqueous volcano to Submarine volcano.

Keep Subaqueous volcano and keep Submarine volcano.

Submarine volcanoes are a subset of subaqueous volcanoes, so I oppose a merge of Subaqueous volcano into Submarine volcano.

There are numerous scientific sources that describe sea floor (i.e. submarine) volcanic processes as "subaqueous volcanism" even when they are describing only submarine volcanoes, although the term "submarine volcanism" is also widely used. When describing specific sea floor volcanoes, however, the term "submarine volcano" seems to be preferred. I think this might be because the processes of subaqueous volcanism occur on the sea floor as well as in other geological environments, but sea floor volcanic edifices form only on the sea floor.

I suggest that the Subaqueous volcano article should be kept, but changed to become an overview article with sections on the three types of subaqueous volcanoes: (1) submarine (shallow sea and deep sea subtypes), (2) subglacial, (3) lacustrine. It would be an ideal article to compare and contrast these different volcanic environments. Each of the sections would have "Main article" templates wikilinking to their respective detailed articles: (already existing) Submarine volcano, Subglacial volcano; (to be created) Lacustrine volcano. Some text from these three detailed articles could be copied to or summarised in the overview article. There is still plenty of scope for adding new details from external reliable sources about only sea floor volcanoes to the Submarine volcano article, so I oppose a complete merge of the Submarine volcano article into the Subaqueous volcano article. GeoWriter (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Environment

Contents

Environment

Fiordland Trails Trust

The Eco-Leadership Institute

Anna Holland

Pump Aid

APFIC Objective and Key Achievements

Subaqueous volcano

Environment proposed deletions