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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Environment.

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

Freddy McKinney[edit]

Freddy McKinney (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 article is about a storm chaser who received temporarily media coverage for being first on the scene of a destroyed home where all the occupants were severely injured and he rushed them to the hospital. This is the only notable coverage he has ever received. This article fails notability guidelines, specifically WP:1E, and should be deleted. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 17:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A burst of coverage in the last 10 days around his rescue of the family, but nothing outside that event found besides brief mentions in one or two articles for the last few years. Likely PROMO, but nothing found for this youtuber. Oaktree b (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, Environment, Internet, and Nebraska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well, no, isn't there significant coverage of the subject here and here? If we're looking for a person to be notable, then the sources should have at least several paragraphs in reliable sources. Here, McKinney isn't just notable for his rescue of a Texas family. There's coverage of him before that as per above; I think that with the enough coverage provided in the article's reliable sources, McKinney should meet WP:GNG! ~ Tails Wx (🐾, ⛈️) 20:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The first one is a bit local. Hopefully someone here can provide the link to the relevant policy on these not counting towards GNG. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1997 Prairie Dell-Jarrell tornado[edit]

1997 Prairie Dell-Jarrell tornado (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 tornado has an ample section at 1997 Central Texas tornado outbreak which more than covers this tornado. Having a separate article to cover the same information is a WP:CONTENTFORK. The author also recently started 2024 Sulphur tornado, which was overwhelming merged: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Sulphur tornado. United States Man (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep – As a test before article creation/move into mainspace, I copied and pasted the entire section for the Jarrell tornado into my sandbox (User:WeatherWriter/sandbox), which came out to 22,500 bytes. The article, pre-AFD was 45,690 bytes. For reference, the article is twice the size of the section, meaning not a clear WP:CONTENTFORK. The article clearly passes WP:NEVENT as well as WP:LASTING, with articles like this and this decades later, specifically on the tornado. Other rational in the nominator's statement involves WP:Other Stuff Doesn't Exist and the nominator specifically brought up the article's creator, meaning they did not focus on content (article) and choose to focus on the contributor (creator). No clear reason to delete has been provided. This is also a WP:COAL for me, as I think I made my reasoning clear and I do not want to respond to questions or others in this discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the excess character number comes from the lead section and the "Case studies" section which uses unnecessarily long quotes and could be entirely condensed into one paragraph. Quantity does not equal quality. United States Man (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section is perfectly acceptable in length, and I will say that the quotes can be sheared down a little bit. It still doesn’t make it a complete content fork, however. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 10:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge? Delete? - From what I can tell looking over these articles for the first time, this article is just a regurgitation of what is provided more succulently on the 1997 Central Texas tornado outbreak page. The fatalities section in particular is almost identical word for word. If there are new details in this tornado article that were not provided on that outbreak page, they should be merged into the outbreak page. Otherwise, this appears to be an unacceptable content fork and should be deleted. In theory, I'm not against an individual page for the Jarrell tornado, but I think the main outbreak page presents the information so thoroughly that it would be inferior in every case. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 03:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Note - It is over twice as long, and thus does not meet the criteria to be deleted under Wikipedia:Content forks. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 10:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry for the note again, but the entire section has been fixed and expanded upon further. Feel free to check it out, and there shouldn't be any copyvios there anymore. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 11:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - the main outbreak article is what… 23,000 bytes? This article is over 2 times longer (over 43,000 bytes). Also “more than covers the tornado”? Does it go over national reactions, documentation of the event; including the famous “dead man walking” photo, case studies, and even road names? “More than covers tornado” isn’t a good reason for deletion in this case.

Also, no need to bring 2024 Sulphur tornado up in this. Even after removing the “case studies” part that you had talked about, it was still over 4,300 bytes. So that isn’t really an excuse to delete either. This includes the copyvios in the ""fatalities" section, lead length, "case studies" length, among other things. I will continue to work on rewrites as this fine Tuesday progresses.MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 10:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

one more note, this article has like 10 more images than the main summary, and I oulfnt work with merging, as you can’t merge “documentation” and “case studies” into it. Also, the case studies part is perfectly acceptable, and both sources are confirmed to be Public Domain. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 10:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep – One of the most powerful and deadliest tornados in US history. It is also the last EF5 tornado to happen in Texas as of 2014. No reason what so ever to remove. Gengeros (talk) 06:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: The article discusses about a major tornado event in US history. There is absolutely no reason to delete this page. Just expand the page and that would be all. RandomWikiPerson_277^{talk page or something} 15:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of tornadoes by calendar day[edit]

List of tornadoes by calendar day (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 is a cherry-picked list with no specific criteria. The article name is highly misleading as one would expect every tornado that occurred on each day to be listed (which is impossible). Dates on this page have mention of certain tornadoes or outbreaks without any mention of multiple other tornadoes or outbreaks of equal or greater significance occurring the same dates. Since not every tornado event can be included, this article is misleading and should be deleted. United States Man (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC) United States Man (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No reason has been specified for deletion. Noah, BSBA^Talk 03:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stand by. I gave a reason but it seems that was not carried over into the discussion for some reason. United States Man (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title probably should have been changed ages ago. I changed it to reflect how it should read. I know it will get deleted anyway, but I’m still trying to plead my case. I wish I could be given the opportunity to fix this page - with a deadline - instead of it just being deleted entirely. Dym75 (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT. I don't understand why we need to know what day of any particular year a tornado occurred. Ajf773 (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as utterly inane. Tornadoes don't have any correlation to specific calendar days (except for there being fewer on February 29). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Except it’s not “utterly inane” … if it were fixed, this could be an excellent reference for people looking to see if there was a significant tornado or outbreak on a given day. Dym75 (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with the rest, this list fails the criteria for a list on wikipedia in several ways, one of which is that it's arbitrary, another that it's an unmanageably large set.--Licks-rocks (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and others. Noah, BSBA^Talk 12:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Also disagree that no reason was provided for deletion. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Abhishek0831996: Check the history. It was blank before. Noah, BSBA^Talk 13:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. This list does not need to exist at all. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It honestly feels like a sort of "fan-page", and really doesn't contribute much to the actual encyclopedia. Tornadoes don't follow a by-day pattern each year, and if say for "May 30" the 1999 F5 popped up, what about the May 30 F0? There are no criteria. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 15:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Rather than outright deleting it, perhaps it could be moved to the weather portal, for the weather events by day? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and also WP:NLIST. As MemeGod pointed out, there is no pattern for day-by-day tornado events. Conyo14 (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all reasons previously covered. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 18:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Please do not delete

I have not gotten to work on this page as much as I’d like to, but there was a purpose to my edits, as many of them as there were, and I’d love more time to work on it: 1. It was proof that tornadoes can happen on every single day of the calendar year. People think that they can’t or don’t happen in certain months, but they do. 2. It was proof that tornadoes can happen on six of the seven continents (if there’s been one on Antarctica, then correct me!), trying to get away from being too America-centered since folks don’t realize how many places are affected beyond Tornado Alley, Dixie Alley, etc. I found more info on tornadoes that happened in Africa, South Asia, Australia, etc. 3. I had no intentions of making this a “fan page” - which sounds odd, anyway - but for educational purposes. I was trying to find tornadoes with significance, including all the EF5 tornadoes, the most significant EF4 tornadoes, the deadliest, the costliest, and so on. I was trying to include tornadoes that happen in states where folks least expect them (New England states, Hawaii, etc). 4. The whole point of continuing the page was for the folks who may stumble upon it and learn something. It would dispel myths which is incredibly important. The ignorance outside the weather community is astounding. Knowledge can save lives, right? I’m going to copy all the code/info and such because I spent days upon weeks in the past trying to fix this page, but work, health, and my elderly Mom have gotten in the way. If all else fails, and you folks just delete it anyway, I’ll just create my own website with this information. Stinks if I had to do that, though… dym75 16 May 2024

You cannot use Wikipedia for personal gain. Knowledge here has to be reliable, notable, and significantly covered. Feel free to find educational sources and ping them here. Conyo14 (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal gain? I don’t understand. Also, every source has been reliable, all tornadoes listed are notable, and… significantly covered? Dym75 (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You specialize in hockey/sports pages? Why are you part of a discussion about the deletion of a weather article? This is so confusing… Dym75 (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because he can be? Anyone can be part of a discussion, no matter the topic. Heck, I write mainly galaxy pages! MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 17:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Way to make me feel inclusive. I have plenty of knowledge in all facets of Wikipedia, whilst continuing to expand my wisdom. That being said, the sources listed are WP:ROUTINE to a normal, yet typically catastrophic, weather event, but are not induced to the specific day of the week or day of the year. There are better arguments for the month they occur recognized with tornado patterns. Also, if people were curious about a date it happened, they can review List of tornado events by year and go from there. Conyo14 (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with knowledge and saving lives. The article is non-encyclopedic. You could add 700,000 bytes to the page, and the article still would be AfD because it isn't needed. I hope you Mom gets better! :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 11:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying that about my Mom.

I guess I don’t understand why someone didn’t nominate this page for deletion years ago. It’s been around for well over a decade and god knows I certainly wouldn’t have bothered doing loads of research and trying to improve upon it.

There is/was criteria for selecting the tornadoes I did. They were EF5s or EF4s, they were historically significant with regard to advances in meteorology, how tornadoes were recorded. They were culturally significant because of the people or places affected, the loss of life or property. They were proof of significant tornadoes on other continents. I dug up information from a variety of other Wiki articles, from NOAA databases, major news stories, other sources. I was trying to keep it relevant on a worldwide scale with as many other major tornadoes from other continents as possible.

You folks will probably boot me from Wikipedia forever for changing the title, but I did anyway: “List of significant tornadoes by calendar day.” That was the idea behind my edits. Actual significance and not a fan page - still don’t understand what that means. (And I know folks may have added a bunch of random events between May and November or during other times of the year that didn’t line up with the standard I was trying to create for the page. That certainly doesn’t help my case.) Dym75 (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, nobody is THAT harsh (although I will say some crazy people are on here). Even if it was renamed, it's all good. :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 17:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, aren’t encyclopedias supposed to be about learning, gaining knowledge? Dym75 (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dastak Welfare and Development Organization[edit]

Dastak Welfare and Development Organization (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)

I don't see this Pakistani NGO passing the WP:NCORP. Fails WP:GNG as well. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Education, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]