Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Environment
 | Points of interest related to Environment on Wikipedia: Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and neither does removing an AfD from this page remove it from the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. 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:deletion sorting|Environment|sig=~~~~}}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.
- Edit this page and add
- 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:| watch |
Environment
[edit]- Caroline Blazovsky (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 significant coverage that is independent of the subject. All the sources given are either interviews or promotional profiles, and I did not find anything better searching Google News, Google Scholar, or basic search. Packrat3860 (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, Environment, United States of America, and New Jersey. BhikhariInformer 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 09:05, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
- Delete: Some coverage found: , but nothing strictly about this individual. I don't see a pass at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:NBIO. Aneirinn (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
- André Nakhavali (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)
Junior environmental scientist a few years out from his PhD who has an h-factor of 12 and 500 cites. No major awards, giving a single invited talk does not count. No SIGCOV, not even close to what should be on Wikipedia, WP:TOOSOON by many years. Page came from two novice editors who have created at least one more that appears to be similarly inappropriate. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Environment, and Mathematics. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
 |
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |
| |
- Additional source. The nomination also states that there is no significant coverage. On 28 October 2026, Radio Farda journalist Mehran Karimi published a dedicated 9-minute, 45-second feature on Nakhavali’s transition from electronic music to scientific research, his work on climate change and forests, and his selection for the Kamide Award. The segment focuses on Nakhavali and his work and should be considered under WP:SIGCOV. Philipo87 (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
- Please reread WP:NSCHOLAR. Early career awards are not notable, only major awards from larger societies. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
- AOGS formally designates the Kamide Lecture as an award. WP:NSCHOLAR criterion 2 turns on the award’s prestige in the field and contains no blanket exclusion for early-career awards. Separately, Radio Farda’s 9-minute, 45-second feature on subject’s career and research directly challenges the claim of no significant coverage. AOGS award rules · Radio Farda feature Kavehkolefon (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per failing WP:NPROF. His Google Scholar profile says only 498 citation and h-index is 12. That is really poor for WP:NPROF#1. The Kamide Award Lecture is not a major award. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 04:39, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
- Keep WP:NPROF treats the h-index as a limited measure of research impact and sets no fixed citation threshold. The “no significant coverage” claim also deserves a closer look. Radio Farda devoted a 9-minute, 45-second segment to Nakhavali’s career and forest research. That is evidence under WP:SIGCOV regardless of how editors assess the Kamide award.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipo87 (talk • contribs) — Philipo87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete. Looks far WP:TOOSOON for NPROF notability for this 2019 PhD, with only one somewhat well-cited paper and only early career awards. I don't think the human interest story is enough for GNG notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
- Grass (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 propose merging to Graminoid.
Grass used to redirect to Poaceae until last year; at Talk:Poaceae § Proposal (and the RM preceding it), it was decided to create an article about grasslike plants at this title, in place of the redirect.
However, the participants at that proposal didn't seem to consider the existence of Graminoid, which also refers to grasslike plants, and the same three families as described by Grass.
So these articles essentially refer to the same thing, and we should just have one article on it.
I am proposing this (and not the other way around) as Graminoid is the older and longer article; the title of the merged article can be changed as per consensus.
9ninety (talk) 06:50, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related AfD discussions. 9ninety (talk) 06:50, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose. I would support Graminoid being being redirected to Grass, which is the much more familiar term in everyday language. Article age or length is not relevant. There is no harm in having both, though. Tony Holkham (Talk) 08:26, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
- The title can be decided in an RM or just moved if uncontroversial. But it makes more sense to merge the newer stub into the more substantive article on the same thing. I don't think there's a point in having both. 9ninety (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
- I disagree with these arguments and stand by my opinion. Tony Holkham (Talk) 08:59, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
- The title can be decided in an RM or just moved if uncontroversial. But it makes more sense to merge the newer stub into the more substantive article on the same thing. I don't think there's a point in having both. 9ninety (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose. "Grass" is a much more well-known term. Georgia guy (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose – I could see a reverse merge happening, but not in this direction. We need to have a article about grass.. FaviFake (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
- @Georgia guy @FaviFake The title of the merged article can just be changed to grass. You're right that we need to have an article about grass, but the current stub leaves much to be desired. Why do you oppose this merge? I don't see how it's more useful to have these as separate articles. 9ninety (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
- Support. The articles cover the same topic. Once grass is merged to graminoid, graminoid can be moved to grass. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: the reason this is titled as the "second nomination" yet otherwise appearing to be the first is because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grass does exist, but was an April Fools' nomination from 2023 (that the redirect to Poaceae was in place at the time appears to have had no impact on that). To be clear: this is the first serious/legitimate nomination. (No opinion.). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
- Support specifically the merge of content in Grass into Graminoid and then renaming of Graminoid as "Grass" with "Graminoid" as a redirect. The point is to preserve the article structure of the older and more well developed article, but at the most useful title. M kuhner (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
- Merge Graminoid into Grass. This is a debate that has been around since I started editing over 20 years ago. BD2412 T 01:45, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
- Merge as suggested, then swap names. Thus both merging in the direction suggested by article quality and age, and ending up with the desired name and redirect. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:26, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose, not all of the Graminoids would likely be thought of as "grasses". Shocksingularity (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
- @Shocksingularity: Could you expand on what you mean? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
- Specifically the families that aren't Poaceae. Shocksingularity (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
- Can you name a specific Graminoid that wouldn't be called a grass? They all look like grasses to me. More generally, even if the two terms refer to slightly different subsets of species, they seem to overlap to such an extent that having a single article would be clearer than having two. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
- "Graminoid" literally just means grass-like. If something wouldn't be thought of as a grass, then it shouldn't be a Graminoid at all. BD2412 T 18:55, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
- Specifically the families that aren't Poaceae. Shocksingularity (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
- @Shocksingularity: Could you expand on what you mean? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2026 (UTC)