Deletion of The environments future

Comment: Once the  issues are addressed, what is left (if there is anything) can easily be included into other articles related to the topic. There is nothing to justify a standalone article when everything it addresses belongs in the articles listed in the sectionThe environments future#Environmental dour concerns|Environmental dour concerns. Sorry - kind of a word salad there but I believe you get the point
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: The content of this article definitely overlaps with existing articles, has problems with core Wikipedia tenets such as  and , and is written at least partly from a personal perspective ("It is common knowledge that this planet was created for everybody to live", for example
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:OR)

Comment: What content there is that belongs on WP and is not under , item 3, belongs in articles on individual environmental topics (as CNMall41 notes) and not in an omnibus article.  There are problems with  and , and the titling of the article shows the premise is a crystal issue in violation of .  Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Essays for a class project|This discussion brought the article to my attention, and according to its
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:OR||WP:SYNTH||WP:NOT)

Comment: yes, it reads like a  project, not an article, and it plainly duplicates existing articles from Conservation downwards (that article lists many related topics). I'm sorry for the work involved, but the people have obviously learnt something of the basics of wiki-editing even if misdirected about what an article is
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)