Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air quality in Oxford
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Yanksox 21:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Air quality in Oxford
Possible original research. Appears to be too limited in geographic scope for the encyclopedia. Article was previously prodded, but I felt a discussion would be a better idea as the author has raised a dispute on the talk page. — NMChico24 
04:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Reads like a report. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think this is rescuable, with some work. I doubt it's original research -- more likely to be sourced from published local government reports etc. I suggest merging with the UK section in the air pollution article, probably as a new subarticle under a different title. Given that the study of air quality in the UK by Calor (see Guardian article) identifies Oxford as the most polluted city in the UK, a concentration on Oxford seems ok. Trim down, identify sources, and delete anything that can't be referenced. Espresso Addict 08:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comments from page author:
- Hi thanks Expresso Addict, I entirely agree. Please bare in mind I have only been writing this for a about 8 hours over 4 days. I also wrote the UK section in Air pollution and that was my intent to show how local conditions effect the management of air quality. Oxford is a good case study for many reasons, not least because it is one of the most polluted UK cities. The articles I reference are all local government documents and the reason I copied the Oxford air quality summary reports into wikipedia is because the county council keeps moving them, they are PDFs so difficult to reference precise sections and PDFs are also difficult to search. I don't believe there can be copyright issues because these are public documents that are readily available on the web (am I wrong here?) If I am not wrong on this copyright issue then could you remove the deletion marker on these too please. I'll have to attend to the article in the evenings this week so will need more than 5 days to sort it out. Also I am happy to merge with Air pollution but had the idea that this could be a template for other entries on air quality for different cities. It is very interesting to see how a wide range of parameters effect air quality. Finally, this is not a report it is just me pulling together lots of publicly available information into one place under the heading of air quality in oxford. i still have to put all the references i have used (they are in my 'delicous account' and I am as yet to work out how to reference effectively (i.e. syntax for constructing a citation list). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hnoble32 (talk • contribs)
- References are very important to Wikipedia, so it's good to put them in first rather than at the end. Don't worry about the syntax, other people can help with that. Re the other articles, I don't know the copyright situation on local government documents in the UK, but I'd suspect they were copyright unless stated otherwise. It might be wisest to take them down and try to contact the council about the copyright situation. Espresso Addict 09:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I will contact the council to ask how I can cite/ reference their reports. I am assuming since they are a government body I will be able to cite them freely. BTW I am getting very confused about this talk page and another that seems to be associated with this article (where I am getting comments from other administrators.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hnoble32 (talk • contribs)
-
- I have responded on your personal talk page, Hnoble32. Espresso Addict 20:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I will contact the council to ask how I can cite/ reference their reports. I am assuming since they are a government body I will be able to cite them freely. BTW I am getting very confused about this talk page and another that seems to be associated with this article (where I am getting comments from other administrators.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hnoble32 (talk • contribs)
- References are very important to Wikipedia, so it's good to put them in first rather than at the end. Don't worry about the syntax, other people can help with that. Re the other articles, I don't know the copyright situation on local government documents in the UK, but I'd suspect they were copyright unless stated otherwise. It might be wisest to take them down and try to contact the council about the copyright situation. Espresso Addict 09:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have been fighting for this article here too. So now I will just write here! In summary. I will tidy this article, clear the copyright with county council, and investigate whether it can be included in either Oxford or Air pollution. My feeling now about merging is that it will be good for wikipedia to have a set of articles on air pollution by city i.e. managing air quality in Oxford is very different to London, Delhi, and any of the top 10 most polluted cities in the world 7 of which are all in China (recent UN report). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hnoble32 (talk • contribs)
- This article was nominated for deletion by some administrators but other suggested with changes it would be useful. Can I have some comments on the document now as I have dealt to most of the recommendations. hza 11:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hi thanks Expresso Addict, I entirely agree. Please bare in mind I have only been writing this for a about 8 hours over 4 days. I also wrote the UK section in Air pollution and that was my intent to show how local conditions effect the management of air quality. Oxford is a good case study for many reasons, not least because it is one of the most polluted UK cities. The articles I reference are all local government documents and the reason I copied the Oxford air quality summary reports into wikipedia is because the county council keeps moving them, they are PDFs so difficult to reference precise sections and PDFs are also difficult to search. I don't believe there can be copyright issues because these are public documents that are readily available on the web (am I wrong here?) If I am not wrong on this copyright issue then could you remove the deletion marker on these too please. I'll have to attend to the article in the evenings this week so will need more than 5 days to sort it out. Also I am happy to merge with Air pollution but had the idea that this could be a template for other entries on air quality for different cities. It is very interesting to see how a wide range of parameters effect air quality. Finally, this is not a report it is just me pulling together lots of publicly available information into one place under the heading of air quality in oxford. i still have to put all the references i have used (they are in my 'delicous account' and I am as yet to work out how to reference effectively (i.e. syntax for constructing a citation list). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hnoble32 (talk • contribs)
- Weak Keep - I've noticed this article a few times while going through the dead end pages list, and it looks like something that could be useful when it's finished -- particularly given the claims that Oxford is the most polluted city in the UK -- but probably should be more of a summary than a detailed report. Mark Grant 13:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 12:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, NMChico24
- Delete per nom.--Peta 02:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Air quality in Mumbai, Air quality in Sydney, Air quality in Detroit, Air Quality in Dublin, Air Quality in Mexico City. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also original research. --IslaySolomon 02:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, this should be a personal web page. Gazpacho 07:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as OR research paper written in a very unencylopedic format. However, I wouldn't be oppose to merging what is applicable and salvagable into the UK section of air pollution provided that what is added is sourced. 205.157.110.11 10:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — I don't think that the air quality of one particular area is important or notable enough for wikipedia. Perhaps having articles on the air quality of a broader geographic scope would be suitable. So, I would merge to a broader page, provided we can get some sources, or just simply delete if there is no useful infomation or sources. This is a fairly large and detialed article, so I think that some of this infomation will be useful in another context. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
