Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ozone Action Day

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ozone Action Day

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I would like to hear opinions on the Ozone Action Day article and whether is should be deleted.

This article is really bad, and I am not sure it is worth the effort to reform it.

Much of the existing text has nothing to do with Ozone Action Days and is about ozone and it's detrimental effects on humans and worker safety concerns. We already cover those topics in better articles at Ozone and Indoor air quality.

I suspect Ozone Action Days are a US-only thing, as nothing in other countries is mentioned. I would expect this article to say what triggers declaration of an Ozone Action Day, and how many days per year are named Ozone Action Days in sample cities. But nothing about that.

Plus the article is really poorly written. I don't mind working on that, but I think if Wikipedia is going to address Ozone Action Days we should just add a paragraph or two to Smog

Carax (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and United States of America. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Poorly written article, with almost nothing unique. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic is likely notable and definitely USA-specific, e.g. [1], but there is almost no encyclopedic content relevant to the supposed topic. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article is off-topic and covers topics which already have related articles. Suonii180 (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. The article reads like an EPA factsheet and is honestly beyond rescue. However, I am only voting delete on the basis that there be no prejudice against the creation of a healthy article in its place. This should not be 'merged' into smog. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 12:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.