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.
Comment Keep. I don't understand why the solution here isn't simply to limit the list to bluelinks or otherwise demonstrably notable brands, rather than deleting what strikes me, at first blush, to be a reasonable subject for a list. --
Arxiloxos (
talk) 21:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Formally !voting "keep" in light of my initial comments and the comments by others. --
Arxiloxos (
talk) 18:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete. Adequately covered by the
Category:Automotive fuel brands. Many items on this list are actually store brands (which could lead to lists of every product with a house brand), many are red links, and a few link to disambiguation pages. It is poorly compiled incomplete original research.
Secondarywaltz (
talk) 04:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 14:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep - seems a perfectly sound concept for a list and it's certainly not indiscriminate. Lists do a different job from categories - information can be added and red links fulfil a useful purpose - see the essay
Wikipedia:Categories versus lists. The black links need sorting but that is an editing matter.
The Whispering Wind (
talk) 15:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep, there are obviously notable automotive fuel brands, and determining the particular inclusion criteria for a list is a matter for normal editing. It should also be obvious that the list's inclusion criteria could simply match that of
Category:Automotive fuel brands (and note that none of the four store brands mentioned by the nominator are included in that category), so it is nonsensical to claim that a list is necessarily indiscriminate but the corresponding category is not. And as noted above, we do not delete a list just because there is a category, per
WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep - some drivers, most notably those in
Formula One (
example one,
example two) bang on about Shell fuel to the exclusion of all others like a broken record, so compiling a list of what gets sold where to whom is a worthwhile topic.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 10:40, 15 October 2013 (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.
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.
Comment Keep. I don't understand why the solution here isn't simply to limit the list to bluelinks or otherwise demonstrably notable brands, rather than deleting what strikes me, at first blush, to be a reasonable subject for a list. --
Arxiloxos (
talk) 21:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Formally !voting "keep" in light of my initial comments and the comments by others. --
Arxiloxos (
talk) 18:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete. Adequately covered by the
Category:Automotive fuel brands. Many items on this list are actually store brands (which could lead to lists of every product with a house brand), many are red links, and a few link to disambiguation pages. It is poorly compiled incomplete original research.
Secondarywaltz (
talk) 04:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 14:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep - seems a perfectly sound concept for a list and it's certainly not indiscriminate. Lists do a different job from categories - information can be added and red links fulfil a useful purpose - see the essay
Wikipedia:Categories versus lists. The black links need sorting but that is an editing matter.
The Whispering Wind (
talk) 15:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep, there are obviously notable automotive fuel brands, and determining the particular inclusion criteria for a list is a matter for normal editing. It should also be obvious that the list's inclusion criteria could simply match that of
Category:Automotive fuel brands (and note that none of the four store brands mentioned by the nominator are included in that category), so it is nonsensical to claim that a list is necessarily indiscriminate but the corresponding category is not. And as noted above, we do not delete a list just because there is a category, per
WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep - some drivers, most notably those in
Formula One (
example one,
example two) bang on about Shell fuel to the exclusion of all others like a broken record, so compiling a list of what gets sold where to whom is a worthwhile topic.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 10:40, 15 October 2013 (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.