Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gasoline price website


 * 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   '''Keep - article has been updated, no more link spam in article. Withdrawing decision to delete.'''. A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • [ log]) 23:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Gasoline price website

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:NOT a list of external links, non encyclopedic A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • [ log]) 05:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note see Articles for deletion/List of gasoline price websites for first AFD. -- A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • [ log]) 05:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete leaning towards Speedy via WP:CSD This is utterly unacceptable content. The topic may be notable but I doubt it at this point. Regardless, this article is simply spam and a personal essay. Let's get rid of this. --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC) I've changed my opinion, see below.
 * Keep The article's been significantly rewritten since I voiced my original opinion, and appears quite encyclopedic. It definitely needs expansion, but I feel comfortable that's coming. --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   -- --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising which only promotes several entities. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 06:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, advertising. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, essentially a directory page. Rasadam (talk) 09:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Change to Keep, article has changed significantly since nomination, worth keeping in my opinion. Rasadam (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The existence of such sites, in general, is most certainly notable. As the article notes correctly, there are a number of such sites that have been created in recent years as the price of gasoline has risen.  While an article about any individual such site would correctly be described as advertising, this is no different than online music store.  I suggest a rename to "Gasoline price websites", since some would see the current name, incorrectly, as a specific business. Mandsford (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as Mandsford notes: the introduction to the article, as it stands, could be reworked and referenced to be the core of a decent article. It's definitely a notable topic.  Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge the valid content which is only in opening paragraph into Gasoline and diesel usage and pricing and leave redirect (exterminate link spam!) -Hunting dog (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - nn spam listing --T-rex 16:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename per Mandsford. This is hardly spam when it clearly aims to list every single site in the genre. Ros0709 (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, I thought it was understood here that articles may not be mere collections of external links. WillOakland (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete WP:CSD. L0b0t (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that speedy deletion via WP:CSD got declined as the article does not promote a single website. --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as Mandsford. Editors are encouraged to delete any content that its advertorial in nature. This topic of this page is notable, however its content is poor and encyclopedic. Cleanup job, not delete job.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mandsford. Use of these websites are a big issue in Australia, as the Federal Government is considering forcing fuel providers to supply prices to a Government-run website. Western Australia already has implemented this policy on a state basis. Metao (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone deleted the laundry list as advertising (which is fine!) but removed the West Australian State Government site. Since that site is not interested in revenue, and is in fact a free service provided to consumers, and is central to the Federal Government FuelWatch debate, Ive re-added a section on the Australian site. Definitely with the spam listing gone, the page looks a lot better. Still plenty of room for improvement though! Metao (talk) 05:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. In addition to my keep !vote above I also add restore list of sites which was removed before concensus was reached. The ones I looked at were not commercial; a partial list is worse than a full list or no list because that makes the article location-specific. Ros0709 (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Being location-specific is a concern. Its why I moved things around to create the "Commercial" section; it was too Australian with just the Government section there. Id love to know of more Government-sponsored sites, but I doubt you'll find any that are free but not Government supported. All websites have to have a revenue model somewhere. Metao (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: I've added additional sources to the article. These websites have been covered by legitimate news sources as venues of public information regarding gas prices. There's no point in splitting each site up into its own article. -- VegitaU (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2008 (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.