Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2008 United States EPA fuel economy ratings


 * 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

List of 2008 United States EPA fuel economy ratings

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not reference source nor is it a repository of all knowledge. List is not notable Rogermx (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia actually is a reference work by definition, so that's a curious assertion. But I do think a valid nomination could be made for this page, perhaps as WP:RAWDATA, so maybe you could just elaborate and talk about the content specifically. We also have List of 2009 United States EPA fuel economy ratings, which should be considered together with this, and there are a few from other countries probably subject to the same argument. It's always a good idea to look at related content before listing anything for deletion. postdlf (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Other bad stuff already existing on Wikipedia offers no justification for more bad stuff to appear. See WP:OSE. -The Gnome (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You’ve misunderstood my comment. postdlf (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTIINFO and Wikipedia isn't an auto buyers guide, even if the content was relevant ten years ago. Also consider these three articles to the discussion: List of 2009 United States EPA fuel economy ratings, List of 2008 New Zealand fuel economy ratings, List of May 2008 UK fuel economy ratings. Ajf773 (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete on account of subject lacking encyclopaedic purpose. There's a significant number of things that Wikipedia is not. Most of us probably need to refresh our memory on WP:NOT. -The Gnome (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2018 (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.