Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2009 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   keep. Tan     39  00:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

List of 2009 United States EPA fuel economy ratings

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

Listcruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Information readily available elsewhere. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Less information than the source. Any articles that link here can instead link to the source.  D C E dwards 1966  20:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: The information is not readily available elsewhere. The source is not as easy to use, because it does not give combined mpg, but instead uses pretty useless weekly fuel prices times 15,000 miles to give annual fuel cost. E85, for example has a highly artificial price per gallon much lower than regular gas right now, so even though a flex-fuel vehicle gets much less mpg on E85, the source makes it look as though your annual fuel cost would be lower. Fuel prices are highly volatile this year, making it silly for the EPA to report cost instead of mileage. Also this article allows sorting by column, which is very useful for comparing cars, and which can't be done in the source. Also the source is a pdf file which for many people is harder to use than HTML. Both articles would have been included in the fuel economy in automobiles article, but the tables are too long for the article. Also, there won't be less information than the source when I finish, I am just starting with the most important information first, the combined fuel mileage. Napalm1232 (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:IINFO. Eusebeus (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see fuel mileage listed in that section. If you are considering it to be a statistic, all it says is consider putting them into a table, which has been done. In addition, both tables now show both mpg and L/100km. Napalm1232 (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Reasonable compilation of material. This is one ofthe functions of Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's not "listcruft", whatever that means. If the information is readibly available elsewhere, that means we have a source to write the list from. We don't delete every article about a film on Wikipedia just because the Internet Movie Database exists. Every article on Wikipedia should contain information that's readily available elsewhere. The no original research policy says "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." --Pixelface (talk) 08:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep both. The topic is well-constrained and verifiable. - Eldereft enjoys his 34 mpg eftmobile 11:50, 26 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.