Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. State Fuel Octane Standards


 * 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. Proposals to rename the article can be made on the talk page. – bradv  🍁  23:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

U.S. State Fuel Octane Standards

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No souerces proving encyclopedicity, and fails WP:LISTN. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 22:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Keep, but flesh out This is definitely an article with potential. With a few hours of good, solid work, it could be fairly good. I have watchlisted the page, and I will work on it tomorrow. It's 9pm where I am, otherwise I'd start right now. I'm willing to adopt it. Squeeps10 02:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm also going to say that it could use a retitling. Perhaps Gasoline octane in the United States? Or Octane standards in the United States? Squeeps10 03:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 09:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 09:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Keep Octane standards are certainly discussed at a state level, for instance here and here. And while many sources do discuss only individual states, they often do so in comparison to other states, which to me meets the spirit of LISTN. It certainly seems to meet the criteria for a standalone list (not too general or broad in scope, not too specific as long as we don't include those pesky Montana horse-thieves). And I think there is adequate sourcing available to fill in the remainder of the table. There would be a ton more to add if we did broaden the scope slightly to federal fuel standards as well. Regardless I do agree that the article needs a rename.  C Thomas3   (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I was, however, remiss in not giving bonus points for encyclopedicity. Like that.  C Thomas3   (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename - the article has potential, and while it does need (significant) work it passes LISTN per Cthomas3. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2019 (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.