Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of automotive fuel brands

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. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of automotive fuel brands

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pretty much an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Any company can sell petrol, and brand it as their own, e.g. supermarkets like Asda, Tesco and I guess QuikTrip and Walmart. Martin451 17:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The existence of a category does not contraindicate the existence of a list. This is not an indiscriminate list at all; remember that redlinks can be good in a list; as for links to dab pages, that's not a rationale for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:51, 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.