Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most fuel efficient cars sold in the United States

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. A clear consensus for deletion has formed here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most fuel efficient cars sold in the United States[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Per WP:RAWDATA. Content doesn't match source and is only relevant for one particular year. Not encyclopedic. PROD removed by author when article was created last year Ajf773 (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fuel economy in automobiles, assuming the data can be verified. Listing 10 cars may be excessive, but the most efficient one in 2017 would certainly be a useful addition to that article. I'm not opposed to a re-structuring to a new fuel economy of automobiles in the United States article either. This is too specific to be a stand-alone article at this title, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RAWDATA. I do not have an opinion on whether or not a list on this topic could be written; however, this article contains nothing encyclopedic. BenKuykendall (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we don't need a very specific snapshot like this. there are similar lists I can imagine being notable, but there's no encyclopedic content to retain by itself here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete particularly because there's nothing encyclopedic to merge. It was completely made from the raw data found in the source, only without the images. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:50, 20 December 2018 (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.