Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gas-guzzler

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 redirect to Fuel economy in automobiles#United States. with the option to merge sourced content. The arguments against a standalone article are substantively stronger, given the tangential nature of the coverage and content discussed here. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gas-guzzler

[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)

The lead states that the article is about the phrase "gas-guzzler", but the body has sections on "Reasons for bad fuel economy", "Means to decrease fuel consumption", and "Gas Guzzler Tax" and does not say a single thing about the phrase "gas-guzzler". All of the content in the page could be placed elsewhere. Mucube (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree, Removed parts of the body which were not relevant to the article. Changed the lead to provide clarity and to link the term to the Vernacular use (as the term is well defined). In terms of notability; this was a very notable subject in the 1970's, odd-even gas rationing of the day, and inflation, presidential speeches etc.. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article has been improved somewhat to bring it up to GNG, though the Criticism section still needs to be sourced to RS Josey Wales^Parley 14:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are we looking at the same article? Cause what i'm seeing is just a lead and basically a dictionary definition, which fails WP:NOTDIC and WP:GNG. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AS mentioned the idea of gaz-guzzler was all part of odd-even gas rationing of the day, and inflation 55mph speed limit, presidential speeches etc. with push back.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1979/08/15/gas-guzzlers-still-popular/a03091a6-8eec-432f-9313-245bfcdde521/

https://www.nytimes.com/1979/05/23/archives/putting-gas-guzzlers-in-their-place.html Flibbertigibbets (talk) Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Fuel economy in automobiles or similar. There will never be enough content for a multi-paragraph standalone article that doesn't duplicate content found in other articles, where such content more properly belongs.----Pontificalibus 08:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is more than enough content and multiple sources.. I have added a few sources and sentences to address some of the concerns listed above.. Please feel free to improve the article - it can be easily improved because the subject is notable (with notability established pre-internet in the 1970's) on a stand alone basis Flibbertigibbets (talk) Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to WP:HEY. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fuel economy in automobiles#United States, which is the proper place for this content; it is substantially about fuel efficiency regulations and associated politics, not about the term as such. Sandstein 08:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fuel economy in automobiles#United States Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2022 (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.