Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pontiac vehicles

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. Personally would've !voted Keep myself had I known sooner but pointless now, Consensus is to Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pontiac vehicles

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

Per WP:RAWDATA. Only a list with no context and no indication of notability. T v x1 17:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Pontiac vehicles. The list's context is very clear as covering Pontiac vehicles, and the article is a functional navigational aid as per WP:LISTPURP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Nordic Dragon 10:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It could possibly use an introduction, but is otherwise no different or less notable than any other existing list of cars by brand. --Vossanova ^o< 16:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like a perfectly normal list of vehicles. Maybe it could use a bit of work such as an intro paragraph, but it's not appreciably different than, say, List of Chevrolet vehicles or List of Toyota vehicles. I don't see as an "Excessive listings of statistics" as implied by the nom's pointing to WP:RAWDATA. Egsan Bacon (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2016 (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.