Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crosley Car Owners Club


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Crosley Car Owners Club

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable WP:CLUB. There's some WP:ROUTINE announcements of meetings of a club by this name in the 1950s, but nothing else that can be called independent or reliable. Redirectding to Powel Crosley, Jr. seems possible, except for the small detail that we lack a single source to cite that connects Crosley to this club. Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I did find a little,, , but part of the problem is that the CCOC "officially" became a Yahoo Group, which isn't considered very reliable but it was their choice.  Most of the verifiable material about the past is on dead tree, not the web, so it is verifiable but not easily verified. Since WP:V only requires that it is possible, not that it is easy, and the club article doesn't really make any contentious claims, I have to keep. We know the sources are out there, slightly out of reach, but the fault is our own.  I don't live near a good library anymore, so not much help. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The first one verifies that the club exists, but its existence isn't in dispute. Numerous event announcements in old magazines and ads in Popular Science verify that too. How are the second two links are evidence that independent sources have written about this club? Where you're getting from this the "possibility" that sufficient coverage exists? Are you saying you think somebody probably wrote a long article or book chapter about the club because the club says Eisenhower was a member? I don't see how being a Yahoo Group helps or harms their notability; if the club ran its own forum server, or published a newsletter instead, or published whole tomes about itself, none of that would add to notability. Why do you think an independent source covered the club sufficiently to meet the notability guidelines? I think this is a cool topic, but without sources, what can we do?  --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it is difficult to believe that no one has written something worthwhile, but mainly before 1980, and the problem is our ability to search using only the web. Like I said, I don't have access to a good library right now, but if Ike was a member, I'm sure someone published something on that.  I don't think tons of stuff is out there, but I find it hard to believe there isn't sufficient to believe they are notable.  And again, none of this is particularly contentious stuff, its just a car club, but one for a very unique time, and for a very unique car.  The only one to be sold in hardware stores for a few hundred bucks.  They couldn't have run those ads for years if they weren't getting traction somewhere, and someone wasn't covering them somewhere.  We need better searching, and I do mean WE, not just you.  Using only the internet is a poor way to search for topics like this.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, it was a unique car, but the notability of Crosley Corporation/Powel Crosley, Jr. is not inherited by the car's fan club. You're arguing that because a club bought a few dozen small classified ads, notability must follow from that. Imagine if some non-notable startup company's article were kept because they paid for a Super Bowl ad. You don't buy notability with ads, and if you could it the bar would be set far higher than a few small classifieds. I would be happy to accept AGF the existence of a significant book or a few solid articles about this club, if anyone told me their titles and dates, without needing to see them online. Of course offline sources count, but only if at least one editor can attest they have seen them. You can't just speculate that they're probably out there somewhere. That is a flat contradiction of WP:NRVE. Hence, WP:MUSTBESOURCES "We shouldn't delete this, because it's possible there may be sources that we haven't found" is not a valid argument to keep an article.By all means, move it to user space and resurrect it if any sources turn up. No harm in that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I know the relevant policies, Dennis, quoting them isn't necessary, and I think you're overstating a bit. I found  and noticed many just call it Crosley Club in other mentions. There is some mix over in discussion with the CAC (Crosley Automobile Club), which adds to the confusion, as they aren't related and most references to the CC is really about the CAD not CCOC.  I did find enough RS to justify Crosley Auto Club, which is way more active.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That is link to self-published sources, which don't add to notability. The Crosley car article could be expanded quite a bit, but not any of the fan clubs, beyond a paragraph in the marques's article. I'm also thinking of the dozens of club and organization articles we've deleted who had far more of this routine coverage and self-published material. I can only say I'm surprised and confused. But I don't expect everything in this world to make sense to me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete All the sources mentioned to back the notability of the club are self-published, adverts, social networks and so. Of course, it may be in fact notable, but at this point it simply fails WP:V. If someone gets a reliable source, the article can be recreated. --Urbanoc (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Leaning Delete doesn't seem to be enough evidence of notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 11 October 2016 (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.