Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lowrider 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 no consensus. Per WP:NPASR and WP:TIND. (non-admin closure) — UY Scuti Talk  18:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Lowrider Club

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I do not think there are any merit in this article to make it ever worth keeping as everything there is WP:OR, also it is missing WP:V and lacking WP:CITE, making this article not worth existing. A topic that fails WP:GNG. Donnie Park (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as WP:TNT at best as there is some coverage about this but certainly not for better improvement. Notifying tagger . SwisterTwister   talk  07:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 *  Redirect or Keep (Note: The membership section bears a striking resemblance to Hells Angels.) I'd favor a redirect to Motorcycle Club, as the two are essentially the same with the only difference being one involves motorcycles, the other cars. Of course, it could be argued that that difference is substantive in itself, in which case I would argue in favor of a keep with the provision that some sources can be found, because if we have an article on motorcycle clubs, then I'm sure something can be dug up on lowrider clubs. &#160; Discant X  11:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * After looking at potential sources I'm now convinced there's enough reference material to keep the article, though some rewriting may be in order. No reason to nuke the whole article, it just needs some work.&#160; Discant X  03:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Whilst I understand where you're getting at, the big issue with this is that nothing of these are sourced, so unless something is done, I will have stand by my decision to delete. Donnie Park (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There are a number of promising sources at the google book search results. I don't have time to do a thorough search right now, and I can't guarantee that everything in the article will be able to be substantiated, but I feel like there's probably enough info out there to merit an article here, even if it means blowing the whole thing up. I'd like to give it a go but I may not have time over the weekend. &#160; Discant X  02:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To give more time to edit the article.  Onel 5969  TT me 20:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm working on it slowly. I might be able to get more done Sunday. &#160; Discant  X  06:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 20:42, 11 December 2015 (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.