Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jersey Looker


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The Jersey Looker

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The what? I smell a hoax, and so does Google: Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I can assure you it is not a hoax. I have heard of Jersey Lookers since I was a young man in the 70's.

Is Google your only source of reference? Try Bing.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.147.94 (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Try and you will see a quite a few Stardust1k (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This may or may not be a legitimate slang term about VW buses but in the absence of verification in reliable sources (and I couldn't find any), I have to say Delete anyway.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I do not see any evidence of cultural notability and the article itself does not explain the importance of the artefact. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - OK, so I looked on thesamba.com - an enthusiasts forum and a de facto unreliable source, wrt Wikipedia standards - and although the term exists, and is still in limited current use, this article STILL does not explain, with verifiable, third-party, reliable sources just why this type of van is notable or has cultural or historical importance. The article's author needs to study the Wikipedia guidelines a little, methinks. Eddie.willers (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggest article's content is Merged into Volkswagen Type 2. Eddie.willers (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It is as real as the term Honda...  I will find some historic proof as I am not into wasting my time and yours...   You should consider the samba as a reliable source, probably the most comprehensive collection of VW knowledge on the planet. 209.105.147.94 (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW what defines importance of the arte fact? It is a cultural icon to the historic VW world and therefore an artifact of significant importance. Apparently none of you drive or live the VW dream... 209.105.147.94 (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The information could be mentioned in the article on VW vans. WP is written to give basic information to people who don't know much about a topic, as are encyclopedias generally, not for insiders. Wolfview (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems to be a term that has some currency in the car-customizing community; but in the absence of significant coverage in reliable sources, the topic fails WP:N. (Note: I've removed some copyvio content from the article.) Deor (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok you win...  I can see it being merged as a sub category into Volkswagen Type 2. I will endeavor to fully comprehend the intricacies of the Wiki guidlines. I too am having a dificult time locating the historical references that I need and maybe jumped the gun. Had I thought a little longer on the contents of the article I would have concluded that indeed it is a sub category. Stardust1k (talk) 04:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Also the philosophical part that was removed was used with the original authors permission, and in itself was poetic and applicable. Stardust1k (talk) 04:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Copyright material can't be used unless the procedures detailed at WP:DCP are followed. And encyclopedias don't really deal much in the "poetic" anyway. Deor (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. If this article refers to a specific car, there is a dearth of reference to it that would establish notability; it should be immediately evident from a google search if there is.  Of course, if anyone can find some non-trivial professional journalistic coverage of this thing, I will stand corrected.  If it refers to a type of car, the exact same contention still applies.  The fact that this is ambigious only intensifies my feeling that we should delete this.  Additionally, if we were to try to add some entry about it in some other article, by the looks of things we would have trouble finding a suitable reference.  --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2010 (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.