Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chrysler Touring

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. Poor participation. Renom if appropriate. (non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 15:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysler Touring

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

The "Chrysler Touring" is not shown as a model in the 1926 Chrysler brochure nor can I find evidence of any such model on the Internet. I note that the 1926 brochure lists the Chrysler 58 as being available in Royal Sedan, Crown Sedan, Touring & Roadster bodystyles, however the 58 was a four cylinder model, not a six. GTHO (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This shows [[1]] three Chrysler models in 1926 (E80, F58, G70). This [[2]] says the same and adds the 60. "Touring" is only mentioned as a bodystyle of the F58. It would be reasonable to have an article on each model (but certainly not each bodystyle). There is an article on the E80, the Chrysler Imperial, and the F58 is mentioned in Maxwell automobile as the Maxwell became the Chrysler F58 in 1926 before becoming the first Plymouth (automobile) in 1928 (although the Plymouth article say the car was called the F52, not F58). And it was a 4-cylinder as stated above. These early models aren't covered well in List of Chrysler vehicles or in the template Chrysler vehicles. So perhaps this article could be moved to Chrysler F58 and kept as a stub if some editor wants to work on the early Chrysler models. (the specs in the article would have to be removed since it's not clear which car they are actually about). But clearly this article should not remain as is. MB 03:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 14 November 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.