Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaguar XJR sportscars


 * 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. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Jaguar XJR sportscars

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD was reverted without improvement. No independent reliable sources for ten years. Fails WP:V. No references, no article. This original research was a lot of work. But it's not fit for an encyclopedia. Rhadow (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Topic ban Yet again (see contribs) we see  bulk-prodding articles without even the slightest attempt at WP:BEFORE.
 * This is broadly a list article. There are a dozen Jaguar XJR models linked from here, (see Jaguar XJR-17) which each demonstrate their sourced notability and thus that of the list. It's not enough to meet GA, but it's certainly enough to stop BEFORE and a PROD or AfD.
 * As to "reverted without improvement", then I'm not sure how much improvement Rhadow was expecting in seven minutes?
 * This is one of a continual stream of deletions from Rhadow, who does nothing else other than these. I for one am tired of them, the incessant list of badly checked PRODs from an editor [sic] who expects others to fix articles (in 7 minutes), yet does nothing to assist in that process themselves. As we all know, it is so much easier to bulk prod article than to work on their improvement and 'bot-like tagging or deletion like this is not a way to encourage any improvement. Enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with the nominator. Wikipedia is not a directory of vehicle models. For encyclopedic purposes, I suggest someone creates Jaguar in motorsports and creates a proper encyclopedic entry there which details the teams history and achievements in motorsports complete with results tables, instead of having a plain lists of the models the made for racing. Also, I would like to suggest that we comment on the content here and not on the contributor's motives.Tvx1 17:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no comment on 'motives', but on the fact the nomination is, in two words, spectacularly bad. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment This article has for ten years been tagged for references.  It is original research, and good research at that.  However, none of it is verifiable, not for ten years. The cars in the list are not much better. I clicked through the links at Jaguar XJR sportscars. Four of seven wikilinks redirected back to the same article.  Jaguar XJR-9 has two external links and no inline citations. Jaguar XJR-12 has no references. Jaguar XJR-14 has one reference, about a driver. Our reader should be able to rely on the assertion in these articles.  Rhadow (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. I had written a lengthy comment, citing four books with multiple pages on the subject, but have lost it due to a crash. I'll try to find the sources again. page 197-204, page 177-202, page 17-24, and there was a fourth one I don't immediately find now (plus many more shorter mentions). Theses car won the 24 of Le Mans, the World Championship, many famous races. 7 of the 15 models have their own article, making a list even more necessary to show the overall history. These are not some random cars, but some of the most important cars in racing history (or at least one of the major lines of cars in that history). Problems with the current article are real, but not a reason for deletion. A clearly notable topic, both individually and as a whole, so perfect for a list article. Fram (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was expecting a bulleted list, but instead what I found was a well-written list article that just needs cleanup. And AfD is not for cleanup. The fact the article has not been significantly improved in ten (or any) years is not a valid rationale for deletion (in fact, the nominator's statement is remarkably similar to one of the examples given at that section of ATA). The nominator also demonstrates a lack of understanding of WP:V in claiming that this fails it; the topic is clearly demonstrated to exist. A lack of references in the article is not a failure of V; in fact, having no references would not be a failure of V. With the singular exception of BLPs, articles are not required to be referenced in order to prove existence or notability, the references must simply exist. Now having them in the article is in fact a very good thing, but not having them when they do, in fact, exist is also not a valid rationale for deletion. And finally, had the nominator followed WP:BEFORE, they would have firmly established extensive coverage in reliable sources that clearly demonstrates notability - the fact that the search result page's link to Google Books is usually hidden behind a dropdown menu is not an excuse for failing to check it. In short, what we have here is an article that needs TLC by somebody knowledgeable in the subject, not deletion, and the nominator deserves at least a minnow for failing WP:BEFORE and providing a near-perfect Exhibit A of an ATA example nomination. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Fram and The Bushranger. The nominator has repeatedly in the past weeks made a series of AFD/PROD nominations on topics which are clearly notable if one even spends one minute looking at sources on Google Books, Scholar (WP:BEFORE) and failed to carry out cleanup themselves, or consider alternatives to deletion. Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:22, 30 November 2017 (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.