- 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Lola LC88 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per request of Robert McClenon and CambridgeBayWeather. This is one of two articles on cars of this period, the Lola LC87 and the Lola LC88. Both articles depend on a handful of deadlinks and sources seen as unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Lola LC87 (2nd nomination). This article was listed there too: as both articles suffer exactly the same failings, they stand or fall together.
That MfD has now closed as delete. However for bureaucratic reasons, an MfD was seen as having no scope over an article, hence this AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article on 87 was proposed for deletion for having no references. This article does have references. If the proponent of deletion thinks that the references are inadequate, they may make that statement as the reason for deletion. The two articles are not comparable, in that one was referenced and the other was not. If the deleted article can be properly referenced, it can be resubmitted, either preferably via Articles for Creation or directly into mainspace. If this article is not properly referenced, then it should be deleted, but I think that it is properly referenced. Your opinion may vary. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- They were both referenced, and using the same sites. LC87 didn't use inline citations to them, but that in itself would be no good reason. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Lola LC87 was entirely unreferenced but had some external links which were not the same as the references on the LC88 page. The LC87 was of poor quality and ungrammatical, drafted by an IP editor well known to the F1 project as disruptive through submitting similar poor quality drafts via talk-pages, and adding unreferenced text to articles. The LC88 (where the referencing did need improving...which it already has been to an extent) was added to the MfD mentioned above on the basis of 'well if the Lola LC87 is proposed for deletion..then what about this one'. There is no reason why this article should be deleted, the car passes notability and the page has references. This proposal should not be seriously considered. Eagleash (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- So you admit that the LC87 article wasn't deleted for any reason of notability (both of these cars are tenuous for that) or for referencing (the LC87 had just had the same book references added to it, and not by one of these heinous IP editors), but just for "other" reasons. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The LC87 page was edited entirely by the IP (35 different addresses since September) editor apart from some attempts to reference it by Andy, which added no in-line citations. Both cars pass F1 project notability,
all most F1 cars do. & the LC87 draft has already been salvaged and is being worked upon. Project members could have fixed the draft, but why should we? (Andy didn't) We kept away from the debate in view of the history as we've fixed literally dozens of articles in the past & our patience with this editor has run out. His edits are WP:TE paragraph 2.7 as sources have never been provided. The page was deleted because it was poor quality, after it was rejected via AfC several times Eagleash (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The place to deal with a tendentious editor is never by revenge article deletions at MfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no question of revenge. Editors from the F1 project kept away from the debate for that very reason. The article was judged as poor quality by the reviewer who subsequently tagged it for deletion. Eagleash (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- On another point, and in the interests of clarity and any future discussions, it has been suggested that to say 'all' F1 cars would pass notability may not be precisely accurate, with which I agree. I have therefore amended my comment above, whilst leaving the original wording in place. Eagleash (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Everything has to pass GNG and I believe this does, or it certainly will do once I gain access to my source material in a few weeks. The LC87 article was deleted because, unlike all this IP's other produce, we didn't clean it up or rewrite it. Nothing vengeful about it – we just got tired of fixing up his rubbish. Someone else outside the project nominated it for deletion and we just didn't step in to save it. We are not obliged to fix articles just because we can. Regarding the notability of F1 cars, I do not believe that all F1 cars are inherently notable, but the majority have more than enough source material out there to pass GNG. It's just a case of putting it all together. Both the LC87 and LC88 can pass GNG without any bother. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 12:39, 13 December 2015 (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.