The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Lola LC87 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Lola LC88 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft is being tendentiously resubmitted without the addition of references. Delete it in order to avoid wasting the reviewers' time. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If there is a problem with tendentious resubmissions, then address that through the people doing it, not by deleting the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vexatious resubmission without improvement is an established legitimate ground for deletion. Andy Dingley's alternative suggestion is useless because intentionally irritating AFC reviewers is not a blockable offence. In any case every review action is by definition an attempt to engage the submitter to correct the problem. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - User:Andy Dingley is taking the assumption of good faith a little far. The alternative would be blocking the submitter, but, as User:Dodger67 says, intentionally irritating the AFC reviewers is not a blockable offense (unless it is a personal attack). Also, the submitter is an address-shifting IP. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've never been accused of that before! But this is still a user problem, not a problem with the article. Why not just do something forward-looking with the draft? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Also nominate Lola LC88. Same sources, with a few more dead links too. If one is unsourced beyond redemption, so is the other. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The draft has now been semi-protected for one week to prevent the IP from removing the MFD tag. Also, please do not apply MFD tags to articles in mainspace. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both Tendentious editing, and an individual year's F1 car is not going to be notable enough ever (note how we don't have pages on every Ferrari F1 car, which would be much more notable than these). Joseph2302 (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We do have articles on pretty much every F1 car that ever took part in a race, as well as some that were built and not raced. Eagleash (talk) 23:01, 6 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.