Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaguar XJR sportscars
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  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 , 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 {{tl|minnow}} for failing  and providing a near-perfect Exhibit A of an ATA example nomination
— User:The, 19:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NOTCLEANUP||WP:NOEFFORT||WP:V||WP:BLP||WP:RUBBISH||WP:BEFORE||WP:BEFORE (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)