Talk:Doug Thorley

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... Because there is no damn point in debating it, since nobody who actually has a clue who Doug Thorley actually is is paying attention. Because winning an NHRA national event, now, doesn't even confer notability, apparently. Because founding a nationally known company doesn't count. Because... Why do I waste my time creating pages at all, when all I get is ignorant nominations for deletion by people who have no damn idea what they're talking about? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Trekphiler: The notability of a person is based on whether or not the subject "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (see WP:GNG). In its current form, the article fails to do this quite spectacularly, with exactly zero references to independent reliable sources. With that said, it is always pleasant to come across another Star Trek fan! -- Scjessey (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Speedy deletion has absolutely nothing to do with sourcing, it has to do with a credible claim to significance. He won one of the classes in the NHRA U.S. Nationals in 1967. ~ GB fan 18:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Is a single class win enough to justify this? (That's more than I know about US drag racing).

What was his racing career otherwise? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

According to the article, the NHRA U.S. Nationals are the most prestigious drag racing event in the world. So I would say that it is a credible claim to significance and should not be speedy deleted. ~ GB fan 19:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• That's sourced to a self-published dead-link. I'll put the "in the world" claim for a National association down to the same root as the "World Series" sports. But this is one race, not an aggregate over a season. Does it really work that way, that this one event trumps all the others? (because claiming notability for winning one event in the year implies that the other events that year count for nothing) There's also the question of whether this is even a valid claim, see "how did THorley, Garrison, & Parker win in classes that didn't exist?" Andy Dingley (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about notability and do not know if it would make him notable. From what I have seen online he probably doesn't meet any notability guidelines. All I have ever said is that I think it is enough to show there is a claim to significance and that speedy deletion does not apply. I wouldn't have even removed the PROD. ~ GB fan 20:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• "founding a nationally known company doesn't count."

How can I tell that they're "nationally known"? Per our usual working rules (You know this) it's necessary that someone looking at this article from scratch, bringing no pre-existing background knowledge to it, should get some credible indication that they're notable. Not definitely that they are, but that the article is at least claiming so, for some reason. This article fails to do so. If anything, it makes a stronger claim that it's his racing career as to why he meets WP:BLPN. Sure, he founded a company - but many of us have done that. Why does this company confer notability? Your histrionics are wearing thin. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Given that the CSD has been reverted (for frankly laughable reasons), I've proposed it for deletion instead. This is a biography of a living person without a single reliable source. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted the PROD. PROD is specifically for uncontroversial deletion. As I can see at least two who are against deletion, it's not really PRODable. You could still AfD it, which gives it a platform and time for discussion or improvement. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

"How can I tell that they're "nationally known"? " And what did I say about "ignorance"? Take a look in just about any issue of Hot Rod, Car Craft, or Popular Hot Roddinc (& maybe also Street Rodder & Custom Rodder & Rod & Custom) from about 1958 until well into the 1980s, & you'll see an ad for Doug Thorley headers. Hell, that's how I know him best; I didn't even know he'd raced TF/FC until I saw the web page. As for his early career, I have no idea, & if the page gets deleted, probably never will; I don't have access to 1950s & 1960s issues of Hot Rod or National Dragster--if I had, I'd have used them. And then somebody would've complained about not finding Thorley in a 2sec Google search. As for "single class win", it was Top Fuel Funny Car, which is about as big as it gets. Only TF/D has more prestige. Everybody wants to win Indy: that is the biggest deal in drag racing. Would this have gotten national coverage? Can you spell Indy? You want less histrionics? Try not offering ignorant nominations based on lack of notability when you know nothing about the subject. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:08 & 20:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Please try to understand that Wikipedia relies on citable references to validate the notability of people, and this article is currently lacking in that. Notable people have articles written chiefly about them, rather than being mentioned in passing in articles about other people or about generic subjects. It is true that such things are harder to find for figures who were prominent before the advent of the internet, but in order to protect people we must follow strict standards when writing about them. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

"Please try to understand that Wikipedia relies on citable references to validate the notability of people" I do. I might be more sympathetic if you hadn't started from the proposition of deleting the page about two minutes after it was created, rather than asking for improved references; AFAIK, there's no requirement a page be taken down just because none of the cited sources isn't is to a feature article somewhere, which you appear to be demanding. There are plenty of pages around here for people I wouldn't consider notable, & I'm far from sure they've all got sourcing to support it. Sourcing for Thorley exists; I just don't happen to have a collection of Hot Rod & National Dragster dating to 1958. I wish I did; it would've saved me a nuisance on at least five pages I've created lately. It wouldn't, apparently, stop some people from trying to get rid of them anyhow. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:12 & 02:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Sympathy doesn't come into it. Per BURDEN, it's still your task, as the author, to justify additions or creations. Wouldn't drafting in userspace, at least until the major claims are in place, work better? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with this. There's also the potential for incubation if new sourcing is anticipated. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead. Delete the damn page, then. I'm obviously wasting my time creating new pages. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll bet this & this don't qualify as "substantial coverage" either, right? Because Thorley's 'vair (not Thorley, just his one car) only got 87 votes in an online poll for a favorite cars. Yeah, not notable enough. 14:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Are you not reading what I'm saying? On Wikipedia, "notability" is determined by coverage in reliable sources. It is NOT determined by how popular some people think some dude is. I agree with you that within Thorley's sphere of influence, he's a notable guy. But that does mean he's notable enough for a Wikipedia article. That is determined by coverage. Also, your comments are getting perilously close to violating Wikipedia's policy of civility. Tone it down a bit, or find yourself getting a warning. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)