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 no consensus. Randykitty ( talk) 14:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Doug Thorley

Doug Thorley (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extremely weakly sourced biographical article, nominated for deletion under the General Notability Guidelines. There is no evidence the subject "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Moreover, what sources are presented appear to be about other people, with the subject mentioned only incidentally. Scjessey ( talk) 21:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• weak delete Keep I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but this is failing to demonstrate notability and the issues raised at talk: need to be addressed.

I know that one editor doesn't get to tell another what to edit, but I do wish that we had half the number of drag racing articles, and what we do have was getting a bit more depth to it. Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply

♠You're right, you don't get to tell anybody what to edit, & there aren't half enough pages on drag racing for my liking. Would I prefer they were less stubby? Of course.

♠As for Thorley, a delete on somebody who won TF/FC at the Nationals, recorded the first 200 mph (320 km/h) pass, provided headers for Carol Cox, ran one of the few mid-engine floppers, & founded a national header company: not notable? Really? And pages on losing candidates for Cognress are? And pages on 18th Century British politicians are? Really? Or is this really about indifference, or hostility, to the subject?

♠No evidence? Yeah, I knew arguing this would be a waste of time. I was right. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• "recorded the first 200mph pass"

When are you going to accept that there's a difference between an article on a notable topic, a vague hand-wave on some meta-page about a claim of notability, and demonstrating this, in the article, with WP:V and WP:RS? Yes, such a claim would go a long way to demonstrating notability. But you first have to put it in the article! Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply

"you first have to put it in the article" Have you bothered to read it since it was nominated? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• You've expanded it since it was nominated. So, no, I hadn't read the new claims yet.

If he really was the first with a 200mph pass, and that's adequately sourced, then that would go a long way to keeping it. Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Please don't use this AfD page to argue about the content. It all boils down to reliable sources. If the article is adequately sourced, it will likely be kept. It wouldn't matter if he was the first guy on the moon if there aren't reliable sources to describe his moonshot. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment - the author blanked the page, making it technically eligible to be speedily deleted under G7 criteria. -- Scjessey ( talk) 18:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) −−−−00:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply

♠That was before I read the policy on BLP, which says not one word about deleting a page for poor sourcing. And since the nomination for deletion was added about two minutes after the page went up, & since the nominator has demanded better sourcing at risk of deletion, I'd love to hear exactly where the need for "significant coverage" demands deleting the page in its absence.

♠While I'm at it, would you care to define "significant"? Say, mention in a national magazine describing his FC win? Like the November 1967 issue of Hot Rod, for instance? Or a mention at Hot Rod online, describing the event?

♠Of course, I expect this to make no difference in the long run, any more than any other protests I've ever made. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:31 & 21:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply

"Significant" is, of course, subjective. Please read WP:N, where Wikipedia goes into the matter in some detail. New articles not properly sourced are almost always nominated for speedy deletion within moments of them being created. That is normal. You are making this too personal, and assuming "your" article is being singled out for special treatment. It is not. -- Scjessey ( talk) 21:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Normal: sadly, yes. Useful, appropriate or constructive? Nowhere near it. 8-( Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply

♠ Significant coverage? "A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Presumed to have received, & since Thorley did win TF/FC at the most prestigious event NHRA has, & since that event was covered in Hot Rod (& you can bet it was covered by ND, too), the presumption is all I need.

♠So far, I've seen nothing saying a page that meets that standard but fails to cite the "significant coverage" must be taken down. WP:N seems to say, all I have to do is show it's likely to exist, & between the Nov '67 HRM article, the NHRA website mention, the HRM website mention, & the NHRA website poll, it seems to me very likely such coverage does exist, even if I can't find it online.

♠And yes, I'm taking it personally, because I've had at least five articles tagged, not counting this one, including one of somebody who's at least as well known as Thorley. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC) reply

♠Something else crosses my mind (& IDK why this didn't occur to me before). If Thorley's been a match racer since 1964 or 1965, he will have gotten more than a few mentions in the rodding magazines, & in National Dragster, over that period, independent of his NHRA, IHRA, &/or NHRA event attendance--which also will have gotten mentions. Without owning the back issues, there is no way to cite that--but, as I read the policy, I don't need to cite it, just demonstrate it's likely. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply

♠One other thing crosses my mind. Thorley made the NHRA "favorite cars" poll without being on a list of nominees, which suggests he was well-enough known by enough people for even a small number to pick him over better-known (or more successful) drives like Prudhomme, McEwen, & Force. If he hadn't gotten enough coverage, how was he well-enough known? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply

How many times does this need to be said? Significant coverage in independent, reliable sources where the subject is the main topic - that's basically the standard to meet here. You have done great work looking for more sources, but they're still weak; however, the case they make is stronger than it was at the time of the AfD nomination. Not enough for me to withdraw the nomination though. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply

"How many times does this need to be said?" Show me where it says I need to cite it. Show me where it says the page has to be deleted. You appear to be the only one who thinks it does. And I have quoted the page of the guideline that says nothing about citing or about deleting. So where is it, except in your head? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

This doesn't seem to support your reason for deletion, either. And since the page has already met the notional notability criteria... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Nonsense. The article can be considered for deletion based on several of those points, and it doesn't meet the notability criteria (at least not yet, anyway). The only thing that will convince me is some cast iron reliable sources, and I'm not seeing any yet. -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

♠"doesn't meet the notability criteria" Oh, really? The notability requirement I read (evidently not the one you've failed to show requires deletion) explicitly says (as reproduced above) "presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition". What part of that don't you understand? Furthermore, the sportspersons' notability page says, "Have driven in a race in a fully professional series." or "Competed in a series or race of worldwide or national interest". Thorley has done both, & his win at Indy was a first for the class at that location, besides. That meets notability, despite your claim. What part of that don't you understand?

♠"can be considered for deletion based on several of those points" It doesn't fail on any of them, let alone "several", so where's your rationale? Neither does it fail the speedy delete criteria. So, yet again, where is the rationale for deletion? Beyond your dislike of the page? Because it's beginning to look like that's all there is. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply

I disagree with your interpretation. I am not interested in further discussion with you, because you aren't able to assume good faith. Other editors will weigh in, and when the discussion is concluded an uninvolved editor will make a decision based on merit, and then close the discussion. -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply

♠"I disagree with your interpretation." Really, I'd never have guessed. Your evidence for your position is?

♠Not assuming good faith? Yeah, after seeing signs of sheer stubbornness by the only vote to delete, from somebody who nominated the page within minutes of its creation, it gets hard to believe good faith is involved. Assuming it doesn't mean it's proven true. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisting is absurd, since there has been plenty of opportunity for anybody who cares to comment & agree with the one vote to delete, & nobody has. Of course, that won't make a damn bit of difference, will it? Since my vote doesn't count at all, does it? So I'm not going to bother to say any more about it. It's a complete waste of time. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:54 & 19:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep because the driver meets WP:NMOTORSPORT points 1, 3, and arguably 8. The NHRA is the top national series of the United States so just competing at a national event for the sanctioning body meets 1 & 3. Then he won which enhances his notability. Having an unofficial world record also enhances notability. This website even goes further than the article does noting his use of a supercharger in his single Funny Car win as being ground breaking and causing all teams in the class to switch from injected-only to injected+supercharged within a few months. Setting that trend was an important milestone of note (and a point of notability) that belongs in the lead and the article. It is very difficult to work on articles for subjects whose notability predates the World Wide Web by several decades since sources are so difficult to find (print only). Royal broil 02:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• I add several points to my comments: 1) NMOTORSPORT point #1 says "Have driven in a race in a fully professional series". He went far beyond driving in a single national race. He WON a single national race. He didn't win an average national race - he won the United States championship event! It is comparable with winning the Daytona 500 in NASCAR). 2) He also owned the dragster which meets point #4 of NMOTORSPORT. 3) I added citations in reliable sources. The periodicals Drag Racer and Hot Rod (magazine) are not some random fandom website. Both magazines have been long lasting (greatly predating the explosion of the World Wide Web) and are the biggest / most respected magazines for drag racers. They meet the rigorous editorial standards needed for using in a Featured Article. I consider them "cast iron" quality. More specifically, they address GNG points - "significant coverage", highly "reliable", "objective secondary sources", and "independent of the topic". 4) The magazines are NOT using what is being portrayed as trivial mentions but have articles / chapters dedicated to him. I remind everyone that this is a 1960s topic so just because a cited source isn't available online makes analysis of those sources problematic. Royal broil

This is ridiculous! After two full weeks, all of one vote, the nominator, for deletion, & an enormous chorus of "I don't care", another relisting? What, you're not going to be satisfied until the page is deleted? How many people is the nominator asking to relist this? How many times is it going to take before he's satisfied? And yes, now it does look like bad faith is involved, because the same damn thing keeps happening. Once is coincidence. Twice isn't. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• @ Trekphiler: I think it's time to drop the stick here. -- Dolotta ( talk) 13:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply

"drop the stick here" I'm not the one who keeps asking the page be relisted! How much "I don't care" does it take? There is exactly one vote to delete. Since when is one vote to delete anything remotely resembling "consensus"? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:GNG. Checking through and reading the references, most are passing mentions or results of particular races. Uninvited Company 20:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply

I just expanded, including cited book sources that dedicate pages to him. I also linked to a full 174 page book dedicated to him and his company. Royal broil 14:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Albeit, self-published. Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep I also find, from the Los Angeles Times, that in 2002 he was an NHRA Motorsports Museum Heritage Award honoree [1], and there's an article about him the same year in the Daily Spectrum (St George, Utah), which says he would be inducted into the NHRA Hall of Fame (the same thing??): 'Feeling the Need for Speed' [2], which gives biographical details like his age, where he grew up, the school he went to, that he started working as a rancher. His 1967 win was reported nationally. I have not looked thoroughly enough to find newspaper references for breaking 200 mph, but I have found references stating that he had broken the 190 mph barrier on 6 different occasions before 1968. I don't know anything about drag racing, but from the sources included in the article, and other sources available, I'd say he clearly meets WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 08:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep It's a bit niche - and not one of my niches. And it needs more work. Please, someone, do it. But wikipedia set out with some pretty eye-watering ambitions in respect of scope, and you're not going to come close if you start deleting things that don't belong in one of my - or one of your - niches. As a general rule, the world of business is woefully under-represented in wikipedia IM(H)O. In England you would say that was down to traditional English snobbism. We all admire our lawyers, bankers and journalists, and like to despise folks who simply make or sell stuff. But wikipidia is international and in America .... they always told me the business of America was business. WE - the contributors - can't all be retired academics and bean counters. Success (and happy Christmas as required.) Charles01 ( talk) 20:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC) reply

"It's a bit niche" It is, but, to echo the sentiment on business, coverage of drag racing on WP (indeed, on anything related to hot rodding or customizing) is pretty awful. WP went years without a page on Ed Iskenderian! Or Pete Chapouris. How is that possible? (And then I get a "not notable" nom for Magoo! Really?!) How much of it is pure ignorance? I don't nom for delete on pages where I know nothing about it, but it seems a lot of other people don't have the same good sense. This isn't even a specialty of mine; if it was, the sourcing would be better. As for anybody improving, I wouldn't hold my breath, were I you... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura}

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.