Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willard Prentiss

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 -- RoySmith (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Willard Prentiss

Willard Prentiss (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

FirefoxMan 01:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Completing incomplete AfD from 12/22/06; procedural nomination, no opinion. SkierRMH 11:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Competed in the Indy 500, so clearly notable. Readro 12:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: competed once, with no real success. David Mestel^(Talk) 12:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete win, place or show... those are notable... but only if at a significant event, or repeated enough times to stand out from everyone else. --Buridan 13:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - the event is significant - it's the Indy 500! Readro 14:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• , but he did not win, place, or show, so while the event is signficant, every participant, in every race will not be. wikipedia is not a sports trivia book--Buridan 04:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - He placed 13th! But anyways, WP:BIO clearly states that anyone who has peformed at the highest level is notable enough for an article. So every participant of every race at the highest level is notable enough for an article. Readro 18:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• See my response below in reply to Readro. David Mestel^(Talk) 08:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I've expanded the article a bit to better demonstrate his notability. Readro 15:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - There are literally hundreds of articles like this one already in existence, with hundreds more to come. Other similar articles have been nominated for deletion and in every case have been kept. Almost every source book on Indianpolis lists results in two ways: by race and by driver (regardless of the number of races run), Wikipedia should be no different. --Mycroft.Holmes 16:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

  WP:POKEMON is not a reason to keep. David Mestel^(Talk) 19:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment To expand on Readro's comments: this is the Indy 500 for goodness sake! To the true "500" fan, every lap, driver, tradition, event, and statistic must be recorded! People coming to Wikipedia for Indianapolis information would expect an article for Willard Prentiss and all other "one-timers" --Mycroft.Holmes 16:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

  WP:NOT a place for fancruft. David Mestel^(Talk) 19:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment And another thing: lots and lots of these Indy one-timers had significant midget, sprint, dirt, and board track careers. As the articles note: these are stubs. Give us an opportunity to expand them before nominating for summary removal.--Mycroft.Holmes 16:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - If delete this entry, then you may as well delete all other F1 drivers who never got anywhere in F1 which I would object to. Willirennen 17:20, 24 December 2006 (utc)

  As above wrt WP:POKEMON. David Mestel^(Talk) 19:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Only claim to fame seems to be that he competed once in the indy 500 in 1933, and finished 13th. Does not seem notable enough to me. --Wildnox(talk) 19:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Stong keep Even if he only competed once (or twice, but only qualified once), he verifiably competed at the highest level of his sport. He passes WP:BIO with relative ease. -- Kicking222 19:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

  Show me some non-trivial published sources of which he is the primary subject. David Mestel^(Talk) 21:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If being the subject of a "non-trivial published source" is essential to an article's worthyness – and I do not believe that it should be – then the criteria need to be reviewed because that leaves a lot of interesting material at risk of deletion. Adrian M. H. 22:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:ILIKEIT#It.'s_interesting. David Mestel^(Talk) 08:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep – Prentiss is without doubt worthy of inclusion due to his part in the early history of one of the world's most famous motor races and his part in the wider field of early U.S. motorsport history. I really cannot believe that anyone would actively seek to remove this entry from such a comprehensive encyclopædia. Adrian M. H. 21:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Easily passes WP:BIO. The Indianapolis 500 was definitely the paramount event in the American Automobile Association (AAA), the highest level fully professional racing league in 1933. What racing event could possible be considered more professional than the Indy 500 in 1933? The best drivers and barnstormers from around the country came to Indy for the event. All the contributing that I've done with old drivers make that point obvious. The article is well sourced and notability is asserted by multiple non-trivial sources. The AAA hasn't promoted the event for many decades, and the IRL/ChampCar series should not be considered first party sources IMO. Royalbroil ^T : C 22:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Lately I have been expanding articles for drivers from the National Midget Auto Racing Hall of Fame, and many of the drivers have articles simular to his before I expand their articles to show their entire notable career. Many of the Hall of Fame racers had significant careers in midget car racing, but their current article features a single or a few appearances at the Indy 500, which doesn't do their careers any justice. I haven't even started the Sprint Car Hall of Fame yet. Give time for people to expand their stubs. I would welcome help... Royalbroil ^T : C 03:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

For example, look at the how different the article on Harry McQuinn is before and after finding a single source. I bet there are references on all Indy 500 drivers somewhere that will pop up someday. It is a good example of why a stub tag should be applied, not AfD. Royalbroil ^T : C 02:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - again, this appears to me to be concordance material. Does every aspect of every major race need its own article? Every jocky who has ever ridden in a triple crown derby? Every player who ever qualified one time for a notable golf tournament? I would venture no, and say that if anything, these people/places/things can be mentioned in the larger article on the thing that actually is notable.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - WP:BIO clearly states that anyone who has completed at the highest level of their sport is notable enough for an article. The Indy 500 is very much the highest level, so surely the article should be kept? Where should the cutoff for notability be? Or will all of the judgements be subjective? Readro 18:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, no. What WP:BIO really states is that having competed in their sport at the highest level is likely to have multiple, nontrivial sources on them, which is the central criterion. If you can provide them, then fine. If not... David Mestel^(Talk) 08:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment What should be the criteria used for "notability"? Should Dave MacDonald or Swede Savage not be be mentioned due to their lack of Indy "success"? Should Babe Stapp be left out due his "unsuccessful" albeit long Indy career? Have these theoretical notability criteria been applied to the F1 circuit? Most of the Indy "one-timers" from the 50's were initially added by F1 folks anxious to fix their broken driver links. --Mycroft.Holmes 01:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

  Um... no. They're notable for other reasons (the fact that they died in a famous crash). What I'm saying is that competing once in the Indy 500 does not itself make you notable. David Mestel^(Talk) 08:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The article is well-sourced and meets the notability requirements for people, as others have argued. While I personally am not sure the current standards are really good, because they do open the door for a lot of articles on people who merely competed in races such as the Indy 500, they are still what we should follow and they clearly support a keep in this instance. --The Way 20:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

  This comment is effectively equivalent to WP:ILIKEIT#Just_a_policy_or_guideline - you're simply asserting that it meets the notability requirements for people. David Mestel^(Talk) 08:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - As said above "The article is well-sourced and meets the notability requirements for people". He is somewhat well known to people who know American Motor-Racing history. I don't see any harm in keeping it, it is not as if he is completely unknown. Plus the article has a lot of time and effort put into it by the Wikipedia:WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing . . . look here: 1933 Indianapolis 500. -BMan1113VR 22:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  WP:ILIKEIT. David Mestel^(Talk) 12:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I do not believe an individuals level of success or failure does not in itself make them notable (or not). I feel that the obscure may still relevant because of its context. Do you discount the worst selling singles of otherwise significant recording artists simply because they did not fare so well. Certainly not because they would be expected to be there in an encyclopedia. The article in this case should be a small one certainly but it should be there.Jsydave 23:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  Well, the single might be notable because, for example, it represented a development in the artist's performance, but if it was virtually unknown and insignificant, then no, it would not in principle merit an article. David Mestel^(Talk) 12:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - The whole point of notability is a guide that the subject can be written about from a NPOV from verifiable sources - that is clearly the case with this article. Alexj2002 14:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: WP:ILIKEIT is not really relevant here: I don't think anyone has a personal bias about this article. We are simply arguing for its inclusion based partly on our interpretation of the criteria and – certainly from my point of view – partly on a consideration for a "completist" approach to content. Yes, the article (and many others like it) could be improved further – take note of Readro's initial efforts – but why on earth should a minor article be deleted? Sounds like a case of WP:IHATEIT Adrian M. H. 16:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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.