Talk:Pratt & Miller

Requested move 31 December 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nom. Corvette Racing was created, this RM is moot now, although I fully disagree that a new article was needed. (non-admin closure) -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 16:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Pratt & Miller → Corvette Racing – This company is not independently notable outside of their operation of the Corvette Racing program. The title of the article should reflect the WP:COMMONNAME Corvette Racing, as the article is already WEIGHTed towards such. A rename will encourage expansion of the article, which is badly needed as Corvette Racing is a highly notable sports car racing team. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 15:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Motorsport has been notified of this discussion. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 17:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I fully agree, Corvette Racing is the main thing that Pratt & Miller are known for operating, and moving the article would be a key first step to expanding the actual content of the article. My first suggestion would be discussion about the C8.R and its complicated history against its rivals (at least, in terms of how few of them there were at times). Thanks for bringing this up. Johannes275 (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom, mostly. I'm not entirely sure that the company couldn't have its own article but as it is the article is too short and the corvette racing section should be the main part of the article. If it is expanded and becomes too long, we can look at splitting it but that is very much a hypothetical right now. A7V2 (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• Having read all (yes, all) of the discussion below, I am switiching my !vote to weak oppose. Firstly, I'd like to point out that as far as wikipedia goes, generally a company is no where near as good as the sum of its parts. I think this is one such example, since there are projects the company worked on and yet no mention is made in the relevant articles (eg Cadillac Northstar LMP), and this is often reflected in sources discussing the topic. I would question the notability of Pratt & Miller, if considered separately from Corvette Racing (which is unquestionably notable, even having multiple books on the topic) and now that Corvette Racing has been created, this current move discussion makes little sense. I would hope though that a deletion discussion of this article would result in a merge into Corvette Racing. A7V2 (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd point out that Pratt & Miller was not involved in the Cadillac LMP program, just the Speed World Challenge/Pirelli World Challenge CTS-V/ATS-V program, both articles which mention Pratt & Miller. The³5₉ (Talk) 02:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

In Martin/Fuller GTP Race Cars, the chapter on the Intrepid mentions that Pratt & Miller "created the ALMS Cadillacs", so I'm thinking that is an error on the part of the authors since the car was built by Rily & Scott, and (contrary to my memory) the "Cadillac Racing" was also Riley & Scott [1]. Nonetheless, there's very little independent coverage to be found of Pratt & Miller outside of Corvette Racing. What I should have made clear in my poorly made point above, is that while sources may mention Pratt & Miller (eg in articles/chapters about the Intrepid), it is only in a sense of them doing something rather that saying anything about them. A7V2 (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, note that in both the examples you've given the mention of Pratt & Miller is unsourced and, in my opinion, seem a bit forced or tacked on. A7V2 (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

But those articles are not attempting to discuss Pratt & Miller so they're not attempting to establish notability for Pratt & Miller, just establishing that Pratt & Miller was involved in their development, they are attempting to discuss their subject. As I mentioned before, is Prodrive notable because of their factory efforts, or do they need notability outside of their factory programs simply because Subaru World Rally Team, Aston Martin Racing, and Mini WRC Team all exist? One could easily merge Chevrolet Corvette C8.R into Corvette Racing since they will cover much of the same racing history, but there is a clear distinction for why they are separate articles. I see no reason why Pratt & Miller's Corvette history should be excluded from determining whether or not they pass WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT both as a team involved in professional level championships and as a factory-supported team (I realize NMOTORSPORT is specifically for notability of people, but the same should apply to teams just as much as people). The GNG doesn't state that independent sources have to be solely about or discussing Pratt & Miller, and I would say that information on Pratt & Miller in sources is not simply trivial. Further, it makes no sense to be discussing many things Pratt & Miller are involved on an equally successful level in on an article about the 20+ year history of Corvette Racing. The³5₉ (Talk) 03:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Prodrive would need to have independent significant coverage of them, not just associated entities. From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), "A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries. The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable" - I think this can be taken to extend to the example here. Corvette Racing is notable but Pratt & Miller does not inherit this notability automatically. I don't think the level of success of P&M (or any driver, team etc) has any baring on the GNG: I haven't given it a great deal of time or effort (since this is NOT a deletion or merge discussion!) but I am definitely of the opinion that P&M may not meet the GNG. A7V2 (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom and I fully agree with A7V2: changing to Corvette Racing we increase the chances of having a better, more complete article. If in the future the article becomes too long, we will deal with it.Rpo.castro (talk) 11:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Since Corvette Racing was created, there's no need to rename this (or merge), so due to this event, I change my status to oppose. @The359: and @GhostOfDanGurney: no one benefits with this extended and harsh discussion. For sure there are better uses for all the energy spent here, like improving this article and Corvette Racing. Don't we want all the same? (And excuse me if I sound condescending or something, it is not my intention).Rpo.castro (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Pratt & Miller easily passes criteria for inclusion for Motorsport without their Corvette history, they have been involved in numerous other GM programs over the decades (they were, after all, also Cadillac Racing for many years concurrent with Corvette Racing). Renaming to Corvette Racing fails WP:CRITERIA for precision as there have been multiple Corvette racing programs not associated with Pratt & Miller, as well as consistency as program names that shift from team to team are typically not used, for instance Audi Sport North America and BMW Motorsport which cover the many teams that have used these names. We also do not rename Joest Racing to Audi Sport Team Joest or Mazda Team Joest every few years.

If you want an article on the history of Corvette Racing, you can create another one to cover that specific history, as well as the history beyond Pratt & Miller's involvement. If you want to improve this article, you can improve it by hitting the edit button and getting to work; the article title has no effect on whether or not people including yourselves, will improve this article. The³5₉ (Talk) 22:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• I disagree with this entire statement:

1. Pratt & Miller easily passes criteria for inclusion for Motorsport without their Corvette history, they have been involved in numerous other GM programs over the decades (they were, after all, also Cadillac Racing for many years concurrent with Corvette Racing). - Please feel free to cite sources for this and add it to the article, if this is true. Without any, there is no way to verify whether or not Pratt & Miller is covered significantly enough to warrant keeping an article with this title.
2. Renaming to Corvette Racing fails WP:CRITERIA for precision as there have been multiple Corvette racing programs not associated with Pratt & Miller... - Again, please feel free to introduce citations for this. As it stands, there is no other subject to disambiguate "Corvette Racing" from this one, therefore your citation of WP:CRITERIA is inaccurate. There is no evidence that any other company has used the name "Corvette Racing", and, should some be presented, it is fairly obvious by doing a quick look at Google or wikilinks that the Pratt & Miller-run program is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Corvette Racing". Any additional subjects can be disambiguated per standard means.
3. ...as well as consistency as program names that shift from team to team are typically not used, for instance Audi Sport North America and BMW Motorsport which cover the many teams that have used these names. We also do not rename Joest Racing to Audi Sport Team Joest or Mazda Team Joest every few years. - This point is wholly irrelevant to this discussion. Audi Sport North America is a DAB page listing two non-primary topics which both used that exact name in similar points in history. BMW Motorsport is a DAB page listing teams with different names which may plausibly be confused for the term "BMW Motorsport" There is only one topic for Corvette Racing and there is nothing with which to confuse this topic with.
4. If you want an article on the history of Corvette Racing, you can create another one to cover that specific history, as well as the history beyond Pratt & Miller's involvement. - But this is the article on the history of Corvette Racing, as evidenced by the fact that Corvette Racing is currently a redirect here, while, again, no sources indicate that any history "beyond Pratt & Miller's involvement" exists.
5. If you want to improve this article, you can improve it by hitting the edit button and getting to work; the article title has no effect on whether or not people including yourselves, will improve this article. - A preposterous statement. I am attempting to improve the encyclopedia by moving this article to a recognizable title (one of the WP:CRITERIA, oh my!), one that is much more COMMON to the average reader who is not an expert in sports car racing. Google indicates that "Corvette Racing" is searched far more than "Pratt & Miller" is.

I reiterate my encouragement of The359 to similarly "get to work" in citing and introducing their claims to the article as if they are indeed right, this is vital information that could be used to improve the article tremendously. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 23:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I started the article, so maybe you should check on how much work has been done. No one is arguing against the article being incomplete, it was merely a stub when it was started, but to claim that this article is only about Corvette Racing is simply because it hasn't been updated very well. However you are the one who is trying to move it, therefore the onus is on you to show that Pratt & Miller lacks any notability outside of Corvette Racing. That means you need to do the work. It's almost as though you have absolutely no idea what the subject is about or what they are involved in. Or the involvement of other companies such as Riley & Scott in the development of the Corvette Racing program. It's not particularly my fault if you don't know history, especially of the various Corvette racing programs over the past 5 decades. Pratt & Miller is the current entity known as Corvette Racing, but Corvette Racing is not Pratt & Miller. Pretty simple. Even this very article lists vehicles that are not Corvettes that Pratt & Miller has been involved in developing. Start a separate article for Corvette Racing. Or maybe instead of worrying about the title, improving the article first? The³5₉ (Talk) 00:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I find it hilariously in bad faith that you claim that there has only ever been one Corvette Racing without any proof to back this statement. I mean, ZR1 Racing Team, the Jim Morrison Corvettes, the Chevrolet Corvette GTP program, the Corvette Daytona Prototypes just to name a few off the top of my head, how is renaming this article making this precise when there are known to be many programs under the Corvette name, when it is pretty clear that Pratt & Miller does many other things? This is why redirects exist. The precise name of the company is Pratt & Miller. The³5₉ (Talk) 00:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

And finally, I'd also point out that the Corvette Racing title belongs to General Motors, and Pratt & Miller only continues to operate the program because they continue to have a contract with General Motors to do so. They could just as easily be dumped for another engineering outfit, which would render the renaming of this article to be backwards. Now I'm aware that we're not crystal balling, but this is exactly why I say that Corvette Racing is not Pratt & Miller. The³5₉ (Talk) 00:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

In fact, let's go even further. Sure, you get the article renamed to Corvette Racing. Where are you going to discuss the Cadillac Racing program in SCCA Pirelli World Challenge?? Or development of the IndyCar Chevrolet Aero Kits? Or the Pontiac GTO.R/GXP.R programs in Grand-Am, or anything involving the work of Pratt & Miller outside of Corvette? Where would these elements fall under an article named Corvette Racing? So now you're going to have an article on Corvette Racing discussing Cadillacs and Pontiacs? That seems pretty silly. So what, just delete them? Not include them? Or maybe have two separate articles so that you can cover both. What a shocking idea. The³5₉ (Talk) 00:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• I asked for sources, you come back with only a link to the official website of the company (ineligible for GNG consideration), a deflection challenging me to do things which I have already done in this discussion, personal attacks and a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:CRITERIA. The commonly recognizable name of this company is "Corvette Racing". I demonstrate this by citing Google trends [2] and by pointing out the wikilinks [3] vs [4]. The two cars you linked to are not called "Corvette Racing". The onus here is on you to cite your claims instead of personally attacking me.

(EC) Yes, let's do go further!

Where are you going to discuss the Cadillac Racing program in SCCA Pirelli World Challenge?? Or development of the IndyCar Chevrolet Aero Kits? Or the Pontiac GTO.R/GXP.R programs in Grand-Am, or anything involving the work of Pratt & Miller outside of Corvette?

If I had found independent, reliable sources significantly covering *ANY* of this, I'd have added it already. If anything can be found after, guess what buddy, it can still be added to the article or split into its own. Just because the article would be called Corvette Racing doesn't mean that independent Pratt & Miller infor can't still be added in it's own section. Quit assuming I'm not doing any work. That is a garbage, uncalled for personal attack and it stops NOW. You've had 14 years to add all of this to the article, but obviously SIGCOV is lacking. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 01:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It's almost as though you missed out on the multiple Pirelli World Challenge championships listed, and linked, in this article.

So tell me, what is more confusing for the common reader, an article titled Corvette Racing discussing IndyCar, Pontiac, and Cadillac programs? Or an article entitled Pratt & Miller discussing those various programs they have been involved in? What sense does it make to rename an existing stub and then recreate that stub again as a new article, when you can just start a new article on Corvette Racing or expand this current stub? More Google hits does not define the naming of an article, that is merely a starting point for a discussion.

The WP:PRIMARY topic of Pratt & Miller is Pratt & Miller. Just because Corvette Racing would take up the longest history does not make it the primary topic. Further, Prodrive and Subaru World Rally Team exist independently, despite Prodrive being Subaru WRT. I'd point out again, Corvette Racing is not Pratt & Miller, Pratt & Miller is one part pf the entity known as Corvette Racing. Your poo-pooing of my previous examples of factory team names existing independent of their primary operator does not negate that such independent articles exist, even if just as a disambiguation.

I'd also point out that A7V2 agreed that he believes Pratt & Miller have notability on their own, but somehow I'm the one that has to prove it? You completely misrepresent WP:CRITERIA and I suggest this move request is in bad faith. The³5₉ (Talk) 01:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd also point out that you asked for examples of this company doing things other than Corvette Racing, which I did by linking to the primary source, which was not a question of GNG, but of whether or not Pratt & Miller has done things outside of Corvette Racing, (Personal attack removed). If you take that as personal, that's on you, but this history exists, no matter how much you attempt to whitewash it. The³5₉ (Talk) 01:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I haven't missed a damn thing nor am I misrepresenting anything; once again please cut the garbage. I have already demonstrated why the COMMONNAME for this group is Corvette Racing and your refutations are invariably off-base and are not based in policy. So tell me, what is more confusing for the common reader, an article titled Corvette Racing discussing IndyCar, Pontiac, and Cadillac programs? Secondary sources which cover Pratt & Miller in significant detail don't exist for these programs (you can insist they do all you want, without introducing them, you're basically telling me to "do yer research" after making a claim; that is not how you debate and actually demonstrates bad faith on your part, not mine), therefore this is a non-issue. A note saying "Pratt & Miller also won championships in PWC under the banner of X" can be added (the lead would still read the same). A DAB page is not an article. If I were to create a new article at Corvette Racing, I'd end up copy/pasting everything from here and then also sending this to AfD due to the complete lack of SIGCOV outside of Corvette Racing that I found and the resultant fact that the new article would be identical. I am convinced that this opposition is purely an WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue from the page creator. Unless there's an actual refutation based in policy, supported by secondary sources, I won't be replying again so as not to further clutter the discussion. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 15:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a discussion of article title, notability does not have to be established, and Pratt & Miller's notability does not exclude Corvette Racing. You can't simply eliminate a company's history simply because the article is split in two, or use the notability of half the company to support a page move, so all of these notability guidelines are moot, this isn't a discussion of notability. So splitting the article would not be "copying and pasting this article" since much of this article does not relate to Corvette Racing, and this article would still be allowed to discuss their involvement in Corvette Racing. Further, the guideline on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC explicitly states that "There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors" meaning all this Google counting nonsense does not make the page move a certainty, especially as there is an entire section of the Primary Topic guideline stating that Not "what first comes to (your) mind". So Corvette Racing being the first thing that comes from Pratt & Miller does not mean that Corvette Racing is the primary topic. So yes, I WP:IDONTLIKEIT because it fixes something that is neither broken nor wrong, and is being used as a crutch to try and spurt crystal ball future edits, which is not what the article title policy is meant for. Renaming the article fails the Precision and Consistency clauses of the title policy. You can't simply pick and choose some parts of policy, twist them to fit your desire, then ignore the parts of policy that refute your claim, that is why this is a discussion, not a vote.

I have, as well as some others in their support, already suggested a far better path to helping both the reader and the editor by splitting the article, but you appear to be hell-bent on deleting portions of this article. If you feel that a split article would not allow Pratt & Miller to stand alone on notability (again, this would include Corvette history, not exclude it), then feel free to nominate this article for deletion and see how that goes for you. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

As usual, I'm left to do the actual lifting here. (Personal attack removed) The³5₉ (Talk) 18:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Withdraw Corvette Racing has been created. I disagree that a new article was needed and will be sending this to AfD shortly as now that the new article has been made, this one has even less sourcing to meet GNG with. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 16:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.