Talk:Professional Diving Instructors Corporation

Notability
What more does it need to be considered sufficiently notable? Alternatively, why would it not be considered sufficiently notable? Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Member of World Recreational Scuba Training Council
 * Has been issuing certificates since the 1960's
 * In Wikipedia, the onus is always on the editor to demonstrate WP:notability. Otherwise almost anything would be able to have an article about it: "Joe's Dive Centre - it's a member of Birmingham Chamber of Commerce and has been issuing certificates since the 1970's". A subject normally needs to meet the general notability guideline:
 * If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
 * In other words, a subject has to have been noticed outside of its own field. Because we are writing a general encyclopedia, the subject has to have been noticed by a general audience, independent of the subject. So we look for third-party coverage in the quality press, in respectable books, in well-recognised journals.
 * As ColinFine points out, the references on this article are currently confined to the PDIC website and the WRSTC website. Since PDIC is a member of WRSTC, PDIC is affiliated to WRSTC, and the relationship means they are not independent as our GNG requires. It's important to distinguish between a non-independent source that may be reliable/acceptable for certain information and the need for at least some sources to be independent. It may well be that "Joe's Dive Centre"'s website is a reliable source of info about Joe's Dive Centre - but it's no use in establishing notability (we've all got websites and I have lots of them).
 * Nevertheless, it's possible that simply being a member of an exclusive organisation or club may be a recognition of notability. The requirements for membership of WRSTC is far higher than for Birmingham Chamber of Commerce of course. I'd argue PDIC is notable on those grounds, but it's still an argument. We really need some press coverage of PDIC to establish notability beyond doubt. It's indicative that a Google search for PDIC returns the http://www.pdic-intl.com/ website in fourth place behind some courses at Plymouth University and the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (which takes the top spots in Google news searches on PDIC). I'll keep looking. --RexxS (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Google on the full name gives lots of hits, most advertising etc but also:
 * Boy scouts of America website "Agencies recognized by the BSA for scuba training are PADI (Professional Association of Diving Instructors); NAUI (National Association of Underwater Instructors); SSI (Scuba Schools International); IDEA (International Diving Educators Association); PDIC (Professional Diving Instructors Corporation); and SDI (Scuba Diving International). In addition to the agencies listed by name, any current member of the World Recreational Scuba Training Council (WRSTC) is also recognized." http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/BoyScouts/AdvancementandAwards/MeritBadges/mb-scuba.aspx
 * The Maritime Regiment (TMAR) of the Texas State Guard (TXSG): http://tmar.txsg.state.tx.us/hq/about/dive_team.html# "TMAR Divers must have certifications from recognized, national SCUBA institutions, listed in the TMAR Diver regulations [TMARINST 1410.1, 1-1. General, a., page 5] as: Professional Association of Diving Instructors (PADI), National Association of Underwater Instructors (NAUI), Scuba Schools International (SSI), National Association of Scuba Diving Schools (NASDS), International Divers Education Association (IDEA), Professional Diving Instructors Corporation (PDIC), Scuba Diving International (SDI), Scuba Educators International (SEI), U.S. Navy or U.S. Coast Guard, Other nationally accredited commercial diving agencies."
 * Pennsylvania state parks website http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/stateparks/recreation/scubadiving/index.htm "Divers Must Be Certified. Recreational scuba divers must be certified. The following are approved certifying agencies. ◦National Association of Underwater Instructors (NAUI) ◦Professional Association of Diving Instructors (PADI) ◦National YMCA Scuba Program (YMCA) ◦National Association of Scuba Diving Schools (NASDS) ◦Scuba Schools International (SSI) ◦International Diving Educators Association (IDEA) ◦Professional Diving Instructors Corporation (PDIC) ◦Multinational Diving Educators Association (MDEA) ◦Scuba Diving International (SDI) and Technical Diving International (TDI)"
 * (Kentucky Administrative Regulation) 106 KAR 1:390. Search and rescue training requirements. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/kar/106/001/390.htm "Section 5. Minimum training requirements for members of a rescue squad specializing in dive rescue and recovery shall be: (1) Certification in open water by one (1) of the following nationally recognized organizations or equivalents: (a) International Diving Educators Association (IDEA); (b) Multinational Diving Educators Association (MDEA); (c) National Association of Underwater Instructors (NAUI); (d) National Association of SCUBA Diving Schools (NASDS); (e) National Association of SCUBA Instructors (NASI); (f) Professional Association of Diving Instructors (PADI); (g) Professional Diving Instructors Corporation (PDIC); (h) SCUBA Schools International (SSI); (i) United States Navy (USN); (j) YMCA National SCUBA Program (YMCA); or (k) Dive Rescue International. (2) Annually, a minimum of ten (10) hours underwater training in rescue diving techniques developed and administered by the individual organization specializing in water rescue utilizing divers." Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Peter, that's the sort of thing that establishes notability - somebody who's independent has noticed them. The BSA is particularly pertinent because they are not directly associated with diving. Good catch! I'd suggest adding a sentence or two along the lines of "PDIC is recognised by numerous organisations for the purpose of providing scuba training."/refs/
 * Then a couple or three refs to validate that statement should do the trick. It's technically original research (!) because we're the ones drawing the conclusion, but I think it's so obvious that nobody is likely to object. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what conclusion we are drawing. All four organisations specify minimum training requirements that include PDIC certification by name. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Added a line asserting recognition by above organisations as training provider to establish notability, I will ask ColinFine if he finds this sufficient. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There isn't a source that actually says "PDIC is recognised by numerous organisations ...", so that is a conclusion we are drawing by listing the sources. It's only a minor point, and is not uncommon to find in the encyclopedia, but it strictly breaks WP:OR. It really isn't anything to worry about here.
 * Both you and I would consider PDIC notable anyway, but your four sources should make notability plain to anyone outside the field of diving. The article is very short anyway, so any useful, verifiable fact that can be added improves it. --RexxS (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that it would be technically correct to add a list of organizations a yard long that recognize PDIC as a training provider, each with a supporting reference stating that point in so many words, but incorrect and OR to add them up and use the word several in a single sentence, using the same references as evidence? Seems a bit over the top. Cheers, Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is technically incorrect for us to make conclusions that have not been stated in a reliable source, and there's an explanation at WP:SYN. I agree that enforcing that policy in these sort of uncontroversial cases would be well over the top. Nevertheless we should be aware of the potential for problems where the issues are more complex. --RexxS (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)