Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Armstrong (diver)


 * 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. Discarding the last !vote by a banned user, I don't see that the subject necessarily meets the inclusion guidelines as argued by the nominator (perhaps just barely), but there doesn't seem to be enough consensus to delete, either. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Brian Armstrong (diver)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Dubious notability per WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, or WP:ANYBIO. Many of the sources are affiliated (e.g. self-published by Armstrong or from the Rubicon Foundation, of which Armstrong is a founding member). Other sources are primary, or give passing mention of Armstrong (or none at all). Being a crew member of a team that does something noteworthy does not grant notability, just as the workers who build a famous skyscraper don't warrant individual articles. The television appearances may possibly indicate notability if they focus on Armstrong specifically, rather than just in passing or as a crew member, but this needs verification. Lastly, the article was written by User:Gene Hobbs, who is also a founding member of the Rubicon Foundation. We need significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, can't find any sources about him —Мандичка YO 😜 12:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No vote for COI - In a small field such as this, multiple television appearances, being the model for numerous cover photos of various diving magazines, being requested to join multiple projects, and being active in a leadership role of an organization in the field (source of my COI) all make him noteworthy to the field for which the article was written. As a project diver, it is expected that the project will get the news and not the dive team. Other things of note are that Armstrong recently completed the requirements for the Sheck Exley award from the NSS-CDS along with only 23 other divers. Earning the Exley does meet the first criteria in WP:ANYBIO. I would also argue that his involvement in multiple projects that have yielded results for the public good also makes him eligible to meet the second criteria.
 * Both the B25 and Gertrude Tomkins projects received significant media coverage and Armstrong was mentioned by name in at least one project related publication. My failure to expand the project specific sections to show the notability of these projects should not reflect on this nomination. If requested, I could find time to expand these sections.
 * Thank you Animalparty. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Sheck Exley award indicates someone has completed 1000 safe cave dives. While that's certainly more than me, and probably more than many divers, the award only counts towards notability if reliable, secondary sources routinely use it as a metric of notability (the low number of awardees in itself means little unless put into context such as how long the award has been available). And I would argue being mentioned by name alone in multiple sources does not confer notability (WP:NOTINHERITED) no matter how much public good (should every crew member on the Gertrude Tomkins Project be granted a biography?). My own name has appeared in a couple newspapers and technical reports, and I have worked with people who probably satisfy Wikipedia notability guidelines, but that does not constitute significant, verifiable coverage to merit my own biography, no matter who writes it. Notability and the Core Content Policies require that we as editors cannot imply or assume importance or prominence that is not adequately documented in secondary sources. With all due respect, we need sufficient evidence that people aside from yourself or affiliated sources have considered Armstrong particularly noteworthy in his field. Should such secondary sources exist and be cited I have no objection to the article's retention. If not, Armstrong could plausibly be redirected to perhaps Rubicon Foundation and/or discussed in articles about the recovery projects, if appropriate per due weight and balancing aspects. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * - unfortunately those things you listed (multiple television appearance, cover model for dive magazines, being requested to join projects) are not sufficient on their own to establish notability. What we need is enough reliable coverage (i.e. secondary sources) in which he is the subject. We have to have material from which to write a credible biography after all. This is a very strict guideline that you can read about here: WP:BLPPRIMARY. Also about the award, there is almost no information about it. Searching for "Sheck Exley Safe Cave Diving Award" or "Sheck Exley Award" brings up mainly online forums discussing it. For an award to be considered, it must also receive coverage in secondary sources.  But has he ever been featured as a profile or interview in any of the diving magazines?  Diving magazines are considered secondary sources; any kind of feature on him would probably satisfy the basic requirements, so this is probably your best bet.   —Мандичка YO 😜 13:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait. The article has survived since 2011. Give Gene Hobbs some time to improve the article as he requests. Gene, How much time do you need to deal with the issues? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not concerned Peter. It turns out that he and his wife were both interviewed quite a bit in the “Return To The Bermuda Triangle” special on TLC (TV network) but I doubt that is enough to make this group happy. I'd need to spend more time to find more and I just don't have much time at the moment. Thanks though! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * and, don't worry, articles will stay a minimum of seven days after someone proposes deletion. Sometimes articles are relisted multiple times until a consensus is reached. This is plenty of time to look for sources, improve the article etc. Also, even if articles are deleted, the content can be restored by an administrator at a later date. So if an article gets deleted because of a notability/secondary source requirement, and a source is available six months later, you don't have to start from scratch. —Мандичка YO 😜 19:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I would consider the "Return To The Bermuda Triangle" documentary on The Learning Channel to be almost sufficient in itself; when you add in the reporting by the Columbia Star and ABC, it seems there's enough independent coverage. If Armstrong's notability was related to just one topic, I'd have some sympathy with turning this into a subsection of e.g. Rubicon Foundation, but it is clear that he has come to the attention of the public over a number of topics - Bermuda Triangle, B-25 Bomber, Gertrude Tompkins, etc. - so WP:BLP1E isn't relevant. We don't normally disperse a BLP over multiple topics, and I've seen no justification of why that should be appropriate in this case. Even if some might still consider the independent coverage borderline, his part in establishing the Rubicon Foundation and his notable collaborations with Michael C. Barnette provide a diversity of publications that recognise his work and add to the encyclopedic content that we have available for his BLP. This isn't a stub based on a couple of passing mentions, but a substantial article with potential for further expansion. --RexxS (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it so clear that he has come to the attention of the public for his actions? Notability requires verifiable evidence and notability is not inherited by working on notable projects nor with notable people. The first clip from Return to the Bermuda Triangle shows contains about a minute in total of Armstrong talking about things he did or saw with his team, and while verifiable (and interesting), does not help establish independent notability. The second clip is more of the same. The interviews are not significant coverage about Armstrong or his contributions (nor are they independent of the subject), and assuming his appearances on Mega Movers are the same sort of first-hand testimonial, would contribute to notability no more than a firefighter who's been interviewed more than once about the causes of a fire, which, even if quoted in a newspaper, don't extend beyond the normal duties of a professional, even if that professional has some neat stories to tell. You state "This isn't a stub based on a couple of passing mentions", and I would say no, this is a beefed up start-class article stretched over a couple of passing mentions, padded with some other sources that don't mention Armstrong at all, implying but not demonstrating that Armstrong was a significant part of the story. The Background section is largely unsourced. I haven't found more than one sentence about Armstrong in any independent source (not even the Rubicon Foundation website). If Armstrong is independently notable or played an objectively important role, the current sources simply do not not support this. He is often simply listed as one of several crew members (does every one listed in The Gertrude Tompkins Expedition achieve instant notability? Per WP:Golden rule and WP:GNG, we need multiple, significant coverage from sources independent of the subject.  The fact that very few articles currently link to Armstrong suggest that Wikipedia would not be significantly disrupted should the existing article be removed or condensed into a section of Rubicon Foundation. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As a hypothetical example, pretend someone wanted to write an article on their good friend John Q. Person. "Person went to XYZ high school, where he was head of the Chess Club (verified by yearbook). Person graduated with High Honors from notable University (verified by list of names in commencement ceremony), which has several Nobel laureates as faculty. While in college, Person marched in some notable anti-war demonstrations (verified by caption in a photo) that received international press coverage. Person later got a job working for a notable Company (verified by HR documents), which is a well known Company in America. Person has written many documents for his company, as well as editorials published in newspaper and trade magazines (verified by said articles), and has presented at several conferences (verified by list of conference presentations and abstracts). When Person retired from Company, he was honored for his contributions with a life-time achievement award. Person died in 2010 (verified by obituary)" All of the above might be true and verifiable, and appear to show a person was widely known for something, but is actually a cobbled-together narrative from primary or passing mentions when the published record actually shows an individual was only tangentially or trivially involved in notable entities. Relevant essays include Masking the lack of notability and WP:PAGEDECIDE. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, you don't need to badger every commentator at this page with walls of text.
 * Next, your understanding of our notability guidelines is seriously flawed. It is clear that Armstrong and his work has been brought to the attention of the public through reporting by independent third parties. The Learning Channel did the interviews with Armstrong and had editorial control over what was broadcast. You can't simply dismiss TLC's part in that documentary as if Armstrong had made his own video and uploaded it to YouTube. When a programme maker with the circulation of TLC devotes a significant amount of screen time to Armstrong's expeditions, that does amount to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Your firefighter scenario is a false analogy; notability for a person is concerned with the attention that the media has paid to the individual for what they have done and it clear that Armstrong is unique in his contributions in that particular field, which cannot be said for a firefighter who was doing their job in the same way as any other firefighter. You might as well say that coverage of a soldier who receives a medal isn't notable because his actions did not "extend beyond the normal duties of a professional".
 * I do state that is a lot more than a stub and you concede that it's a "beefed up start-class article", for which I'm grateful. One of the features that distinguish start-class from stub-class is the question of notability: "The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant." - Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment,
 * Which are these sources that don't mention Armstrong at all? The Background section actually has five sources, which is not "largely unsourced" as you claim. If you feel the first paragraph needs a source, the correct action is addition of citation needed, not deletion of the entire article. Armstrong is independently notable and the current sources do support this, despite your unsupported assertions to the contrary (assuming "the current sources simply do not not support this. was a typo, not a double negative). The criterion for notability is significant coverage in independent sources, which Armstrong has - TLC, Mega Movers, ABC, etc. - not whether or not the encyclopedia would be disrupted by its removal. After all, there are plenty of articles on notable topics with fewer than the four proper incoming links that the article Brian Armstrong (diver) possesses.
 * Take the hypothetical example of John Q. Person, who did all the things you say, but was also a major player in several well-publicised expeditions that attracted public interest; so much so that two well-respected documentary makers interviewed him to get the story of what he did on those expeditions. Not only that, but a published author chose him for his expertise in these sort of expeditions as a collaborator and wrote about him. Enough for notability? You betcha. --RexxS (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , unless I'm missing it, there's nothing on his article nor mentioned here about him being featured in a book or article by said "published author" - what are you talking about? Additionally, let's look at the "five sources" you mention for the "Background section"
 * something called "'Continuous service award (10 years)'. North Carolina State University Physical Education Department." - no link, no publication given, clearly not even an article based on the title, by all guess it appears to be likely a list of people who have been working with the North Carolina State PE department for 10 years, and strangely is the exact same reference on Gene Hobbs aka Brian's friend (who wrote the article about him);
 * the article of incorporation for his own organization!!!
 * cover photo of Florida Scuba News; which appears to be a self-published free publication like that's mainly ads and given away at scuba stores, yet, still didn't write anything about him, and for all we know, the photo is a group shot of 27 people
 * documentary not about him but in which he is interviewed as a witness
 * same as #4.
 * The same pattern goes for all the rest of the "sources" in the article - how in any way are ANY of these the required significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail (the topic is Brian Armstrong himself, not his observations or thoughts on an activity or job he did or movie he saw or sandwich he ate) in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject? Is there a single source that meets that clear requirement? One? —Мандичка YO 😜 21:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * same as #4.
 * The same pattern goes for all the rest of the "sources" in the article - how in any way are ANY of these the required significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail (the topic is Brian Armstrong himself, not his observations or thoughts on an activity or job he did or movie he saw or sandwich he ate) in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject? Is there a single source that meets that clear requirement? One? —Мандичка YO 😜 21:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - can someone tell me where to look for him in the Bermuda doc? I tried to skim through it and couldn't see him and I don't want to watch the whole thing. Thanks. —Мандичка YO 😜 18:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * He appears at around 7:45, 8:05, and 10:15 on this clip. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, yeah it's doesn't change my vote. —Мандичка YO 😜 10:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: Very marginal when one asks for specific credits for the individual. Then again, when I think about the tens of thousands of "was a footballer who played for Fredonia club side C 1960-1961" "articles" on the project, the "is an album recorded by Interchangeablepopband on MySpace records and went double plotinum" on the project, we're looking at a person who, as an individual may be sought. I.e. a person might hit a search engine wanting to know more about the person seen on the TV special or magazine cover; therefore, there is a function for an article on this individual. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's because there are specific criteria for a few categories of people (ie athletes, artists, politicians, academics etc) in which they can meet notability guidelines through a specific achievement, such as football players (must have played in professional league is one) and musicians (having an album or song that goes gold or higher etc). That way it keeps AfD from being flooded with all these bios and helps article selection stay neutral (ie prevents subtle influences like, "I hate that team so I'm going to vote delete for all those players, but make bios for all the people who have played for my team," "that kind of music is horrible so I'm going to say delete," or the ever popular, "I've never heard of that person so they must not be important.") —Мандичка YO 😜 17:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I know about the guidelines. I remember when they were forged. I advocate that people start always with knowing what the thing is, though, and what purpose it serves. After that, ask how it functions. In contentious cases, a group consensus might help, but it's no substitute for reason. I can be more specific, if you wish. In the case of the poptarts, the footballers, the little high schools, and the like we had constituencies of fans among article creators, more than anything, who wanted to protect their right to serialize and would willingly support one another's mutual rights against "deletionists." Consequently, the bar got set proportionately lower as the group of article writers felt itself to be persecuted by "elitists" and "snobs." We can argue that the principle by which such a constituency set such a standard operates analogously between the single season club footballer and the expert diver, or we can argue that the keep/delete debate go back to whether or not the article is likely to be useful. I think it's better not to slavishly wave guidelines, myself, and to ask whether the article serves readers (rather than writers). Hithladaeus (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a very reasonable attitude, but unfortunately it relies on everyone being equally reasonable. The guidelines were always designed to avert repetition of the same arguments; and the snag with that is that they have evolved without any shades of grey at the margins. The criteria for musicians for example, implies that any artist who has a record in a national record chart will be notable. As that includes the Billboard 200, for example, then there will be artists who manage to have one album spend one week at position 200 there. Similarly a footballer who appeared as a substitute for the last 10 minutes of a single match in Football League Two will still pass our Notability (sports) guideline. Most of the time, we won't have these edge cases and the guidelines serve a useful purpose, but at times we really need to be able to step back and see beyond them as Hithladaeus (is that Hithladeus in American-English?) proposes. Respectfully --RexxS (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In this case, if I were to ignore all notability guidelines, I don't see how this article serves readers. above summed it up perfectly with his example of the pseudobiography. The claim of this person having "come to the attention of the public over a number of topics" is the lamest thing I've heard in a while. I would like to know why, if he is prominent in the diving community, he has not been featured in any diving publications. There's a whole lot of them. One of his claims of notability is that a magazine used his photo on the cover, but where was the story to go with it?  Did they even know who he was or did they buy the picture because it looked cool? Seriously, not a single Q&A? No feature on the guy who's the expert on so many topics?  No mention on a diving news website about any of his achievements? And the magazine was Florida Scuba News so apparently not even within the Florida diving community is there any evidence he's notable, or at least he is equally notable as the guy on the cover of this issue. This here is the only thing I found in relation to him being a diver, and it's a picture he sent in himself, and it's not a publication, and it's a promotional photo. That single thing. There is even less information (as in zero) about him in relation to his nonprofit he founded. There is not a single indication that he is prominent in the diving community or has achieved notability. I don't mean to insult him, but this is what happens when people make Wikipedia pages for their friends, like happened here, as the article creator has already admitted. If I ask who this article is serving, it's people who are buddies with Brian Armstrong.  —Мандичка YO 😜 20:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would point out that I do not qualify as "people who are buddies with Brian Armstrong". I have never met him and have no connection or association with Gene Hobbs or RexxS other than that we all edit underwater diving articles on Wikipedia. Nevertheless I consider the article of sufficient interest to myself as a recreational scuba diver to be worth keeping. Besides, how would the article serve "people who are buddies with Brian Armstrong"? They already know him. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , The article was created by Gene Hobbs, his friend, not you. People making articles for their family and friends is nothing new - they do it because of their feeling that the person they are connected to is important and "deserves" an article, and the article's continued existence reinforces that belief. It's self-serving. That you consider it of sufficient interest personally is totally irrelevant. An article in my local paper about the amazing sixth grade teacher is of sufficient interest to me, and I enjoy reading it. Would I use that as an argument to give the teacher a Wikipedia article? No. The subject of the article must meet the criteria of WP:GNG and that is simply not the case. The topic must have received significant coverage (coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail) in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Brian Armstrong does not have a single article written about him, or a radio interview, or a profile on the local TV news, etc. Not one. So the continued claim that he has had any significant coverage is absurd. —Мандичка YO 😜 10:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not a a buddy of Brian Armstrong either, and your insinuation that Gene Hobbs is incapable of writing neutral articles about notable people that he knows is a disgraceful assumption of bad faith. It doesn't matter a jot who creates an article, except perhaps that someone who actually has knowledge of the subject is likely to make a better job of it. The only thing that's absurd here is your inability to comprehend that the coverage by TLC, ABC, Mega Movers, Barnette, etc. constitutes "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The only reason we're having this discussion is that diving is a niche topic that doesn't have the copious quantities of fan magazines and websites that provide coverage of so many insignificant celebrities who make up so much of our BLPs. Whenever someone who is actually notable in this field has an article, it's all too easy for commentators like you to artificially raise the bar of notability on the assumption that subjects have to have the same sort of volumes written about them as a pop singer. They don't. It is encyclopedic if there's significant independent coverage. Armstrong has that, and no amount of your asserting otherwise will change that fact. --RexxS (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently, we disagree, and apparently that is tolerable to some, not to others. It may be that my personal knowledge of the geographical areas and projects affects my view a little, as I know that the dive groups in those areas are, in fact, more and more likely to end up in a TV producer's Rolodex. This is just a thing I know. (See, for example, the same knowledge I brought to my reasoning on the Canadian talking head on "off beat and goth" topics. I was much more willing to extend a benefit of the doubt due to this "Rolodex distortion" for her.) That can't be codified. Expertise, as we all know, also can't be codified. Nor should it be. Instead, it has to live in the realm of judgment. For Wikimandia: the "rules" for delete and keep are consensus among editors and closing admins., not notability guidelines (which are tools for consensus, not laws overwhelming it). If the voting and closing group goes entirely nuts, then that is the proper conclusion. Many times in the past, as I can imagine, it must have happened that floods of voters have shown up to "save" wretched articles on favorite topics. I would imagine that when little high schools were first being debated such sudden voting floods occurred. My own opinion is that this particular person has crossed over to the point, primarily because of the Discovery-TLC documentary, that interested viewers may want to know more about the person they saw. You do not agree. I'm just one archaism. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: Maybe marginal, but for me on the keep side of the line. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep After checking that more can be added.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What else can be added? —Мандичка YO 😜 01:02, 1 June 2015 (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.