Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Armstrong (diver) (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete. I have given no weight to the arguments about whether this renomination was vaid, as both policy and consensus is that this is not disruptive. In the discussion about the article, the arguments that the article does not have the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources required to meet the notability guidelines, are stronger than the keep arguments that do not effectively refute this. Davewild (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Brian Armstrong (diver)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. Previous AfD was closed with no consensus, though closing admin noted there didn't seem to be evidence of notability. Subject's supporters argued he is important because he took part in important recovery dives, but subject of article simply has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, nor qualifies via any other criteria. —Мандичка YO 😜 09:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Close. The previous deletion discussion lasted from 10 May 2015 to 3 June 2015 and was re-listed twice. Nominating again after less than a fortnight is a disruptive bad-faith attempt to game the system because of a dislike of the result. Deletion review is the appropriate venue if dissatisfied. This nomination should be procedurally closed as a waste of editors' valuable time. --RexxS (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The previous was closed as no consensus, which is not the same as keep. Therefore deletion review is not appropriate, nor is it appropriate or civil to accuse me of a "disruptive bad-faith attempt to game the system" because I didn't like the result (there was no result). There is also no time period required on renominating an article. Please familiarize yourself with AfD guidelines. —Мандичка YO 😜 10:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't be so condescending. The previous nomination was closed 12 days ago after two re-listings as "no consensus" and the page was kept. That was the outcome you didn't like. Deletion policy states "After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome.. This is a disruptive renomination and this debate should be closed. DRV is the correct venue. --RexxS (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The recommendation to close this AfD is here: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. I happen to agree with those who feel that, given the prior AfD was "no consensus", this AfD is not inappropriate. JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment "No consensus" is indeed not the same as "keep", but it's also not the same as a NPASR close; NPASR wasn't invoked (and almost certainly shouldn't have been invoked) by FreeRangeFrog when he closed the original discussion. The first discussion had plenty of participants, including the nominator (who hasn't presented any new arguments), and I'm inclined to say this should be speedily closed . I see no reason not to assume good faith by the nominator, though. Sideways713 (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Since FreeRangeFrog is OK with the renomination, and we have a fresh new deletion supporter, I no longer support a speedy close; at this point it's better to just let this second AfD run its course. Sideways713 (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm surprised this got by one AfD.  The only possible notable source given is "founding board member of Rubicon Foundation", which isn't sufficient.  The foundation's own site only mentions him by name a few times, with no coverage.  It also lists him as a vacating the board, stepping back to "advisor" only.  To be notable, we need independent sources covering his personal contributions.  This article has been on WP for years, and none have been found.   I'm impressed by Mr Armstrong's skill and experience, and envy his achievements, but there's not enough third-party coverage to build a standard WP article.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: On Wikipedia the concept of notability depends on a subject being brought to the public's attention by independent sources. There are examples of these in the article. In 2010 The Learning Channel produced a documentary called "Return To The Bermuda Triangle" where the producers of the documentary interviewed Armstrong and filmed him diving over four days for a section of that documentary. A similar, if less prominent example, is the History Channel's show Mega Movers on the recovery of a B-52 bomber from a depth of 150 feet which featured Armstrong. We seem to have lost the online ABC news coverage of Armstrong's search for Gertrude Tompkins Silver, but I assume in good faith that the coverage existed at the time the article was written. The Rubicon Foundation maintains probably the largest collection of medical information concerned with diving, aerospace and space. To have been a founder board member of that organisation was a notable event at the time, and although it seems that Armstrong has now stepped down to an advisory capacity, we maintain a policy that notability is not temporary. Scuba diving is a niche activity and we don't expect much coverage even for prominent figures in the field, but when we can point to multiple instances of an individual actually attracting some public attention, we ought to be able to sustain a Wikipedia article on that subject. --RexxS (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We all agree that "notability is not temporary"; my note that on Mr Armstrong vacating the Rubicon board wasn't meant to imply he somehow went from notable to non-notable, but that there was no longer an opportunity for him to become notable via that position. Having that position, alone, is not enough, just as Dr Richard Walker, the person replacing Mr Armstrong, will not be considered notable by WP just for having that position.
 * Also, appearing on TV and attracting public attention does not fit the WP definition of notable. I fully agree that Mr Armstrong deserves and "ought" to have an article on WP; but WP cannot work that way.  It can only work through WP:V, which needs WP:RS, which are lacking here. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Quick note on the closing situation. When an article's kept at AFD, quick renomination is disruptive, but when it's closed as no-consensus, it's entirely appropriate to renominate it so you can get consensus.  Deletion review would be out of place: it's for when you disagree with the conclusion (you think FreeRangeFrog shouldn't have closed it as no-consensus), not for when you're trying for consensus when it wasn't achieved before.  Nyttend (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment As the admin who closed the previous AFD I have to say I don't have any problem with this. By definition, in my view, a "no consensus" close is fair game for an immediate renom. I'd only have a problem with it if I had closed as keep. But the discussion was what it was, and we don't get to supervote either way. Often the problem with AFDs is a lack of participation, so hopefully this one will be more unequivocal. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Clearly notable, and sources are quite acceptable. BMK (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - reminding people that AfD is not a !vote. Simply saying "subject is notable" is insufficient. The subject of this article has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. He has not been the subject of a single article or even a Q&A, or even a 90-second story on the local news. Armstrong himself was not the subject of any documentary, but was interviewed along with many others, about the dive they had been on. That is not significant coverage; which is defined at WP:GNG as addressing the topic directly and in detail. That means that he himself would be the subject of the coverage, which he was not.  —Мандичка YO 😜 05:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry: Subject is really double-plus good notable. He's the bee's knees, the cat's meow.  He's so damn notable that Presidents doff their caps for him, and spinster aunts go weak as he passes.How's that? BMK (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: I abstained from voting the last time for COI but it appears to have been counted as a keep anyway. Since I thought it was a worthy article or I would not have placed it here to begin with, that makes since. I understand the rules for notable subjects but given the field I am in, maybe I am more tolerant of inclusion for subjects like scuba diving that do not have the coverage of a Kardashian.
 * My view on Armstrong is that he did play a major role in the creation of Rubicon and has been a part of several projects that have given him screen time. The article was created after I had several people asking about the team that started Rubicon since I am the only one that has been active in the public view. I did not create an article for James Wagner because he did not have anything that he had participated in that gave screen time or even mentioned his name. I have not created an article on Dr. Walker either even though he likely meets the more specific requirements for clinical faculty alone.
 * I did place a call to Brian earlier this week to see if there was anything else I could add as a reference that may push this discussion one way or the other and it turns out that he is the subject of a diving magazine article that is due to the publisher in mid-August. The article sounds to be specifically about how divers can be active in science. Unfortunately, I'd expect that article to actually be published in October of this year.
 * Anyway, it is a keep because of his activity in the creation of a non-profit, appearances on television that people are likely to use to search for him, and continued active involvement as a leader in various "citizen science" projects.
 * Thanks for the continued debate. I am learning a ton about the structure here in reading this as well. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - I must know a dozen blokes with the same or better credentials but looking at his references there's zilch written up about him. At leas he's got some good mates looking out for him. Alec Station (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I did not find any evidence of fame or notability KiwikiKiWi (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'm just not seeing it. The sources I'm looking at are either primary, fleeting mentions, or fails WP:IRS by a country mile.  What I'm NOT seeing is the "significant coverage" about the subject that the GNG requires.  By the way, folks, quotes BY a subject explicitly can't be used to support the notability OF a subject, so whether TLC interviewed him regarding the Bermuda Triangle doesn't matter bupkis.  They didn't interview Armstrong about himself, did they?  Nha Trang  Allons! 11:51, 6 July 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.