Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dive Xtras


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Dive Xtras

 * – ( View AfD View log )

* Weak Delete, doesn't really assert notability, the single cite is rather odd and the whole tone is promotional. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Queried speedy delete. Its author claims that he has made significant advances in the design of diver propulsion vehicles: see User talk:Anthony Appleyard. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, per the discussion below I'm still not sure if all the sources being in industry specific media passes WP:CORP. However, there is plenty of coverage in those media and with the change of tone I'm happy to give the benefit of the doubt. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 *  Delete  - There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentioned in passing:, but not significant.  The Tahoe Benchmark site listed in the references in the article is an attempt to measure the performance of dive scooters against claims made by the manufacturer as explained in this article.  However, I can find no information about James Flenner, the person responsible for the benchmarks, to indicate that this person is an expert in his field.  And in any case, being included in a benchmark doesn't indicate notability. -- Whpq 14:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Revisions - Hi, I have edited the article to hopefully focus on what is important (sorry for previous version, I am new to Wikipedia). To technical divers Dive Xtras has played a significant role in DPV development and as such deserves a brief mention when searching the name. -- Wreckdiver08 10:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No Change, as an article it's better. Less promotional tone and slightly better citations (Divernet one isn't loading through Wayback?). But all they realy show is that it exists, and there is still nothing that asserts notability.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - the URLs for the added references were not formatted properly. I have corrected them and the Wayback link should now work.  That link is actually a decent source providing a review of the product as part of a comparison between different products.  If there are more of these that would help establish notability.  The second reference added is to a military publication that only mentions the device in passing.  -- Whpq (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fix. Definitely the best cite there, but I think per WP:CORP this isn't enough on its own. In particular (copied for benefit of article author) A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. and Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary.. I think a single review in a diver specific magazine trips up on both of these. But it's still a good cite and could be used to flesh out the article if notabillity can be established through additional citations.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Substantial coverage in specialist magazines (in this case, dive related magazines) is certainly appropriate for establishing the notability of company making dive equipment. We have one. We would need more. -- Whpq (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not my read of WP:CORP, I think a Dive magazine is 'of limited interest', i.e. only people in the field are interested in it (the magazine), and for notabillity it needs to show a wider audience (the preceeding sentence is The source's audience must also be considered) i.e non-specialist media. I'm not going to make a big deal of it mind you, if a couple more similar citations could be found from other similar magazines, I'd probably give it the benefit of the doubt. Something in mainstream media would be a slam dunk though.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I added some more links to Dive Xtras in the media, The Advanced Diver article and Girls On Speed article appear quite relevant as they focus on discussions about the product. The Pulse is a published book in which a Dive Xtras product is used. And the Monkey Diving article, Underwater Magazine paragraph, X-Ray Magazine article show coverage but they are not specifically about the company. -- Wreckdiver08 12:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I am changing to a weak keep based on some of the added sources. I have removed the media section as trivia and grasping at straws for sources.  However the Advanced Diver article, and X-Ray magazine article that have been added are sufficient to push me over to a weak keep. -- Whpq (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2011 (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.