Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johan Boshoff


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 20:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Johan Boshoff

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject is non-notable, plus article reads like a blatant promo piece, full of vanity phrases and peacock terms. It's not an encyclopedic article. Quick deletion nomination was removed yesterday with the promise that references will be added within 24 hours, but no relevant independent sources have appeared since, just a list of websited affiliated with the subject (which isn't enough). A quick internet search also reveals no indication of his notability. — Yerpo Eh? 09:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

PoseidonDiver (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC) This subject is one of the premier divers in the world currently and if you refer to http://www.eurotek.uk.com/johanboshoff.htm you will note that he is a speaker invited to deliver a speach making him more notable that some of the other diver listed on wikipedia. Here i would refer you to divers like Don Shirley and Parcal Bernarde(Man who claimed he holds the world record without verifyable evidence).


 * "Being a presenter at an expo" isn't a criterion for notability in Wikipedia - only independent coverage in reliable sources is (as per Notability). The page that you linked to only contains the promo text that you tried to publish here, which obviously can't count as "independent". Other divers you mention are appropriately covered, and even if they weren't, this would not be an argument for keeping this promo article. Rather, it would be an argument for deleting their articles which you're welcome to start (see Articles for deletion). — Yerpo Eh? 09:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

PoseidonDiver (talk) 10:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC) I agree with what you are saying in regards to the other divers but as for notability of Johan Boasoff being an expert in the field of diving I can assure you he is. I do however hear your point about the promo piece and will endevour to change to read as a bibliographical format. According to what I can gather you specialise in biology so also struggle to see how you can argue notablity knowing nothing about diving or tech diving?? Please correct me if I am wrong?

I would suggest the placement of the PROJECT-NAME tag on the page to get another subject matter expert involved with resources not only availible online. I will place this tag on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoseidonDiver (talk • contribs) 10:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but your assurance isn't enough. I argue notability according to what the article says and it's your responsibility to prove it. The sources don't need to be online, they can be printed newspaper or journal articles (which are usually accepted in good faith), which you can cite according to the instructions on Citing sources. I'm talking about national newspapers, trade journals and such, what's important is that they're not very obscure and local, and that they publish their own material about the subject, not copies of promotional texts. — Yerpo Eh? 10:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: as I've a feeling that you're personally affiliated with the subject, I invite you to also take a look at the page Conflict of interest.

PoseidonDiver (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Actaully not affiliated with the subject and understand my assurances is not enought. I would also not have accepted that as for referinging national newspaper that is expactly what I am doing. The subject recently also led an groundbreeaking expidition to the Chinhoyi caves in Zimambawe (http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48771:zims-underwater-paradise&catid=42:features-news&Itemid=134). I am like states busy correcting the article to read more biblographical and cite various sources including news paper articles. and yes it is my duty to prove notability but that being said I do feel this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion as per Wikipedia.

PoseidonDiver (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Another reference to a local news paper but dont expect you to understand afrikaans :-) http://m.news24.com/beeld/Suid-Afrika/Nuus/SA-duikers-help-meer-oor-grotte-uitvind-20120810


 * The new sources are a good start, but they mention Boshoff only briefly in connection with a broader subject and you should take care to trim the content to what sources support, except basic biographical and non-controversial data like birth date, occupation etc. All the specific statements, especially those that sound promotional (for example "the first of its kind in the world" or "The Dive Spot is currently the most active technical dive school in South Africa"), must be supported by good sources.
 * All in all, you convinced me that the subject is notable and I withdraw my deletion proposal, but the article needs a lot of work. I suggest you put In use on top to inform others that you intend to do a major revision shortly. Another editor will close this proposal in due time, unless there's some other issue. — Yerpo Eh? 13:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

PoseidonDiver (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Fully agree with your comments and will place the In use tag immediately. On a side note - thanks for the great learning curve in terms of the use of Wikipedia - that is highly appreciated.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete per nomination. The article is poorly written, but the key thing is lack of sources establishing notability. Yaron K. (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - the sources listed above might mean the subject meets WP:GNG but I am concerned about major copyvios from this blog. I understand they might have been placed there to be re-worked into non-copyvio text but that's not really appropriate. Whole sections from the end of the article are lifted directly from that article. There are way too many sub-headings and far too few sources for the vast tracks of prose that have been included. I understand that the article is being fixed and I agree the issues raised are mostly WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM problems. But it needs major work immediately and if the work is not done the copyvios alone mean it should be deleted. Stalwart 111  (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete for failure to meet WP:GNG. Only a handful of mentions can be found in WP:RS, and they're all trivial. This article may be a start, but it's about an exhibition, not about Boshoff. Other evidence of significant coverage is lacking. I searched google and google news and found nothing more compelling. Fails the WP:GNG significant coverage guideline. --Batard0 (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2012 (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.