Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OZTek Technical Diver of the Year


 * 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. — Jake   Wartenberg  02:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

OZTek Technical Diver of the Year

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I am nominating this article for deletion because I think that there are no reliable, published sources independant of the subject.

Of the three sources listed in the article, the first is the website for the conference this award is presented at, the second appears to be the organisation behind the convention, and the third appears to be a diver's group involved in organising the next conference. On that basis, information from these sites would not be independant this article's subject. That said, I was unable to find any relevant information about the conference on the latter two sites, although I concede that such content may be buried in there somewhere (in which case, specific citations to the relevant sources as opposed to the top-level URL would be a good step in demonstrating a reason to keep this article).

Google News does not list any results for the award name. Ditto for Google Books or Google Scholar. Vanilla Google claims 196 results for [OZTek "Technical Diver of the Year" -wikipedia ], but a lot of these appear to be either press releases, blogs, or forum discussion. A Vanilla Yahoo search brings up 38 results, again, non-reliable or non-independant sources. -- saberwyn 12:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —-- saberwyn 12:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete: No independent source for notability. Looks more like self-promotion than encyclopedic entry. (Talk Contribs) 22:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per nom. A non-notable award. Joe Chill (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability not established Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2009 (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.