Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sub-Aqua Association


 * 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. John254 22:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sub-Aqua Association

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

Notability issues, and essentially an advert. The only references relate directly to the company to verify any certifications or affiliations it has. I've removed the external link spam a couple of times, but regardless the article has its mailing address on it and reads to me like an advert. Nja 247 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article conforms to WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:C. The subject is a non-commercial organisation (a voluntary federation of independent scuba-diving clubs based in the UK). Therefore concerns about advertising should be met by identifying and removing what the proposer considers advertising before considering if the remaining content should be deleted (WP:ORG). The page is not flagged for notability issues, which should be the first step before prod. The references clearly show that SAA is both (1) national and international in scale and (2) verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. This may establish notability by WP:ORG, but in any case, absent a warning of notability, this proposal should fail as premature. From WP:N: "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort" (my emphasis). The necessary process leading to AfD has not been observed. --RexxS (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked and I couldn't find anything that would suggest this association is notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's not easy to find solid references to SAA in the reliable media. It's taken me some time to sift through the 4000-odd google hits. I could point you to this BBC news item, which should suffice, but the sensitivity of the subject matter restrains me from adding it to the article. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Association of independent dive clubs? I don't see the notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I'm willing to support the consensus and you've all made some good arguments. I think that article could be added noting that "members have been kicked out after misconduct" or something accurate and consistent with the article. I mean you're arguing they're notable, so if that's the biggest news item they made then i think it would be nice to include it, doesn't have to be in an overly negative way. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Diver training in the UK/Europe has always been done by associations of independent dive clubs rather than the professional model preferred in North America (see List of diver training organizations).  SAA is one of only 3 in the United Kingdom.  If we are going to include the virtually non-existend KPDR (Russia) and IDF (Israel), not to mention some extremely small and non-descript North American agencies, I think we certainly include SAA. --Legis (talk - contribs) 19:03, 21 November 2008 (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.