Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Underwater diving in popular culture


 * 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. Ultimately, consensus is that this article is not suitable. However, several commenters seem to believe that improvement might be a possibility. If anyone is interested in trying, let me know and I will put the article into draft space for you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Underwater diving in popular culture

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Excessive pop culture trivia, lots of original research. While the article goes into detail in how creative liberties about diving in fiction creates misconceptions about it in real life, it's all uncited, and the article primary consists of a massive list of anything and everything diving has appeared in. This seems non-encyclopedic. Waxworker (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The current article on underwater diving in popular culture has potential to become something better in spite of its more obvious shortcomings. Deleting it would seem contrary to the aims of the encyclopedia. The scope of Underwater diving in popular culture is too broad for inclusion in any of the other major articles on aspects of underwater diving, and splitting out little bits of the content and merging them into the articles where each item has some relevance is also problematic, as many of the little bits would fit equally well or badly in more than one article, which would scatter them around and make them less accessible, less useful, and more work to maintain. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 18:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Pure original research. There are no sources about the general topic, with all references being from or about specific works. Dubious notability. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 19:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a list, so to be expected that it is a collection of information about specific works. Could you be more specific about your claim of pure original research &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 16:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's because it is the unwanted "popular culture" stuff from three articles (Special:Diff/873525191, Special:Diff/872965051, Special:Diff/873530301) plus some categories (Special:Diff/873107920) merged into one. Uncle G (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not so much unwanted per se, but not relevant to the reasonable scope of those articles. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 19:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Has been notified? Much of the content is material he originally provided. Perhaps he would be prepared to put in the effort to find proper references, as he was always in favour of keeping the material in Wikipedia. Most of it is probably citeable but outside of my field of interest, and not relevant to the main articles on diving. I can see encyclopedic value in the topic in spite of the current content and lack of citation, so I guess I am voting a qualified Keep, but against a merge into any technical article on diving.  &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 16:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Would you perhaps like to explain why you are against a merge to underwater diving or the like? It would be somewhat relevant for the discussion currently going on below. Thanks either way! Daranios (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Underwater diving is a large article, densely packed with summary level content on the rather large and broad topic of underwater diving. It is a featured article, so should not have content added which is not appropriate for inclusion in a featured article, particularly not a large set of lists of details and links. Once an article on diving in popular culture is sufficiently developed, and a well structured and referenced summary can be written, that summary should be added to Underwater diving, as a section on popular culture, to expand the scope of the top level article.


 * Delete per WP:OR. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete those parts which can be identified as original research., no problem, but WP:OR is not an excuse to delete a whole article because some of it is OR. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 16:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Specific claims can be challenged and if no support is forthcoming, deleted. My estimate is that a large amount is probably citeable with some effort, as quite a lot is linked to articles which may have suitable sources. Identify those statements which are considered original research, so that they can be investigated.&middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 16:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC) In the case of links to Wikipedia articles, the blue internal link proves that the article exists on Wikipedia, which is sufficient. The annotation transcludes the short description of the linked article, which is content of the linked article, and therefore must be directly or indirectly cited in the linked article, following the rules for the lead paragraphs. In the case of the statements about frogmen, they are statements about the content of books and movies, they are not internal links to Wikipedia articles, so those statements must be cited in each article in which the statements are made. They are not transcluded from other articles, the statements are made directly where they are displayed, and therefore must be explicitly and unambiguously cited to the external source there too, in one of the accepted formats for citation on Wikipedia, which does not include bare inline external links. This is standard practice on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not cite Wikipedia. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 03:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: If an article on Wikipedia is bad, the solution is to improve, not delete. The problem is often finding someone who is willing to put in the work needed to improve, when deletion is the easy option.
 * The massive deletion to page Frogman at diff should be restored and discussed. Popular culture is important; "popular" stuff affects many people, and thereby is noteworthy, ref. the meaning of the word "popular". Often one man's trivia or cruft is another man's important relevant matter. In matter about a book or film, the book or film is accessible to the public and is the reference. The list of links in this article could be useful or interesting to many people. Wikipedia is a public information service. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * First the material should be provided with proper in-line sourcing, correctly formatted, then we can discuss whether it should be restored, and why. Popular culture may be important, but if so it is important as popular culture. Evidence that that content is encyclopedic would also support retention of this article. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 17:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A citation on Wikipedia implies that the person making the citation has actually viewed the source, and is personally taking responsibility for the validity of the citation. A book or film may be technically accessible to the public, while remaining, in practice, inaccessible to some members of the public. This does not make the source inadmissible in general, but it does put the onus for proper citation on the person who wants the content to remain on Wikipedia, and has presumably seen the content in the source, as the buck cannot be passed to people who do not personally have the required access to correctly cite the source, whether or not they may have the interest or time. Proper citation means providing sufficient information that another person can unambiguously positively identify the publication cited, and where relevant, the part of the publication that is contains the cited information. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 17:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * More to the point, : this discussion is about the proposed deletion of the article Underwater diving in popular culture, which is also partly due to lack of proper referencing of those same statements. I pinged you as a courtesy in case you want to make a case in defence of the article, or possibly even to provide proper references for the content you originally posted, which might help persuade other editors that it should be kept. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 19:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Since Underwater diving in popular culture is a list of links to books and movies, the reference to each line is the text of the book or or the action of the movie which that line links to and describes. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , It is not a list of links to books and movies, it is a list of links to Wikipedia articles about books and movies, and other statements about the content of books and movies.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 12:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC) You specify The content in the article as of the time of the nomination fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, we should be considering the content of the article as it currently stands - improvements during a deletion discussion are not only permitted, but recommended. The transfer of content from Underwater diving was because it had potential elsewhere that it did not have there. The same point stands for all the other articles in which parts of it were found. Your claim that the article was definitely never suitable remains unsupported by evidence or logical demonstration, and therefore expresses your personal opinion. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 07:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC) I, as you put it, defend this mess because I find the arguments for its deletion poorly expressed and uncompelling, and although it is a topic I am not particularly interested in, have not been convinced that deletion is an appropriate solution. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 15:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Yet another IPC drive-by which hasn't observed WP:BEFORE. Sources are easy to find such as Rapture of the Deep and so policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 19:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Andrew. There is also a short treatment in Diving Pioneers p. 42, there's more about underwater diving in popular culture in the context of maritime archaelogy here and here, and there's many more secondary sources dealing with specific appearances of underwater diving in popular culture. Daranios (talk) 08:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unmanageable, indiscriminate list without any particular inclusion criteria. This is not something that can be solved through editing because it is inherently flawed. At best, this deserves to be a section in the main article with prose describing the usage of the topic in popular culture, if the sources exist. TTN (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sources do exist, as shown just above. That such a topic is neither unmanagable nor inherently flawed is shown by e.g. Tunnels in popular culture (I would say "tunnels" is a topic quite comparable in its broadness to "underwater diving"). How it can be managed is decribed in "In popular culture" content. (That does not say anything about the question if a separate article or a section is better, I think we agree on that the current version could use improvement.) Daranios (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I cannot seem to access some of the sources above, but I see nothing that justifies an article at this time. Contrary to popular belief, satisfying the bare minimum in what one would consider reliable sources and calling it a day doesn't mean an article is actually justified. It has to actually make sense as an article. I don't see anything that is going to shift this to a discussion on the topic's evolution in pop culture utilizing only pertinent examples. "Tunnels in popular culture" is an absolute hodgepodge mess that looks like it should be merged into a couple different articles, so I'm not sure what your goal was in showing that as an example of a successful popular culture article. TTN (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Tunnels in popular culture", because it is the example called out by "In popular culture" content. Can you access the main source above, Rapture of the Deep? It has pages 97-105 dedicated first to the appearance of diving in film, television and advertisement in the 1950s and 1960s, and then analyzes the roots and expression of diving in culture and society. (Impact in culture and society is part of "in popular culture", right? That is, as far as I can see, not covered in Underwater diving.) Volumewise, that alone could make for a nice short article. Of course more than one source is needed, but they have been shown to exist, and the scope of the topic is much broader than what is in Rapture of the Deep, so plenty more to add. And I am sure that secondary sources can be found for many of the entries that are currently listed. Just have a look at Scuba Diving Tourism p. 15, a hit for the first entry I have tried to look, Sea Hunt. Actually, look at that, that book has a one-page-chapter on scuba diving in popular culture. Tada, WP:GNG's minimum requirement is fulfilled with those two alone. And we have already found more, so we can satisfy more than the bare minimum, as you have requested. Daranios (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That essay is severely outdated and just assumes the TV Tropes style of content is fine, so I don't really think it is a good resource at all in how to handle these articles. The manual of style linked in the essay advocates for actual meaningfully crafted prose based on discussion of the topic in popular culture. With the exception of the first section of the tunnels article, the article is clearly just trivia in prose form, so it fails to actually meet any criteria of what could be considered a meaningful pop culture article. For this article in particular, what has been advanced in terms of sources does not at this time justify a separate article. This topic is a content fork, so simply saying "the most basic needs of GNG have been satisfied" is not good enough for an article in this case. You've at best brought forth the building blocks for a section in the main article. There is currently nothing that justifies the current content, there is nothing to salvage from the current content, and there is no need to stub this down when it can simply be added to the main article. TTN (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think the essay is outdated, why not work on updating it? As it is, it is current piece of Wikipedia lore that directly contradicts the opinion that the topic is unmanageable and inherently flawed. Anyway, it is an essay, so let's look back to Wikipedia policy. If you say ""the most basic needs of GNG have been satisfied" is not good enough for an article in this case", I assume that's your opinion, but that it is not grounded in policy. Or where would be the policy to the contrary? I think WP:GNG is the relevant policy here, so if its needs are met, the article can stay. And again, Rapture of the Deep alone can fulfill the volume requirement of WP:WHYN, while Scuba Diving Tourism fulfills the "not one single viewpoint" requirement. Now you say meeting these basic requirements is not good enough. But in this argumentation you have ignored that more secondary sources, which therefore go beyond "the most basic needs of GNG", have already been presented.
 * Again, I agree that what we currently have is lacking and needs sources. But when you say there is "nothing that justifies the current content", did you do a search on individual entries of the list, to see if there are secondary sources for them? If there were (as has just been shown for Sea Hunt), then that content would be justified, even though the sources are not yet there in the article. Daranios (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The essay reflects when there were so many hundreds (possibly even thousands) of these articles and ten times as many bloated sections. It appears we're now down to somewhere around 100 or less, and the prevalence of major pop culture sections has thankfully mostly died down. It no longer has relevance in most of its suggestions. This article is a content fork. It is something that should only be split out when properly sourced content overwhelms the parent article. You can use the same justification of just barely meeting GNG to go split out literally any section of any well sourced article if you really want, but that would be silly in practice if the content fits in the article already. Zero content in the article as of the time of the nomination should stick around, so that leaves a minor stub to build from the sources presented in this AfD (or at least any that talk about the actual topic). As the sourcing presented does not show massive potential for improvement, it's not something that can sustain an article at this time. Easiest thing is just to delete this and start fresh in the main article. TTN (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I disagree on so many levels that I don't have time to discuss them all now. I'd like to start with: Would you be willing to create such a section in the main article in case this one were deleted? If not, let's assume for a moment, noone else would be either. Then someone interested in the topic would have lost whatever the current article offers, despite its flaws, and gained nothing. I don't feel that would improve Wikipedia. Starting from the other side, you say its easiest to first delete, then create a new section. As the existence of this article is no hindrance whatsoever in creating such a section, I cannot follow you there. On the contrary I would say its existence is a slight help (if I'd do it, to get inspiration for what to do there, from your point of view, at least as a bad example). If a great section in a parent article were created, putting this article to shame, then this could be redirected after clarification in a merge discussion. That way round, there would be no loss for Wikipedia at any time, in case a section would look better than a whole article, as you suggest. That's also what the policy says: WP:ATD "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases.", and WP:NEXIST. Daranios (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that this discussion exists and can be linked on the talk page of the main article, I don't really think it matters when it is created. As long as the sources here are recorded somewhere for future perusal and possible usage, the job is done. I'm looking at this from the perspective of it being an improperly created page that never should have been allowed to exist in the first place. WP:NODEADLINE is a two way road in terms of people rushing to create articles before they're ready and people looking to remove viable articles just because they're not up to snuff. If we were talking about a topic that had content worth salvaging, the argument that we should give it time to incubate would be valid, but this article as of the time of the nomination offers zero utility. It is just the same TV Tropes trvia bunk we've seen on these lists for the last 15-ish years. I'm honestly surprised it was actually created only a few years ago. Without confidence that this page has the potential for massive improvement, I think its existence is a negative blight on Wikipedia that encourages more pages like it to be created, so its deletion is a benefit. TTN (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you support your personal opinions as expressed above with actual Wikipedia policy or guidance, as opposed to essays which are other peoples personal opinions on what Wikipedia should be? Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 18:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would be particularly interested to know of anything deprecating articles on the topic of specific categories of popular culture. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 18:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In what way is Underwater diving in popular culture an improperly created page that never should have been allowed to exist in the first place? &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 18:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For the article content, Manual of Style/Trivia sections, despite linking to the essay in the above discussion, pretty much entirely contradicts the essay. The content in the article as of the time of the nomination fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It is a random smattering of loosely connected trivia points, and not a "section with well-written paragraphs that give a logically presented overview (often chronological and/or by medium) of how the subject has been documented, featured, and portrayed in different media and genres" as called for by the guideline. There is nothing in the article worth salvaging. The argument of the how and when to split an article is mostly subjective, but Content forking suggests it is acceptable when there is an issue of undue weight. This topic does not have that issue. We have a small selection of possible sources from which to build a section, and I am not a fan of stubbing articles down to just see them back here in two years when they're either still a stub or have bloated back out again. This is a topic that, if it is going to be explored on Wikipedia, belongs in the parent article until such a time where it has undue weight. I don't know if you made the article as a junk containment zone for your FA push or simply believe it to have potential, but the article was definitely never suitable. TTN (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Underwater diving in popular culture is primarily a list. It is also an article where a more general treatment of the topic can be developed. The relevance of Manual of Style/Trivia sections is tenuous at best.
 * [ec] I would also parenthetically mention that the content of the current article does not have a unique parent article, as implied above, as it was collected from several different articles on the general topic, but Underwater diving would be the appropriate place for a summary section once one has been developed. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 07:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You made it without any claim of notability, completely contrary to how guidelines on how the topic says the content should be managed. That is absolutely the criteria for a poorly formed article that never should have existed. Given what is very respectable work from you on other areas of the general topic, I'm not sure why you're so adamant on defending this mess. Out of current remaining popular culture articles, Titanic in popular culture (still a little messy in some area but much closer to proper form) seems the closest example to what would be a properly formed version of one of these articles. There is a very good reason 90% of these things have been culled from Wikipedia over the years. TTN (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I read this – You made it without any claim of notability, completely contrary to how guidelines on how the topic says the content should be managed. That is absolutely the criteria for a poorly formed article that never should have existed. – and am unable to parse what you are trying to communicate. Perhaps you would be kind enough to clarify.


 * Comment: The deletion opinions of LaundryPizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> and Abhishek0831996 as well as the nomination by Waxworker are based partially or exclusively on WP:OR. I hope I could show by adding secondary sources to the example of Sea Hunt, that this article cannot be purely original research. So far there has been no comment on the question by Peter Southwood what the original research claim actually refers to, making it unclear if these are opinions solely based on the current lack of citations (which is not really relevant according to WP:ARTN), or if there was any WP:BEFORE search done to substantiate this. (There were also 16 deletion nominations done by the nominator within 11 minutes, making a proper WP:BEFORE search highly doubtful.) I hope this is taken into account for the decision about this article. Daranios (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I wrote the deletion rationale for each article and looked into sources well before publishing all of the discussions in one go, as it was more efficient. WP:BEFORE has been met, and a few sources talking about the subject are not a justification for a massive list of anything and everything underwater diving has ever appeared in. Per TTN, it's unmanagable and the concept of the article as a whole is flawed, not only its contents. Waxworker (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. Yet that sounds a lot like an opinion based on the current state of the article. In more search secondary sources have been found, which could be used to write a reasonably-sized section about the topic. For the example of Sea Hunt, a section supported by secondary sources exists now. The same principle could be applied to all entries: If there are secondary sources, these topics can stay, if not, they can be thrown out. In this way it would, as also "In popular culture" content describes, be both manageable and limited. Daranios (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment The lead paragraph of Underwater diving in popular culture is a scope description. This directly refutes the claim Unmanageable, indiscriminate list without any particular inclusion criteria, by providing an explicit set of inclusion criteria appropriate to the topic, and though fairly broad in scope, is not indiscriminate. No evidence has been provided that it would be unmanageable, nor reasons why this may be the case. The statement appears more rhetorical than substantive.&middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 08:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Lists (or lists of lists) with ill-defined inclusion criteria that are absolutely WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Simply saying "this is a listing of [X] that feature [Y]" means you can include anything under the sun that has featured [Y] even tangentially. There is no end point. Whether notability for the overarching topic of "Underwater diving in popular culture" as a whole can be established from the sources provided in the AfD, the content of the article is still unsuitable. TTN (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you feel that the inclusion criteria should be tightened up, you are free to do so. This is a cooperative project. If something appears broken the appropriate response is to fix it. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 15:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:IINFO. Lists of overly broad scope such as those of the form "[Subject] in [any media]" are indiscriminate, unmaintainable and not useful.  Sandstein   07:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , What about lists of "Wikipedia articles about [subject] in [specified media]"? &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 18:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , they are indiscriminate. There are so many topics and so many works of popular culture, this would just generate a zillion-page worse version of TV Tropes.  Sandstein   20:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Indiscriminate overstates the objection. There are three independent discriminators in Wikipedia articles about [subject] in [specified media]. The quoted format represents an outline list, or a closed set of index lists, or even a category, all of which are accepted as useful in principle, and complementary to each other. None of these conditions are unbounded in the real world, and there is no limitation preventing further discrimination to split such an article if it becomes actually unmanageable at some time. Wikipedia itself continues to grow, with no hard limit on size and number of articles, either on a topic or in general. Navigation within the encyclopedia as a whole, and within topics, is facilitated by such lists, which makes them useful to both readers and editors. Maintaining the encyclopedia is a lot of work, but it is one of the things Wikipedians do, and as time passes, tools are developed to reduce the workload. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 07:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete As per Sandstein. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Move to draft. The assertion by those !voting keep is that sources identified can yield a salvageable article. Let's put it in draft to test that theory. BD2412  T 19:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep or draftify - while the article as currently written is in danger of becoming an indiscriminate list with unclear criteria, I think that the discussion has shown there are sufficient sources to justify a prose-based, non-list article on this topic. The article should be kept and improved, or sent to draft space for improvement. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - personally, I don't think this will ever be in state which is not indiscriminate enough to pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 02:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.