Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Diving Institute

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. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Diving Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been around for over 10 years, yet remains almost entirely unsourced. That indicates that there are unlikely to be sources available to demonstrate its notability. Searching for sources finds little independent coverage beyond a few blogs and videos from students. It fails GNG and NCORP and it has not "been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". RexxS (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the article has only two references, both of which are external links and one of which is a link to the institute's own website. Vorbee (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those voting on the outcome should examine the references added:
    1. https://palmettobusinessdaily.com/stories/511442182-cost-of-college-was-unchanged-for-all-students-at-international-diving-institute – a two sentence note in Palmetto Business Daily, a non-notable website that reports any piece of information given to them concerning South Carolina businesses: "We actively encourage news leads and tips on all deals no matter the size." Not useful in determining notability.
    2. http://seabeemagazine.navylive.dodlive.mil/2017/04/20/seabee-dive-detachment-hones-underwater-welding-skills/ - a good source, but the focus is on 'Construction Diving Detachment Alpha', not the IDI. However, it is indicative of notability, although not the "in-depth coverage" that GNG requires.
    3. http://cdiver.net/news/international-diving-institute-opens-world-possibilities-commercial-diving/ – a good source that does provide decent coverage of IDI. Indicative of notability.
    4. http://www.palmsc.org/archives/806 – an event calendar on a blog from Palm Charter High School, "Palmetto Academy for Learning Motorsports", with a single sentence: "Rick Kralovic’s Welding class traveled to Charleston, SC and toured the underwater training facility Tuesday December 6th.". Absolutely worthless for any referencing purpose whatsoever, and certainly no value in meeting GNG.
    5. https://www.aws.org/education/page/underwater – a directory of companies involved in underwater welding. Compilations like these are specifically excluded from counting toward notability by Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) #Examples of trivial coverage.
  • I'm impressed by the cdiver.net source, and to a lesser extent by the Seabee source. The others are pure dross, IMHO, inserted simply to try to make the article appear better sourced than it really is. Folks should only be voting keep if they believe that the two reasonable sources are sufficient to meet the requirement for "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". --RexxS (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This article by Defense Visual Information Distribution Service: [1]. WCBD-TV local news article about how it is a place where people can train for high-paying jobs. They list 9 industries, and the first video is a three-minute television video segment from their newscast on Commercial Diving (IDI) [2] Rebecca Ziegler article of her training at IDI - California Diver [3] Welding Journal has coverage on a student for IDI [4] College Is for Suckers: The First College Guide You Should Read book about vocational training (reviewed by Kirkus) briefly listing IDI as among the three largest schools in the US for commercial diving. I cite this because it's a secondary source book that's far removed from the locals. [5] LeisurePro (cited in some Wikipedia articles) lists it among the best commercial diving schools [6] I would treat this as a vocational / training school rather than the academic one, so WP:ORGCRIT applies over WP:NSCHOOL. Seabee one is okay, it's showing that the US Navy is using IDI to train their UCT-2 team. The Palmetto ones are light coverage but pinpoint when the institute was established, and track their tuition, and the CDiver and California Diver articles are in-depth. The Counton2 (WCBD-TV) one is in-depth. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This one's from International Diving Schools Association which ran a feature on the school in its newsletter/journal [7] In-depth for sure; I've added a bunch of detail on its facilities from this article. Also finding early snapshots from Better Business Bureau and other company sites back when it was just a dive shop and being established. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC) updated 02:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sufficient reliable sources have been identified to meet WP:ORG. Just Chilling (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepEnough sources to satisfy me on GNG. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above, now with additional RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.