Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DIR diving

: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. I have had a good look but I can't find any significant reliable sources - either sites with an interest in this term or blogs etc. As it stands, the article fails WP:V and thus cannot survive. However, it does seem to be a genuine term that is in use amongst the diving fraternity. I am therefore going to add the definition of the term to Woodville Karst Plain Project and create a protected redirect. I will userfy to anyone who wishes to attempt to produce a sourced version. TerriersFan (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

=[[DIR diving]]=

:{{la|DIR diving}} ([{{fullurl:DIR diving|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DIR diving}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Listing on behalf of User:82.23.155.15, who also added a prod tag with the rationale no indication of notability for list. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Gets a small assortment of Google hits, but no GNews hits and no Scholar hits (well, one, but it's unrelated). The Google hits that are there are not reliable sources as far as I can tell, so WP:N and WP:V apply. Would welcome some input from people who know more about diving. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 01:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete I see some serious tone issues along with npov issues and other things going on here. I can't see how any input from a diver would help. Either we can find sources or we can't. If a modern subject is truly notable, we should be able to get something off google. This looks like an attempt to promote a marketing term.--Crossmr (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete - looks like quasi-spam. I'm not sure that is fixable. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 01:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As a long term diver i've watched dir grow up and be misrepresented and talked about by people who do not actually understand what DIR is really about. the article to my mind is useful, accurate and needs expanding, not deleting.

DIR at first glance is a marketing tool for a handful of manufacturers, it is not. Rather it is a standard of training, ethos and of equipement design and manufacture that all manufacturers can and frequently do emulate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.105.193 (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep, although I don't have any really strong arguments. The DIR philosophy is a legitimate approach to diving, although it can get pretty methodical. It's a subject of debate in some diving circles, many of whom defend it vigorously. ([http://www.mnscuba.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=2020.0 Here's an example of that debate] from my local scuba diving board, which ran to 86 messages.) In fact, we were just talking about it at the last diving weekend I was at. Someone asked, "What is DIR diving", and I replied tongue-in-cheek, "It's a cult." As a disclaimer, I'm a certified diver, but for less than two years, so someone who's been blowing bubbles a lot longer than me might have a different opinion to its notability. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:49, 27 August 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.