Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantic Diving Supply

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) Jack Frost (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Diving Supply[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

~~Promotional-like article, fails WP:NCORP and WP:ORGDEPTH, also lacks evidence supporting notability. BowlerJasper (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons:~~

@BowlerJasper: Have you ever edited wikipedia under any other name? This nomination appears to be the first edit you’ve ever made to wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Improper question - It's pretty well bleeding obvious that BowlerJasper has edited significantly before but WP:ALTACCN/WP:SOCKLEGIT does not necessarily require any declaration (personally there should be some kind of requirement, ideally some kind of WMF logged cryptographic acknowledgement from both accounts, but it is what it is). There are proper questions that can be formulated in a non-accusatory way... ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Horse_Eye's_Back have been posting the same message on all the AFDs posted by User:BowlerJasper, casting aspersions that User:BowlerJasper is a sock. See this and this and this. If User:BowlerJasper is indeed a sock please open a SockPuppet investigation rather implying that they're a sock. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article satisfies WP:GNG as is and there appears to be much more coverage than is currently on the page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:GNG, all references on the article are not WP:RS, but either WP:SPONSORED or WP:QUESTIONABLE. (e.g. "military.com", "pogo.org", "pilotonline.com"). BowlerJasper (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of what you just listed is sponsored or questionable. Are you not familiar with the Virginia-Pilot? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even a national newspaper, and are we are going to make articles for every topic now? It's not listed on WP:RSPSOURCES either. And you've only addressed one source. There's others. BowlerJasper (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know what these things are? You’re brand new here, remember. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate if you cease with the ad hominem attacks (WP:AFDEQ) and actually discuss if these military contractors articles that you made should stay on Wikipedia. BowlerJasper (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they should, they satisfy WP:GNG. That is the entirety of my argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Then let's allow the discussion to run its course, and await more input by other editors. BowlerJasper (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article is much too short, and the only WP:RS I can see is the WaPo, and it doesn't give information on the company itself, only a legal battle with it. If the article can be expanded greatly (somehow) and given multiple sources on it's history, details, why it's notable, etc. then whoever wants to should make haste with those edits. Otherwise, it looks like it can't be improved to meet notability. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 22:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I can find some WaPo/NYT/WSJ stories centering around the company, but if you want to argue that it's not specific enough to be notable reporting, I won't disagree.--Bettydaisies (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Odd nomination, article does not seem very promotional. There aren't many dedicated sources I can find, but the ones already on the page include secondary sources devoted specifically to the subject (or to specific actions of the subject). CMD (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sourcing demonstrates enough for a passing of GNG. I also disagree with it being a promotional article. Spiderone 15:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend speedy keep. I blocked the nominator as a harassment sock. Sro23 (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are reliable, secondary sources that speak of bailouts and fraud and compensation. Although they are a supplier, WP:MILNG does not apply here. I am concerned at the page history and the apparent edit-warring between BowlerJasper and the page creator, Horse Eye's Back. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:36, 11 January 2021 (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.