Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freshwater 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 redirect to Underwater diving#Diving environment. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 20:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freshwater diving

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

Redundant, all content already better represented in other underwater diving articles. Fresh water is just one of the many types of diving environment, and is not sufficiently differentiated to be worth more than a few words. Title should be redirected to Underwater diving, though aspects are also covered in Cave diving, Altitude diving, Ice diving and possibly others. There is no content worth merging, otherwise I would have recommended a merge and redirect. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 16:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 09:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge, in terms of underwater diving practices there are differences between freshwater diving and saltwater/ocean diving. In particular, freshwater diving is generally at a lower depth thus requiring different practices in terms of weights and oxygen. As it sits now the article does not have enough information or references to be notable. I think the topic is notable if it were to be fixed with proper references and information regarding these differences. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing there worth merging.
  Buoyancy is different due to slightly different density of water. This is common knowledge and already covered in several diving articles.
  
  The depth is not relevant, both sea and freshwater diving are done to similar depths.
  
  There is no reliably sourced information in the article.
- It is conceivable that a stand-alone article could be written about diving in fresh water, but this is not it. If and when that happens, the title will still be available, and it will be a trivial matter to re-use it. It is not worth doing this until someone has more to say than is already mentioned in existing articles, and assembles that content with sources. I am not proposing the delete and redirect and because it is not possible to create an article on this topic, but because the content here is basically not worth keeping as it is unsourced and already exists elsewhere. I could challenge the unsourced material and then later delete the lot, but that might cause some well-meaning person to waste their time sourcing the existing content, which as I have mentioned, is redundant. I could easily source most of what is already in the article, but it would still not be an article worth having.· · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There is simply not enough information to be a good stand alone article. There are other articles in which this would be better suited. With Thanks - Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Underwater diving#Diving environment. Not enough for a stand-alone article. The content in this article is entirely unsourced and is best deleted. I added a sentence to Underwater diving#Diving environment but a primary source such as a diving manual will have better information. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, I had to remove that addition to Underwater diving #Diving environment because that blog is not a reliable source. Find sources first, then add content is the right way to go about it. --RexxS (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - This appears to have been fixed before I got the reference out, thanks to you and Mark viking. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as Peter says, there's nothing to salvage and merge. In truth, the only significant difference between freshwater and seawater diving is that freshwater may be found at higher altitudes, so modified decompression schedules are relevant. However, that's already well-covered at Altitude diving. --RexxS (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm convinced by Mark viking's point (below) about search hits, so I'd be perfectly happy with a redirect as well. --RexxS (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect nothing really needed, but as a search term I'd say redirect. Govvy (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Underwater_diving#Diving_environment, where it is mentioned. I added a sentence about freshwater buoyancy to the target article and an RS book ref verifying. This is a plausible search term and the article has gotten 90 hits in the past 30 days, so a redirect is warranted per WP:R#KEEP. --Mark viking (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2017 (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.