Notability of GUE / DIR

[Charlie99]

That policy of wikipedia seems biased against grass-roots / internet grown organizations.

It's more likely just a case of an anti-DIR person taking issue with the article. Anybody can go in and edit and comment.

 

[rhlee]

how about this cross reference from the wikipedia entry for the Brittanic?

In 1999, GUE, divers typically acclimated to cave diving, and Ocean Discovery led the first dive expedition to include extensive penetration into the Britannic. Video of the expedition was broadcast by National Geographic, BBC, History Channel, and the Discovery Channel [3]. Unlike the 2006 expedition with the "world's best wreck divers", the GUE divers did not create a massive siltout preventing them from finishing their dives.

 

[JeffG]

how about this cross reference from the wikipedia entry for the Brittanic?

Interesting addition by Robzr 18:22, 14 August 2008

I wonder where he gets off putting a comment like that in.

Kinda proves that wiki is not the end all, be all.

 

[Gombessa]

Interesting addition by Robzr 18:22, 14 August 2008

I wonder where he gets off putting a comment like that in.

Kinda proves that wiki is not the end all, be all.

What, you don't think "Unlike the 2006 expedition with the "world's best wreck divers", the GUE divers did not create a massive siltout preventing them from finishing their dives." is NPOV?

 

[Rhone Man]

how about this cross reference from the wikipedia entry for the Brittanic?

Thanks, that is helpful. One of my arguments is based upon all the internal cross references within Wikipedia. I'll disambiguate it and add this to the list.

 

[lamont]

It's more likely just a case of an anti-DIR person taking issue with the article. Anybody can go in and edit and comment.

No, I'm talking about the actual policy document on groups:

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its definition of "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice" seems heavily biased towards conventional sources: "newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports".

It isn't good enough to have thousands of trained divers and a large internet presence, you have to be getting written up in the press. It seems like a 20th century policy.

10,000 hits for: "global underwater explorers"
136,000 hits for: gue diving
148,000 hits for: dir diving

That apparently doesn't matter though

 

[Gombessa]

10,000 hits for: "global underwater explorers"
136,000 hits for: gue diving
148,000 hits for: dir diving

Comparison:

10,100 hits for: "technical diving international"
521,000 hits for: tdi diving

4,800 hits for: "International Association of Nitrox and Technical Divers"
108,000 hits for: iantd diving

1,410 hits for: "American Nitrox Divers International"
201,000 hits for: andi diving

I'd also pay attention to the rationale of the admin that speedy-deleted the entry. He seems genuinely ignorant of what GUE is in arguing that it's a a regional training program for the WKPP. Pointing him to more references that support the fact that it's an international and internationally-recognized certification agency may prove at least as fruitful as searching for third-party references to GUE.

You may also want to actually notify GUE to the ongoing debate - even if they do not wish to participate directly, I'm sure they have a list of references to support their notability.

 

[Rhone Man]

Wikipedia's policies on notability are not really a problem - the thing that always irks me is the rules on providing third party sources to establish reliability. They see it is a the quid pro quo of having an encyclopedia that anyone can edit - you need to have sources to prove even the most uncontroversial statement. Drives me crazy sometimes.

 

[Bismark]

The good news is that if this gets in Wikki, then Nereas will have another source of information for his posts........

 

[Jimmer]

The good news is that if this gets in Wikki, then Nereas will have another source of information for his posts........

LMAO