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. Not really appropriate for userfication. Chick Bowen 19:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scuba research[edit]

Info dump of statistics, appended with the name of the generator of the stats. Intent looks like promotion of a consultancy -- which just happens to match the name of the article creator. PROD tag added, but removed without comment by article creator. Calton | Talk 02:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the relevant and verifiable information into Scuba diving, and redirect. My problem with this article isn't the self-serving opening statement, it's that this is basically a link page to primary data available elsewhere on the web. The data itself has value certainly, but wikipedia's expression of that data should be a summary of the data as a tertiary source. Best example I see here is the three links to the Certification Censuses (Censi? What's the plural of census?) for 2003, 2004 and 2005 listing diver counts for those years. Great data...except that all that's there are the links, not the bottom line number. Add the result in an appropriate place in the main article on Scuba diving and then footnote it with links to those reports. -Markeer 13:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Most of the content is references to differnet pages of a single external website. It may be sufficient to add its reference (with a few words of explanation) to the list of external links in the scuba diving article. Peterkingiron 19:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy if anyone will take it. Clearly a well meaning COI/SPA, but the content needs to be used as a source; it isnt content in its own right. IMO it is not worth bothering the scuba diving contributors with this content, and the redirect will take search queries to an inappropriate page. John Vandenberg 07:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Jayvdb. There isn't enough useful content to be worth merging. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the point in userfying non-biographical data. Half of the article uses data culled from "Cline's Quarterly Dive Industry Survey," which seemingly violates WP:OR as the article was written by Clinegroup. Caknuck 02:10, 25 February 2007 (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.