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 Userfied. Moved to User:Pbsouthwood/AP Diving. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A.P.Valves[edit]

A.P.Valves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

• Queried speedy delete. A.P.Valves is an important manufacturer of scuba gear in Britain, even if it is not heard of much in the USA. For sources or proof, ask a few British scuba divers. I have no financial connection with the firm. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree that A.P.Valves is notable as the manufacturer of one of the most widely used recreational rebreathers (Inspiration) and other diving products. However there are no references in the article to support its notability. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend that if the decision is to keep, that the article is moved to AP Diving, the current name of the company. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• People have added references to the article now. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although the article is currently short of references establishing notability, AP Diving has been producing respected and/or controversial products for a significant period. The Inspiration rebreather is one of the better known recreational rebreathers due to a relatively large number of users, and some controversy about safety and fatality rates. This is well known among rebreather divers, as can be established by referring to the internet discussion groups, but has generally not made the headlines in the printed media. The buoyancy compensators are specified for military use in the UK, and the commercial jump jacket harness is recognised as one of the better options for its purpose by members of the offshore diving industry, but this sort of thing does not make the front pages. Diving magazines for the recreational/technical diving market and offshore industry may provide the needed evidence, but I do not have access to these. I will continue to look for relevant sources, but I also have other things to do. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- "They often exhibit at diving trade shows.[2]" is hardly a claim to notability. Likely created for the purposes of promotion and currently serves this purpose. The company may be notable (of which I'm not convinced), but in any case I suggest deleting until such time when a volunteer editor would want to create a neutral article. There's no hurry to get to such a state, however. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman:, Please clarify. Are you claining that the Wikipedia article was probably created for purposes of promotion and is currently promotional, or that the reference stating that they often exhibit at dive shows was probably created for promotion and is currently promotional, or something else?

I do agree that exhibiting at diving trade shows in a weak claim to notability, but a weak claim is not evidence of a lack of notability. Lack of evidence of notability is the real problem. I disagree that the article has a significant neutrality problem.

Are you suggesting that any of the editors of the article are not volunteers? Ie. paid editors? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• To !vote delete at AfD it is neither an editor's responsibility to show that there are no possible reliable sources that cover the subject, nor prove that the writers of the article are paid. I'd prefer that we just show that 1) there are no RS in the article, 2) that we can't find any in a reasonable internet search, and also 3) let's just let any paid editors go away on their own (no tarring and feathering unless they insist on it) after they realize they their input is not wanted here.

BTW, I've deleted the product list in the article per WP:NOTCATALOG (#5). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete After googling both "A.P.Valves" and "AP Diving" for news and for the whole web, I've found 2 passing cites. On one of those industry awards pages it was mentioned as a small part of a prize package. 2nd - on a Korean heart doctors' website (relying on Google translate here) was "AP (asia pacific) VALVES" which I think refers to heart valves only. No citations = no notability. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found a little more, but nothing I could describe as useful. I am not going to try to convince anyone that it is a big deal. I have no particular interest in articles on companies in general or AP Diving in particular, but if, as seems likely, the article is deleted, and if Anthony does not want it userfied to him as the creator, please userfy to me as AP Diving so if I ever find sufficient evidence of notability we still have the history and what little is worth keeping, as I try to help anything along that is related to underwater diving. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:55, 18 June 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.