Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable owners club. No 3rd party sources and not likely to be. already mentioned n the company article with a single sentence, which is all that is necessary.  DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete No extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources, almost all sourcing is primary. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: Actually the article does have one reliable third party source, which establishes notability. The organization was named one of the best programs and products of 2005 by Aero-News Network, an independent news source, as already cited in the article. - Ahunt (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete for failing WP:NORG. One source (assuming we accept aero-news.net as a reliable one) hardly satisfies the requirement when it amounts to a few paragraphs. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - notability has not been established. The aero-news.net entry cannot be considered to be extensive coverage regardless of whether it is a reliable source or not; it is just a few sentences long when the quotes from the organization's own website are taken away. YSSYguy (talk) 10:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.