Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Paragliding 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. Tone 21:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

World Paragliding Association

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Created by Joe Faust about own organization, this article does not meet our general notability requirements, not does it meet WP:GROUP. In particular, a Google News, Scholar and Book search for "World Paragliding Organization" yield zero hits, while a Google web search reveals no coverage by independent reliable sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I started the article. I am a regular contributor to WP. I will step aside of this discussion while staying an observers, except when asked direct specific questions. There are RS in Popular Science, the 60-70s book of associations, Ground Skimmer, and the publications mentioned. Paper copies of Low & Slow went to 23 nations and are in some libraries today. Hang Gliding Museum has a full set of Hang Glider Weekly, Low & Slow, Hang Glider Magazine (218 editons together). USHPA publishes as said in the article. Joefaust (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - google identifies less than a dozen links to the website.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - The World Paragliding Association by definition should be a world-wide association. Of whom, I ask? This "association" is the creation of Mr Faust to promote his minority POV and nothing more. If you wish to see how true paragliding associations organise themselves and operate, check out the FAI, the USHPA, the BHPA or the PMA (and that's just 4 English language sites off the top of my head). WPA. Laughable. And then some. 88xxxx (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Clearly a Spam article on a non-notable organization by a COI editor. The refs cited do not provide minimum level of notability for WP:ORG. - Ahunt (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A Google Scholar search for "Low and Slow" and "Joe Faust" yields a few decent results, though... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Spam article by the founder. JMcC (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete a bit of self promotion with no real sign of notability. MilborneOne (talk) 10:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Spam article. In addition, dishonest. Mentions FAI to give credibility but I believe is not formally recognised by same, refers to itself as the successor to USHGA but this body still exists having merely changed its name to USHPA. Jontyla (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think this really matters, but while trying to understand his topic ban, JoeFaust mentioned that the article isn't dishonest; speaking as Joe Faust (the actual human being who registered the organization), apparently the history is a bit more complicated than that (and has to do with name changes on several sides). I'm not going to go into the details because it doesn't really have any bearing on the deletion discussion (because the exact ownership/recognition doesn't specifically say anything about notability) but we should be careful when we use words like "dishonest"; it's much better just to state that something is incorrect (with reasons). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I withdraw 'dishonest' and put 'misleading' in it's place. Sorry Joe. Jontyla (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Very glad to see this. Whatever problems Mr. Faust may be having with complying with our guidelines, he's remained polite and respectful in the face of some pretty heated pushback, and we should acknowledge that, I think. Google reveals that he has played his own role in the history of hang gliding and we need to appreciate that; even if he may be having trouble complying with our editing policies, there's a real world person out there. So kudos for retraction and apology. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2011 (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.