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 keep. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gliding New Zealand (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)

• Delete. Non-notable organisation. Contested PROD. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A little research revealed that it was formerly called New Zealand Gliding Association (name changed to Gliding New Zealand in 2000). Searching the old name does yield some coverage in independent reliable sources like this for example.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 23:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still does not meet WP:ORG. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The organisation covers 27 gliding clubs and schools with a combined flying membership of about 900 pilots and about 360 aircraft in New Zealand. It sends delegates to the meetings of the IOC-recognised, governing body for air sports, the FAI. As independent evidence of its existence I propose the agenda for the 2012 annual general meeting of the FAI. In many of the minutes and agendas they are referred to as 'New Zealand' or the 'delegate from New Zealand' but page 13 on the trophy management section of this agenda they have their full name. see this one . There is also a respected magazine called 'Gliding International' which has many references, but this will not be accessible to many contributors to this discussion.JMcC (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of organisations with more than 900 members that aren't notable. If they're a member of the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale they could be merged there as part of a list of member organisations. References to Gliding International would help establish notability (you can provide references even if the magazine is not online), but would still count only as a single source for proving notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following references were found to prove notability including two from NZ government/government agencies and a national newspaper:

http://www.glidingcanterbury.org.nz/ "Affiliated to "Gliding New Zealand"

http://www.glidingtaranaki.com/Flying.html "training is provided by Gliding New Zealand qualified instructors"

http://www.glideomarama.com/SoaringSchool/Introcourses "note you will need a Gliding New Zealand Medical Certificate"

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10801613 "He was the national operations officer for Gliding New Zealand"

http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/aerial-recreation/3 "The national association, Gliding New Zealand, controls the sport by setting standards and managing the training of pilots, instructors, engineers and tow pilots. It also organises contests, selects teams for world competitions, and represents New Zealand on the International Gliding Commission."

http://www.caa.govt.nz/rules/Rule_Dev_Process/ACAG_Membership.htm "Civil Aviation Authority Aviation Community Advisory Group"

Other major national gliding organisations have their own WP pages eg Soaring Society of America (12,500 members) JMcC (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Very obviously notable. Article lacks references which is a problem, hopefully they will be added shortly. I have paper sources in the loft (attic) if needs be. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - wholeheartedly support Nimbus and previous. WP:N is a guideline, not a policy, which says it is the "standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense.......". True. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moriori (talk • contribs) 02:45, 14 June 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines can be overridden if there's a good reason to do so. What exactly is the reason why this organisation particularly deserves a WP page despite not meeting the notability criteria? --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe WP:COMMONSENSE is the one being applied here... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sufficiently notable within its field, does need work. NealeFamily (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2012 (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.