Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Seattle Business 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 Keep per the additional sources identified during the discussion establishing notability. Davewild (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greater Seattle Business Association

Greater Seattle Business Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Local group, non-notable beyond Seattle. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom, notability of organization not established. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - update after further research. This really is a borderline case on notability under WP:ORG. While I still lean slightly towards delete, I can see that a decent argument exists to allow it to remain. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I added some newspaper articles as references. This GLBT group appears to be notable outside of Seattle as well, since it engages in advocacy at the state level and it works together with similar business associations in other states, according to the article. --Eastmain (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm. The only reliable source is one article in the Puget Sound Business Journal. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia not an ever-evolving encyclopedia? I myself intend to continue developing this article and others I consider myself knowledgeable in. As additional sources come to light I see no harm in allowing the article to be here in a state of constant development. -- Financial-Foodie (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Being that I am the originating author of this article, my opinion may be somewhat biased, but I will try to remain objective. Thank you for your comments Eastmain! While this organization may have only a regional membership, it has historical basis as one of the first and arguably largest organizations of it's kind. I did not include these in the article itself since I have no unbiased source to quote those facts but I believe them to be true. If someone has documentable evidence of those I would be greatly appreciative of that information. Furthermore, the GSBA's Scholarship program was definitely the first of it's kind (also excluded from the article for lack of a citable source) in the region, perhaps in the entire United States or greater global stage. To further Eastmain's comments about the GSBA's involvement in advocacy, the organization was also a founding member of larger organizations such as the WBA and later the NGLCC, as noted in the article. -- Financial-Foodie (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

comment - the issue is if the article meets the criteria of notability per WP:ORG. I have posted an opinion above of delete, but would be willing to reconsider if it can be explained how the article meets the threshold of notability as outlined in the WP:ORG guideline. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

reply to comment - I'm definatly a wikinewbie Barek, but I'm glad you pointed out WP:ORG to me and mentioned notibility. It's an important issue. Since you've convinced me to remove the "Prominent Members" section, I'm hoping I can convince you to change your vote regarding AfD. After reading through WP:ORG, I have added a few other secondary sources and I plan to search and look for more verifiable evidence of this organization's notibility. In the meantime, I am still of the opinion that this article's content has historical and informational value. -- Financial-Foodie (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Here's another reliable source (but a small publisher) with substantial coverage[1]. There's also minor coverage in a number of articles from major publishers[2]. There's something inherently interesting (i.e. worth reading, notable) about a local gay chamber of commerce as opposed to, say, a hamburger restaurant with the same amount of encyclopedic news coverage. That's because gay empowerment and social values are a very important long-term issue, and understanding them (unlike hamburgers) is important to an encyclopedic knowledge of modern American culture. So my tendency would be to lean on the side of inclusion of articles of this type if they are close to the threshold.Wikidemo (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2008 (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.