Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sf.citi

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. There is a clear consensus that the coverage of this organization in reliable sources is sufficient to establish its notability. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sf.citi

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

Contested A7 speedy, org does appear to have some coverage in local media Tawker (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as creator): It also has coverage by national media. Here is an article from the New York Times discussing sf.citi and its chairman, Ron Conway, entitled "A Silicon Valley Vision for San Francisco": http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/us/ron-conway-tech-investor-turns-focus-to-hometown.html?_r=0 Prauls901 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is national and local news coverage. Industry specific lobbying are arguably the most significant players in American politics. It makes sense to cover these sort of large organizations. Its members are not just local businesses; these are the largest companies in the country and the world: Facebook, Google, etc. ZZZ (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)— Azalea666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 01:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: sf.citi is mentioned as a main subject in two sources in the article and elsewhere eg [1]. It also gets a solid paragraph in another reference. Through the news sites are local they are independent and reliable, and more indicative of notability than some local magazine in a small town. The group is clearly a significant lobby in the local industry and includes notable companies such as Google and Facebook. (I am aware that notability is not inherited per se; however, those being members combined with the news coverage surely indicates a sufficient level of notability.) BethNaught (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this discussion over yet? All comments are positive, it was flagged unnecessarily, and it's obvious it meets notability standards. Prauls901 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient, it will be reviewed by an admin in a couple of days. BethNaught (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2014 (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.