This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I would submit that those articles are supporting the the facts stated regarding the Storm and the publicity of the potential move of both team to Oklahoma City. What are you thoughts? --Financial-Foodie (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2008 (PDT)
What do the sexual preferences of the GSBA members have to do with this association? To me that seems irrelevant and the entries smack of a PoV agenda.—RJH (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It's central to why they were created: "GSBA is incorporated for the purposes of visibility and to create a unified voice for the lesbian and gay business community." However, the "prominent members" section appears to be pure marketing/PR for the GSBA and should simply be purged (assuming the article is not deleted as part of the AfD). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments Barek. I think you bring up a good point about the prominent members as being potentially irrelevant. However, I do believe that in the case of Judge Tim Bradbury, his role within the GSBA played a part in his appointment. As to the State Congressional representatives, they played key roles in domestic partnership legislation in Washington State. Council-member Clark, that section I might agree is irrelevant. Your thoughts? -- Financial-Foodie (talk) 06:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
My opinion is that the information is out of scope for this topic and should be removed from here. If the individuals are notable on their own, then that biographical data should be within their own articles. I believe that the section should be removed from this article.
However, if GSBA actively lobbies for appointment of judges, and if a reliable source can be found that states it, then a mention could be added to the history section here. The history section already mentions that GSBA lobbying of state congressional offices played a role in the passage of Washington's first same-sex partnership legislation; which is mostly redundant to the information about prominent congressional members. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Alright, you've convinced me regarding the Prominent Members section being removed. I've done so. Thank you for your thoughtful input. Much appreciated. -- Financial-Foodie (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)