Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SF City ID Card

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. Ths sources support notability . DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SF City ID Card

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

This article has just one reference, I'm not sure if it's Wikipedia-worthy. Nathan2055 ^talk^-^review 17:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep this is massively important. it's part of a nation-wide movement to regularize the status of undocumented aliens on a sub-federal level. it's ongoing. i can see how you can't tell this from the article, which is incompletely sourced, incomplete in content, and poorly written, but i believe it ought to be kept and fixed. here are some sources spanning a number of years (not all have SF in the title, but they all discuss the SF program): In Trenton, Issuing IDs for Illegal Immigrants (NYT), and San Francisco judge rejects challenge to city ID card plan (Oakland tribune, paywalled), and San Francisco delays rollout of ID card program (USA today), and so on. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is stubby, but Alf is right that it is an important subject, and part of a larger movement. As with many articles that start slowly, it should be kept and allowed to get better. Bella the Ball (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. I added some references (thank you, Alf) and made it clearer what the program is about. --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect - By themselves they may not be sufficiently notable to pass WP:GNG. That being said it may have enough weight to be mentioned in an article regarding Illegal immigration to the United States. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are links from the San Francisco Chronicle, the Oakland Tribune, USA Today, and the New York Times; that's not enough? --MelanieN (talk) 03:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT article is written largly in the context of the overall issue. The local major newspapers also have more than minor parts that discuss the subject of the article in the context of the larger subject, therefore the subject falls within the larger subject Illegal immigration to the United States. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cards are not just about illegal immigration. Here is a USA Today article showing that the San Francisco program is intended to help other groups such as transgender individuals. When the city of Richmond, California approved a similar program, they noted that "many Richmond residents lack the necessary forms of official identification that are required to access financial institutions, jobs, housing, and protections for the home and workplace. These residents include immigrants, children, students, the homeless, transgender people, the indigent, the disabled, the elderly, runaway youth, and adult survivors of domestic violence."[1]

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.