364:
the head of an organization, and perhaps should not be considered one of many activists. (2) if we both agreed that someone is notable (at quite a high standard I might add, with a long
Knowledge page), and this person now is dedicated to a single organization, as shown in his Twitter page and WSJ article signature (both as sources already in my sandbox), I believe this does convey a certain level of notability to the organization itself. Whether he is a founder or the president is a smaller technical detail in the context of him dedicating himself to the organization. (3) With regard to whether a mention of an organization is "in passing" in nature, I consulted a number of more contemporary Knowledge pages on organizations, and found most media coverage is similar in nature, i.e. the media/source reports a noteworthy event, then reports the organization behind the event, and reports a quotation from the representative from the organization. The noteworthiness of an organization in these case were established by them being the organizer of such noteworthy events. Our case is similar here I believe, as my new sources reported the events because they were noteworthy, then reported on the organization by full name, then went on to describe its mission, plus reporting quotations from representatives. I sincerely hope you and others can consider these additional factors when I come back and ask for a review in the near future. Of course, if you believe my arguments above are sufficient, that would be much appreciated as well. --
317:, and modeled after their format. Today I went back and looked their history and was a bit surprised to find out that it did not cite any sources at all for the first 6 years of its existence (until Sept 17, 2012), and that first source definitely was casual/superficial in nature. Even today, of the 30 sources they have, a quick glance led me to believe very few (or maybe none) of it rises to the level of significance of WSJ. Of course, I'm not saying WSJ is the best source out there, many people dislike it intensely, but in the context of Knowledge, it should warrant a certain level of significance. Also, I noted that the
343:
note that the references you have added also only mention the organisation in passing, in reality what is needed are sources that are explictly about the group, all your sources do is show that the cause is noteworthy and the group exists, note that the group itself is noteworthy. I understand your point about the other article, our standards at
Knowledge have definitely changed a lot over the years, and I shall take a look at that page: unfortunately it is the case that sometimes articles that don't meet our standards aren't scrutinised as well as they should be.--
21:
299:), which not only mentioned the organization by name, but discussed the nature/positioning of the organization, as well as quoted the key persons from the organization. These are "sources" that are definitely "independent" of the organization, and are generally deemed "reliable". Hope this goes a step further to demonstrate the notability of the organization.
49:
203:
I did not hear back from the respected contributors involved in the previous article deletion process, as such I took the liberty to re-write the entire article from scratch. As I stated previously, I'm not affiliated with the organization but do take interest in the issues. I did not use any of the
159:
have links to the No on 16 campaign and CA SB40. They are active in the anti-CRT and anti-affirmative action space. I feel they are notable and hope that the
Knowledge editors will consider restoring their page. Thank you. (I'm a newbie. This is adjacent to my area of interest and hope to contribute
363:
for your continued interest and guidance on this issue. I shall go figure out if there's additional sources I can cite to demonstrate an even higher level of notability. In the mean time though, I'd like to see if I can point out some counter arguments for the discussion at hand: (1) a president is
275:
for chiming in on the issue, but please allow me to dive a bit deeper on the other side too. Perhaps you overlooked slightly, but the Wall Street
Journal opinion article (reference 4 of 5) did mention the organization by name at the very end, when the author signed his name as the president of the
342:
The issue with your points are that while the president of the group is notable as an activist among other things, not as the founder of this organisation: the fact that he is notable does not mean the group inherits notability from him, and a mention in his signature is really not good enough. I
251:, the first is self-published, the last only proves the group exists, and of 2-5, only one of them actually mentions the group by name, and that is just a passing reference. I have restored the redirect for now, I would suggest you try to find more sources and work on the article in your sandbox--
105:
As such, I believe this organization (Californians for Equal Rights) meets the notability standard, and can/should have its own page, assuming the rewritten content meets all the customary
Knowledge standards. I wonder if folks involved in the deletion process, i.e., respected contributors
276:
organization. The fact WSJ is willing to invite the head of such an organization to author such an important article has to be weighted significantly toward the notability of the organization itself. I might even venture to say that this constitutes "significant coverage" according to the
101:
was the original proponent and campaign leader for
Proposition 209, was a UC regent, and has been an influential political activist according to his wikipedia entry. He is now the president of Californians for Equal Rights and have identified himself on his own Twitter page.
294:
Nevertheless I did think your comment above was reasonable in that some reference to the organization was casual or superficial in nature. As such I've added two additional references (from news sources with authorship, not random web posts, now in my sandbox:
325:
standards has evolved over the years, or if such comparison even makes sense in the notability discussions, but thought I'd point it out nevertheless, at least as a consideration. Thank you all of your attention!
321:(which holds an opposite political view from CFER) also cites a number of sources in EdSource, which I also added in my sandbox, hope this goes to show the reliability of such a source. I don't know if the
86:
California is an important state, its politics are important in and for the nation. In this election year (2020) most of the
California ballot measures are "do-overs", except two of them, one of which is
83:
I'd like to rewrite this article, and gather some opinions before I actually do it. This is a political organization, I'm not affiliated with it, and I'd like to address the notability issue first.
31:
204:
material in the deleted article, and tried my best to all the guidelines (especially neutral POV) that I'm aware of with
Knowledge. Would appreciate if any of you
243:
I apologise, I must have missed your previous request for review. Unfortunately while the article is much more neutral, it still doesn't have any useful
313:
One other thing I'd like to point out, if I may. I rewrote the page based on the page from another similar smallish political organization
390:
181:
92:
88:
69:
55:
27:
130:, can briefly comment on this rationale before I proceed to rewrite a simple description for this organization?
165:
296:
161:
369:
331:
304:
285:
233:
189:
137:
244:
20:
318:
314:
215:
117:
352:
260:
48:
63:
373:
354:
335:
308:
289:
262:
237:
193:
169:
141:
223:
125:
365:
327:
300:
281:
248:
229:
185:
133:
360:
344:
270:
252:
211:
113:
98:
95:
from 24 years ago. This is basically a top political issue in
California this year.
219:
121:
59:
322:
277:
228:
can kindly review and suggest how it can be improved further. Thank you all!
207:
109:
152:
418:
156:
391:"Walters: 2020 California ballot measures are mostly do-overs"
148:
43:
15:
280:
guidelines, given the significance of the source being WSJ.
414:
8:
381:
7:
182:the original deletion of the article
14:
47:
19:
151:is now a 501c3 foundation. Its
30:on 11 July 2020. The result of
26:This article was nominated for
1:
389:Walters, Dan (July 8, 2020).
79:Rewrite Proposal: Notability
149:California for Equal Rights
437:
170:14:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
374:04:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
355:23:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
336:20:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
309:20:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
290:20:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
263:11:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
238:06:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
194:05:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
142:23:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
297:User:Stevel408/sandbox
267:No problem, thank you
176:Additional Information
395:San Jose Mercury News
56:proposed for deletion
91:, which invalidates
319:Advancement_Project
315:Advancement_Project
153:executive committee
199:Article Re-written
76:
75:
72:) on 5 July 2020.
42:
41:
428:
421:
412:
406:
405:
403:
401:
386:
350:
347:
274:
258:
255:
227:
160:in the future.)
147:Hi. As of 2021,
129:
51:
44:
23:
16:
436:
435:
431:
430:
429:
427:
426:
425:
424:
413:
409:
399:
397:
388:
387:
383:
348:
345:
268:
256:
253:
247:to demonstrate
205:
201:
178:
162:Curious ecology
107:
93:Proposition 209
81:
12:
11:
5:
434:
432:
423:
422:
407:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
340:
339:
338:
311:
292:
216:Metropolitan90
200:
197:
177:
174:
173:
172:
118:Metropolitan90
89:Proposition 16
80:
77:
74:
73:
54:This page was
52:
40:
39:
32:the discussion
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
433:
420:
416:
415:Ward Connerly
411:
408:
396:
392:
385:
382:
375:
371:
367:
362:
361:User:Jac16888
358:
357:
356:
353:
351:
341:
337:
333:
329:
324:
320:
316:
312:
310:
306:
302:
298:
293:
291:
287:
283:
279:
272:
266:
265:
264:
261:
259:
250:
246:
242:
241:
240:
239:
235:
231:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
198:
196:
195:
191:
187:
183:
175:
171:
167:
163:
158:
154:
150:
146:
145:
144:
143:
139:
135:
131:
127:
123:
119:
115:
111:
103:
100:
99:Ward Connerly
96:
94:
90:
84:
78:
71:
68:
65:
61:
57:
53:
50:
46:
45:
37:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
410:
398:. Retrieved
394:
384:
202:
179:
132:
104:
97:
85:
82:
66:
35:
359:Thank you
323:Notability
278:notability
249:notability
224:Numberguy6
126:Numberguy6
366:Stevel408
328:Stevel408
301:Stevel408
282:Stevel408
230:Stevel408
186:Stevel408
134:Stevel408
400:July 22,
271:Jac16888
212:Jac16888
114:Jac16888
70:contribs
36:redirect
28:deletion
419:Twitter
245:sources
222:, and
220:Kleuske
180:Here's
124:, and
122:Kleuske
60:Kleuske
349:16888
257:16888
157:board
402:2020
370:talk
332:talk
305:talk
286:talk
234:talk
208:Dane
190:talk
166:talk
155:and
138:talk
110:Dane
64:talk
34:was
417:on
346:Jac
254:Jac
58:by
393:.
372:)
334:)
307:)
288:)
236:)
218:,
214:,
210:,
192:)
184:.
168:)
140:)
120:,
116:,
112:,
404:.
368:(
330:(
303:(
284:(
273::
269:@
232:(
226::
206:@
188:(
164:(
136:(
128::
108:@
67:·
62:(
38:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
