383:...Lockley, it sounds like you know more about the story than is currently in the article. In the sources I reviewed yesterday, I didn't see anything about the Institute for Educational Affairs, Cheryl Araujo or the $ 4050, so apparently you know about that from other sources that aren't currently here. I'd like to know where you got the information. I think if you're this familiar with a 35-year-old dispute about a student paper, then it's got to be notable enough to have attracted your attention. There may not be any journalistic, academic or legal
421:
shut the paper, as you said above. What shut the paper was a cruel attack on rape victim Cheryl Araujo, the last straw in a pattern of grossly offensive material. All that said, it's the tiny stakes that make this non-notable. As to your claim that whatever attracts my eye must be notable and therefore belongs in wikipedia (...laughing), that's a much funnier joke. --
613:, especially multiple listings of the same source, DO NOT advance notability. This is even more of an issue when the sources are just articles showing the paper existed. I do not see that questioned but the notability for a stand-alone article. The scant non-primary sources that are more about certain incidences other than the paper do not tip the scale. --
356:. Without a demonstrated link between the 2 (or is it 3?) publications, and with the current versions clearly not notable, it comes down to whether the original California Review deserves encyclopedic coverage. Hm let's see. It published for less than two years. It was a campus giveaway. Its initial $ 6K funding came from the
420:
had primary coverage I'm surprised you missed. It said, "... The latest (California Review) edition called those who participated in a barroom gang rape in
Massachusetts 'six brave men' and called the rape itself a victory for the sexual liberation movement." So, it wasn't a single "rape joke" that
338:
tied to a former editor. The page is obviously in need of an update since I was requested to work on it when the paper was revived. And if you look in the edit history they allegedly lost at least one editor, something I can attest to personally, which has not been reported by them indicating some
232:
The sourcing for this former campus paper is so piss-poor that I do not believe in its notability. There's a few newspaper articles from over thirty years ago that mention it because of a little dust-up at the time, and there's a few mentions in more recent publications. But this doesn't add up to
312:
was shut down in 1983 after making a rape joke, and they went to federal court to force the university to continue their funding. This is much more than "a little dust-up". The paper has received national press attention on a number of occasions, from their very first issue.
360:; there was nothing organic or spontaneous about that "wave of conservative college newspapers." The California Review's claim to fame was a series of odious, "controversial" racist and gay-bashing remarks, leading up to a climax in which they called the defendants of the
435:
Well, I figured that you must have known about it personally somehow, because the only other explanation would be that you went looking for press coverage, and you found even more than I did, and yet you still think it's not notable, which wouldn't make any sense. —
364:
case "six brave men". Four of those six were convicted of aggravated rape. The federal suit was over $ 4050 in university funding & office space. They received the office space. I see no journalistic, academic or legal notability.
52:. Potentially there could be something here but no real.argument that this is that and the description of the sourcing falls short of the gng. That hasn't really be countered by the keep arguments so the delete case seems more policy based
201:
630:
has much to say about itself, but per WP:SPS that can only be given limited weight when unaccompanied by a secondary source; the actual amount of third-party, independent sourcing is low, and too low to pass WP:BASIC.
461:
as I stated before the primary site on the wikipage claims within their interviews that they are a continuation whereas the unmentioned website of the same name is operated by former editors.
195:
499:
479:
154:
525:
but I guess mere mention in a couple of RS and rest refs from its website won't make it pass the
Notablity criteria, but we also can't ignore refs provided by
101:
86:
523:
238:
632:
127:
122:
275:. It doesn't seem notable enough for an article it's own, but it might worth a mention in the University of California article due to the dust-up. --
131:
161:
584:
the old version meets notability but the 2 new versions would probably not qualify. I imagine thats part of the problem with the current article.
114:
305:
272:
410:
357:
216:
183:
234:
81:
74:
17:
293:
639:
177:
95:
91:
647:
622:
593:
568:
543:
511:
491:
470:
445:
430:
396:
374:
348:
322:
284:
258:
56:
118:
173:
664:
507:
487:
40:
334:
based on their website it seems the current version is not pushing content as often and there appears to be a
223:
660:
110:
62:
36:
503:
483:
441:
392:
318:
209:
189:
242:
280:
579:
560:
610:
589:
466:
426:
370:
344:
70:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
659:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
618:
254:
564:
300:
was part of a wave of conservative college newspapers founded in 1982 and 1983, and uses
606:
528:
437:
404:
388:
314:
552:
361:
304:
as the lead example. I also added an article syndicated by the Copley News
Service, "
276:
585:
462:
456:
422:
366:
340:
53:
148:
614:
416:. Beyond that, I look stuff up the same as you! newspapers.com! For example,
250:
609:. A defunct campus newspaper that was active for a couple of years. The use of
417:
536:
245:. Take those three sources (the rest is all primary stuff), and you have "
292:: I added a newspaper article by the Christian Science Monitor in 1983: "
233:
notability by our standards, if we want to be serious encyclopedia:
605:: Per Nom, alternate merge to UCSD for historical purposes: Fails
335:
308:", talking specifically about the first issue of the paper. The
655:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
249:
is a conservative student paper that once ran a cartoon".
144:
140:
136:
208:
522:
It does have mentions in
Reliable sources like here
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
667:). No further edits should be made to this page.
498:Note: This discussion has been included in the
478:Note: This discussion has been included in the
500:list of California-related deletion discussions
480:list of Journalism-related deletion discussions
294:Conservative papers emerge on college campuses
222:
8:
102:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
497:
477:
296:". The syndicated article says that the
7:
387:, but I think there's notability. —
239:a half sentence about a cartoon here
273:University of California, San Diego
409:. You'll find a reference to the
24:
411:Institute for Educational Affairs
358:Institute for Educational Affairs
243:an interview with an editor here
87:Introduction to deletion process
555:but needs a lot of work. Maybe
418:the L.A. Times of June 10, 1983
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
77:(AfD)? Read these primers!
684:
235:a sentence and a half here
648:15:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
623:18:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
594:01:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
569:18:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
544:16:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
512:15:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
492:15:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
471:10:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
446:07:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
431:05:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
397:03:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
375:01:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
349:02:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
323:23:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
306:Campus right irks lefties
285:21:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
259:20:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
57:21:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
657:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
247:The California Review
111:The California Review
75:Articles for deletion
63:The California Review
514:
494:
302:California Review
298:California Review
92:Guide to deletion
82:How to contribute
675:
645:
637:
583:
541:
539:
532:
460:
408:
227:
226:
212:
164:
152:
134:
72:
34:
683:
682:
678:
677:
676:
674:
673:
672:
671:
665:deletion review
640:
633:
611:primary sources
577:
537:
535:
526:
504:Robert McClenon
484:Robert McClenon
454:
402:
339:kind of issue.
169:
160:
125:
109:
106:
69:
66:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
681:
679:
670:
669:
651:
650:
625:
599:
598:
597:
596:
572:
571:
546:
516:
515:
495:
475:
474:
473:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
414:in the article
378:
377:
351:
325:
287:
230:
229:
166:
105:
104:
99:
89:
84:
67:
65:
60:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
680:
668:
666:
662:
658:
653:
652:
649:
646:
643:
638:
636:
629:
626:
624:
620:
616:
612:
608:
604:
601:
600:
595:
591:
587:
581:
576:
575:
574:
573:
570:
566:
562:
558:
554:
550:
547:
545:
542:
540:
530:
524:
521:
518:
517:
513:
509:
505:
501:
496:
493:
489:
485:
481:
476:
472:
468:
464:
458:
453:
447:
443:
439:
434:
433:
432:
428:
424:
419:
415:
412:
406:
400:
399:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
381:
380:
379:
376:
372:
368:
363:
362:Cheryl Araujo
359:
355:
352:
350:
346:
342:
337:
333:
329:
326:
324:
320:
316:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
288:
286:
282:
278:
274:
270:
266:
263:
262:
261:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
225:
221:
218:
215:
211:
207:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
175:
172:
171:Find sources:
167:
163:
159:
156:
150:
146:
142:
138:
133:
129:
124:
120:
116:
112:
108:
107:
103:
100:
97:
93:
90:
88:
85:
83:
80:
79:
78:
76:
71:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
656:
654:
641:
634:
627:
602:
556:
548:
534:
519:
413:
384:
353:
331:
327:
309:
301:
297:
289:
268:
264:
246:
231:
219:
213:
205:
198:
192:
186:
180:
170:
157:
68:
49:
47:
31:
28:
336:second site
196:free images
661:talk page
529:Toughpigs
438:Toughpigs
405:Toughpigs
389:Toughpigs
315:Toughpigs
37:talk page
663:or in a
557:Draftify
277:Adamant1
155:View log
96:glossary
39:or in a
607:WP:NORG
586:Bgrus22
565:🗣️🗣🗣
520:Comment
463:Bgrus22
457:Lockley
423:Lockley
367:Lockley
341:Bgrus22
332:Archive
328:Editing
202:WP refs
190:scholar
128:protect
123:history
73:New to
54:Spartaz
628:Delete
615:Otr500
603:Delete
553:WP:GNG
551:Meets
401:Hello
354:Delete
310:Review
265:Delete
251:Drmies
174:Google
132:delete
50:delete
644:erial
580:KidAd
561:KidAd
385:merit
330:then
269:merge
217:JSTOR
178:books
162:Stats
149:views
141:watch
137:links
16:<
619:talk
590:talk
549:Keep
538:Dtt1
508:talk
488:talk
467:talk
442:talk
427:talk
393:talk
371:talk
345:talk
319:talk
290:Keep
281:talk
255:talk
210:FENS
184:news
145:logs
119:talk
115:edit
271:to
267:or
224:TWL
153:– (
635:——
621:)
592:)
567:)
559:.
533:.
510:)
502:.
490:)
482:.
469:)
444:)
429:)
395:)
373:)
365:--
347:)
321:)
313:—
283:)
257:)
241:,
237:,
204:)
147:|
143:|
139:|
135:|
130:|
126:|
121:|
117:|
642:S
617:(
588:(
582::
578:@
563:(
531::
527:@
506:(
486:(
465:(
459::
455:@
440:(
425:(
407::
403:@
391:(
369:(
343:(
317:(
279:(
253:(
228:)
220:·
214:·
206:·
199:·
193:·
187:·
181:·
176:(
168:(
165:)
158:·
151:)
113:(
98:)
94:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.