Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 California Proposition 29


 * 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.

2022 California Proposition 29
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Bruxton (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Failed propositions are rarely notable, and nothing about this one indicates anything different.  Onel 5969  TT me 22:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep – If this is the rationale to be used against this proposition, then there are many California propositions in history that would stand to be deleted. The mere existence of a ballot measure is inherently notable. A look through this list shows that every 2020 California proposition has an article, including the failed ones, and especially Proposition 23, which is similar to the subject in question. For the previous decade, this list shows that every 2016 ballot proposition, including the failed ones, have their own article. The fact that there are failed propositions in history that do not have their own article does not signify that they are not notable, rather they more likely indicate that no one has volunteered to create them. If there are enough sources to build an article, which I am sure exists for Proposition 29, then it stands to reason that the ballot measure is notable, and the article only needs improvement instead of deletion. Jay Coop &middot;&#32;Talk &middot;&#32;Contributions 06:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, but in the alternative, merge/redirect to an article or section about Proposition 29, 2020 California Proposition 23, 2018 California Proposition 8, and contextual information. That is, I would understand if consensus does not consider Proposition 29 notable by itself, but the group of related propositions over time is clearly notable with sustained reliable coverage. I wrote a brief section in another article: SEIU_United_Healthcare_Workers_West. Micler (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Unclear from the nomination what is the policy-/guideline-based reason for deletion. A simple search shows multiple items satisfying the GNG, especially given this was the third attempt to pass this proposition.    At $96 million, ($80+ million against) appears to have been one most highly spent propositions on the ballot.


 * Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I will point out that for a ballot proposition or other election, the relevant guideline is arguably WP:NEVENT, a higher bar than WP:GNG. An article about the three kidney dialysis propositions in tandem (California dialysis propositions) would certainly pass that bar, and this might standalone. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep statewide ballot measures are usually notable, especially in a state as large as California. We don't have a notability guideline for elections other than GNG, but the de facto standard is that statewide elections and ballot measures are notable (I cannot recall them ever being deleted). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 23:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per . Even thought it didn't win support, it's a big state and had some news coverage. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Prop 29 has been a big story here in Calfornia with three attempts to pass it and all failing. It's received coverage outside the state that I'm too lazy to link (NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Fox). Definitely passes GNG, though a future merge, as hinted above by, may not be out of the question. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  22:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)