Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California Proposition 218 (1996) Local Initiative Power


 * 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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 22:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

California Proposition 218 (1996) Local Initiative Power

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Absurdly over-detailed, non-notable article discussing an obscure provision of a state law. No independent, reliable sources (Legal citations and webpages of advocacy groups do not, on their own, meet the notability requirement). We're an encyclopedia, not a law review. Any useful content can be merged to California Proposition 218 (1996). James (talk/contribs) 18:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge to California Proposition 218 (1996) per nom. Definitely WP:TMI.  19:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge into California Proposition 218 (1996). Wikipedia is not for legal jargon. Nanophosis (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep As a matter of article history, the contents of this article were originally split from the Proposition 218 article in June of 2016.  This was done at the specific suggestion of an editor (also an Administrator) commenting on the Proposition 218 talk page in offering possible solutions for reducing the length of the Proposition 218 article.  After considering various content options for splitting the Proposition 218 article, including good faith application of the criteria for splitting an article, contents from the local initiative power portion of the Proposition 218 article were split to create this article.  For purposes of disclosure, I am the editor that split the contents from the Proposition 218 article in creating this article.


 * The Nominator has not provided any suggested “useful content” (quoting from Nominator comments) from this article for purposes of implementing any proposed merger. The specific “useful content” from this article that would be merged into the Proposition 218 article is not stated by the Nominator.


 * Furthermore, the policy reasons justifying merger WP:MERGEREASON do not appear to be applicable to this article, including having the resulting article being too long or clunky which is a stated policy reason for avoiding merger. The Nominator has not cited specific and justifiable policy reasons that would support merging this article into the Proposition 218 article.


 * As for notability, this article has been in existence for nearly two years and the Nominator is the only known person who has questioned the notability of the article.


 * The Nominator has expressed an opinion that the article involves an “obscure provision of a state law.” However, the Nominator has provided no specific citations in support of this, and has not cited any foundational analysis (such as good faith searching of the subject matter for appropriate sources and references) on the issue of notability.


 * The law that is the subject of this article is a provision contained in the California Constitution (the highest law in the state of California) that legally authorizes voters to exercise the local initiative power to reduce or repeal any local government tax, assessment, fee or charge, including a lower signature requirement to make ballot qualification easier.


 * Recently, this constitutional provision has been used to pursue local initiative measures that would repeal local taxes in sanctuary cities. This has received widespread coverage in the media. As another example, the constitutional provision has also received high-level coverage in the Los Angeles Times.  I have updated the subject article to include the referenced newspaper articles in further support of notability.


 * The California Supreme Court has also previously accepted and decided an important case interpreting the subject constitutional provision and upheld the law. The California Supreme Court accepts few cases for decision with the primary criteria being the settlement of “important questions of law.” Briefs in that Supreme Court case were also filed by statewide organizations representing California cities, California counties, and California water agencies. The foregoing is not consistent with the constitutional provision being an “obscure provision of a state law,” as claimed by the Nominator.


 * The subject article is notable, and for the reasons previously described, merger would not be an appropriate alternative. X24Delta (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * a) The "policy reasons" to delete the article are that 1) the topic is not notable and/or 2) the article fails WP:NOT. WP:SPLIT cannot be used to override the aforementioned policy pillars.


 * b) this article has been in existence for nearly two years and the Nominator is the only known person who has questioned the notability of the article.
 * WP:LONGTIME, WP:ADHOM.


 * c} I believe an AfD nomination should imply this, but for the record, I did perform WP:BEFORE due diligence and found no independent, reliable sources (as WP defines them) for the topic. Also, WP:NPA, WP:AGF. I believe my "foundational analysis" is clear from the nomination statement.


 * d) The California Constitution is one of the longest in the world, and can be (and has been) amended many times to regulate many specific subtopics. Not every provision of that document meets our notability standards, and being a provision of that document does not automatically confer notability.


 * e) The cited news articles discuss local events related to this provision, not the provision itself. They do not provide significant coverage of the provision, as defined by WP:N.


 * f) One state court case does not confer notability, either. Due to California's... unique direct democracy and property tax laws, the courts are often called upon to interpret various constitutional provisions. Court briefs and decisions do not establish notability.


 * Lastly, the arguments to keep are much more applicable to the article California Proposition 218 (1996). Even assuming arguendo that that article is notable, notability has not been demonstrated for the "local initiative power" provision under discussion here. James (talk/contribs) 15:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Notability is not a policy, it is a guideline, as is WP:SIZE which authorises splitting to reduce article length. WP:IAR can be used to overide all other policies and guidelines. Google Books contains a large amount of coverage relating to the local initiative power: . There are whole chapters of textbooks on it: (and that book is from OUP in the United Kingdom, thousands of miles away, which should indicate the massive global importance of this topic). James500 (talk) 05:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC) I have also pointed out to you that a law report is not the same thing as a court brief or decision and that it contains a detailed commentary by the reporter who is employed by the West Publishing Company etc. James500 (talk) 05:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Looks like consensus that this is excessive detail, but it could be a bit clearer to avoid future disputes.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I have made major article content reductions addressing excessive detail issues. The AfD process is not the appropriate vehicle for addressing excessive detail issues associated with an article.  This is not a basis for deletion pursuant to deletion policy. As previously noted, the policy reasons justifying merger WP:MERGEREASON are not applicable to this article.  Furthermore, if this article were merged into the Proposition 218 article, the resulting article would be too long which is a specifically stated policy reason for avoiding merger. X24Delta (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Massive oppose. Keep per X24Delta. The topic of this article is notable by reason that it satisfies WP:GNG and WP:LGNC. For the avoidance of doubt, case law interpreting legisation is both independent and secondary (within the historian's definition) with respect to that legislation. This nomination also violates WP:OVERSIMPLIFY. Wikipedia is not a children's encyclopedia for babies of low intelligence, and dumbing down the project is not a valid goal for AfD. If we removed the information in this article, what remains would be a lie-to-children. This nomination also violates WP:SPINOUT. James500 (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: WP:LGNC is a failed proposal that did not gain consensus. James (talk/contribs) 16:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it is a draft proposal added after the RfC that resulted in the original proposal being marked as failed. Certain parts of NLAW (such as the courts and judges criteria) do have consensus. It was criteria 1 of CASES that tanked the proposal because the expression "highest court in the jurisdiction" that originally appeared was felt to be ambiguous, coupled with the fact that the original proposal (now heavily expanded and improved by new sections added) was very incomplete. LGNC has about the same status as an essay. Anyway "failed proposal" is not much of an argument, because consensus can change and an RfC way back in 2009 has no relevance now. "Failed proposal" is only relevant if the failure was recent. James500 (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC) I think I will also point out, just in case you are not aware, that the headnote of a law report is actually a commentary on the case in question written by the reporter. Such reporters usually work for an ordinary commercial publishing company (eg West or Elsevier) or a charity. So they are independent even of the judges. The sources of this article are not just "legal citations" (whatever that really means) as you put it. James500 (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment re: justification of separate article from Proposition 218 per SUMMARYSTYLE: the argument that consolidating the article with its parent would cause a too-long article results from the amount of excessive detail in the Proposition 218 article itself, not due to some inherent quality of either article. James (talk/contribs) 16:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The preceding comment, irrespective of merit, is a policy reason for avoiding merger. However, the nominator has not cited any specific and justifiable policy reason in support of merging this article into the Proposition 218 article. X24Delta (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I am not arguing in favor of merging the article. I have laid out the policy reasons in my nomination for deleting the article. I was merely responding to others' comments above. James (talk/contribs) 15:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per X24Delta. A very extensively referenced (430 inline cites) article about a proposition, passed 22 years ago, which has been described as "one of the most significant laws of the 20th century in California". The article is an invaluable research tool for students of government and politics and, rather than deletion, it should be nominated for Good Article.   Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the article California Proposition 218 (1996) or the article California Proposition 218 (1996) Local Initiative Power? James (talk/contribs) 15:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the correction. It is, of course, the article California Proposition 218 (1996) that has the 430 inline cites, while the article California Proposition 218 (1996) Local Initiative Power has 56 inline cites, which is more than sufficient to verify and support the content. Although there are two consecutive self-repeating links within the first sentence under California Proposition 218 (1996) which flow to the article currently under discussion, when a detail within an article engenders its own separate entry, that entry should be recognized with a hatnote. If there are sufficient "Keep" arguments to retain this article, below that section header, in the main article, a hatnote would need to be affixed with the text, For article on the local initiative power provision, see California Proposition 218 (1996) Local Initiative Power.   Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.