Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The California Review


 * 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 delete. 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 Spartaz Humbug! 21:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The California Review

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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 notability by our standards, if we want to be serious encyclopedia: a sentence and a half here, a half sentence about a cartoon here, an interview with an editor here. Take those three sources (the rest is all primary stuff), and you have "The California Review is a conservative student paper that once ran a cartoon". Drmies (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to University of California, San Diego. 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. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: I added a newspaper article by the Christian Science Monitor in 1983: "Conservative papers emerge on college campuses". The syndicated article says that the California Review was part of a wave of conservative college newspapers founded in 1982 and 1983, and uses California Review as the lead example. I also added an article syndicated by the Copley News Service, "Campus right irks lefties", talking specifically about the first issue of the paper. The Review 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. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Editing then Archive based on their website it seems the current version is not pushing content as often and there appears to be a second site 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 kind of issue. Bgrus22 (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. 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 Institute for Educational Affairs; 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 Cheryl Araujo 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.  --Lockley (talk) 01:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ...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 merit, but I think there's notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello . You'll find a reference to the Institute for Educational Affairs in the article.  Beyond that, I look stuff up the same as you!  newspapers.com!  For example, the L.A. Times of June 10, 1983 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 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.  --Lockley (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. — Toughpigs (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. Bgrus22 (talk) 10:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment It does have mentions in Reliable sources like here 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 .   Dtt1 Talk  16:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG but needs a lot of work. Maybe Draftify. KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 18:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. Bgrus22 (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: Per Nom, alternate merge to UCSD for historical purposes: Fails WP:NORG. A defunct campus newspaper that was active for a couple of years. The use of primary sources, 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. --  Otr500 (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete 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. ——  Serial  15:50, 19 July 2020 (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.