Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cwtch Community Group


 * 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 As far as a head count is concerned, there is not much here (3 deletes, 2 keeps if we count Chernyi as a "keep" although he/she does not actually say "keep", and also says "if members of Wikipedia see fit to delete this article, that's fine by me. I just wanted to play around with creating my first article to be honest.") However, the "delete" arguments are substantially based on policy, while most of the "keep" arguments aren't. For example, "This article has more references than many others of its kind" is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, and invalid. "As far as WP:ONEEVENT, the events are still playing out, so we don't know what the impact will be" is also invalid: we assess the notability of subjects as they are now, not as we speculate what they may be in the future. (See WP:CRYSTAL.) I assume that in "Since the group has moved from the Dolphin Hotel to the JT Morgan store, WP:EVENT is no longer a valid rationale for deletion", WP:EVENT should have been WP:ONEEVENT. If so, it misses the point. It is still one event, even though the event has more than one phase. The one "keep" argument that does relate to policy is the statement that there are multiple reliable, independent secondary sources, but the quality of those sources has been questioned, with their local nature being emphasised. JamesBWatson (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Cwtch Community Group

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This group is only a few days old, and their occupation of the disused hotel is only local news; this doesn't look like it passes our notability guidelines for events. The news coverage also does not look like it meets our notability guidelines for organizations, although I think the most important factor here is that Wikipedia is not a news source. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This article has more references than many others of its kind, and will only grow over the next few days. I also find it funny that you are so dismissive of news sources such as the BBC. The BBC is not a local news source but a national one. Chernyi (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend to be dismissive of the BBC at all, just pointing out that it is local BBC coverage. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as far as I can tell, this is "around a dozen people" squatting in an abandoned hotel. I'm sure they're having fun, but as far as being encyclopedic it's right up there with what I had for breakfast this morning. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If what you had for breakfast was half as interesting as this, I want to hear about it. In all seriousness though, if members of Wikipedia see fit to delete this article, that's fine by me. I just wanted to play around with creating my first article to be honest. I can save the details and re-add the article when/if the Cwtch Community Group becomes more notable — which I'm sure it will. Chernyi (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you're so sure, but the rest of the world doesn't share that enthusiasm. The problem with such speculative reasoning is that it's exactly that: speculative.  Sure, it could become the basis of some important legal ruling on squatter's rights or something, but to create an article because of something unlikely that might happen is as silly as creating an article on every newborn baby because it might grow up to be president someday. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Andrew Lenahan = rest of world? Someone has an awfully high opinion of themselves. Chernyi (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Starblind, can you elaborate on how the article is unencyclopedic? (see WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC) Gobonobo  T C 20:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep for now. The BBC coverage goes into ample detail on the organisation and the article meets the criteria of WP:GNG, having multiple reliable, independent secondary sources. Gobonobo  T C 23:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Much of the coverage is about the abandoned hotel and its fate, rather than about the squatter group itself. The group amounts to WP:ONEEVENT: locally notable for the brief time that they can keep headlines, but with no lasting impact.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hrm. I'm having trouble understanding your first sentence there. 9 of the 10 references currently used in the article are concerned with the squatters' occupation of the hotel. I do agree that a better home for the article might be Cwtch Community Centre, focusing on the squat itself and not the group. As far as WP:ONEEVENT, the events are still playing out, so we don't know what the impact will be. Gobonobo  T C 20:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we resolve this one way or another? This is a clear keep as far as I can see. If you are looking for similar articles to trim from wikipedia, I totally agree that there are at least half a dozen articles regarding info-shops/social centers that should be deleted. Just look at the "formers locations" on the info-shop template. These articles have only a few sentences of content, no references, no existing links, and talk about places which have closed years ago. This article on the other hand has been growing since day one, has several links, and multiple references. Chernyi (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree that it doesn't meet notability guidelines for events. Also agree that this is only local news at the moment and it should be noted that Wikipedia is not a news source. If it becomes a national story when the court ruling happens on Tuesday, that's fine but it really is just a hotel that squatters have broken into. — User:mrjmay 13:56, 12 February 2012 (GMT) — mrjmay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: Since the subject is a current event subject to major development this week, there's no harm leaving this AfD open for another week just to see what happens.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 22:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment What has happened (see ) is that the group have lost their case regarding the Dolphin Hotel, and immediately set about illegally occupying another vacant building in town. This makes the persistent, but not notable.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for exposing your bias wikidan61. Their occupation of the building is not actually illegal under Welsh/English law. Chernyi (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment That appears to be the group's claim: that their occupation of the abandoned department store is legal because they entered through an open window. I suppose the courts will have to work that out.  My own comment was not based on bias (please assume good faith), but rather a misunderstanding of English property laws.  Whether the occupation is legal or not, it still doesn't make the group notable.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * An understanding of English property laws would help in understanding why these particular squats are notable, but is not required. The ongoing coverage from the BBC has now established the notability of the organisation. Furthermore, since the group has moved from the Dolphin Hotel to the JT Morgan store, WP:EVENT is no longer a valid rationale for deletion. Gobonobo  T C 17:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You might be right that WP:EVENT no longer applies here, but I think that is still open to interpretation. Even assuming that is the case, I don't think they would pass WP:ORG - the news coverage doesn't seem enough to satisfy the "depth of coverage" part of that guideline, in particular the part that says "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". Before anyone asks, I'm classifying the BBC coverage as "local" here, so let me explain why. While the BBC is an international news organization, in the UK they are also a local news organization, and they have many local branch offices, and make local television and radio broadcasts in addition to their national ones. The BBC News stories in question here are categorized as local - BBC South-West Wales - and while they probably made the local TV and radio broadcasts, I doubt that they got as far as the national ones (though we will need input from someone actually living in the UK to verify this). I think at this point it's quite clear that the Cwtch Community Group have achieved some recognition in Swansea and the surrounding area, but Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia, and local coverage still does not seem like a good reason to have an article on them. If this story makes the national papers there may be a better claim to notability, especially if those stories make some claim as to lasting historical significance. For now, though, I'm still not swayed. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Stradivarius, by your definition, literally anything that ever happened in Wales in the last 20 years (with the exception of National Assembly for Wales political events, and things relating to the three odd Welsh football teams in the big leagues/divisions) couldn't make it onto Wikipedia. 94.197.127.139 (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2012 (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.