Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glasgow Autonomous Space


 * 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 and there is a valid argument against the redirect, so I have not done so despite it being a potential AtD Star   Mississippi  03:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Glasgow Autonomous Space

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

While this centre does many laudable things, I could only find one reliable source that gave the subject significant coverage, the Glasgow Times, not enough to support a claim of notability Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics,  and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 09:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Fiachra10003 As I published, I was aware that notability might be an issue, but chose to be bold. Although the Freedom News source seems to provide significant coverage, I presume it fails in reliability or independence?
 * In any case, I've searched quite exhaustively, and can find no other significant sources. If deletion is the right choice given the sources available now, so be it.
 * Thanks for keeping wikipedia encyclopedic! :) DougInAMug talk 14:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Douginamug, I hate that sinking feeling when a subject that I personally find interesting proves not to meet the notability standards. The Freedom News source is a very good question, because that was the only source that wrote directly about the Glasgow Autonomous Space.  As I noticed, it has a wikipedia article of its own, but it is a website and biannual paper with a circulation of about 1,000. On the other hand, it's a very long-established newspaper, dating all the way back to Peter Kropotkin.  I would invite others to opine as to whether that is enough to meet the standards of WP:NCORP. Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think even in the case that Freedom News is a significant source, there's still the matter that this would be the only significant source, failing the significant coverage requirement in WP:ORGCRITE. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Belichickoverbrady Ah, so you think the Glasgow Times article fails notability? (I'm not trying to save this article, just want to get a better understanding for the future) DougInAMug talk 12:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete As discussed above, fails WP:GNG. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Run of the mill venue that fails WP:NORG. There are lots and lots of event venues in the world and overwhelming majority of them are not notable. Existence is not notability. Freedom Press has been discussed at least once. Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_223 The narrower the intended audience, the less relevant something is for general notability. Graywalls (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I wish self-organized spaces were run of the mill! I accept that it fails notability now, however. Thanks for bringing my attention to the essay. DougInAMug talk 12:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Self-managed social centres in the United Kingdom, where it is mentioned, as an alternative to deletion. Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. czar  00:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * comment while I recognize that we should consider WP:ATD when possible, I don't think this would be it. This sort of re-direct invites creating re-direct for every retail outlet, organization etc into "organizations in abc, companies in abc, collective in abc". In some cases, deletion is more appropriate and this would be one of them. Graywalls (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Redirect per Czar. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2023 (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.