Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squats in UK


 * 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. Deizio talk 15:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Squats in UK
Unencyclopedic list with no context. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a directory of where people can go to squat. Leuko 02:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, stop man, don't be so destructive. I was trying hard to make this list. And why and are encyclopedic? Where is the difference? --Mladifilozof 02:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Squats in UK are unencyclopedic
 * Squats in The Netherlands
 * Squats in Spain
 * Comment: Please don't take offense, I am not "trying to be destructive." I have not (and can not) delete your articles.  I just have listed it here to see what other editors think about their inclusion into an encyclopedia, and the consensus will decide what to do.  I don't think Squats in UK is any less encyclopedic than the other lists, I just didn't happen to see them.  Therefore, I propose adding all Squats in X articles to the nomination.  Leuko 02:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The article was nominated for deletion 24 minutes after its creation, apparently without pause for debate so i can understand Mladifilozof's confusion Mujinga 21:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Is this not a debate? In any case, the reason I proposed it for deletion so quickly was that I thought the article was trying to list places where homeless people sleep - that's the definition of squatting I am familiar with.  The lists had no context to indicate that they were anything more.  Leuko 22:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, if you read the squatting page it would provide more context but I dont believe Mladifilozof originally provided the link, so i take your point.
 * My point was that although as you say we can now debate the page(s) here and reach consensus, if you read the Articles for deletion page it does suggest in the Before nominating an AfD section such steps as the following:
 * "Before nominating a recently-created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD.".
 * That's the debate I was referring to, but anyway we're here now and we can decide how best to proceed. Mujinga 19:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Squats all have an element of protest, some more so than others, and in the context of those protests as well as of government failures to provide affordable housing, can be the subjecty of encyclopedic articles. This list is useful because the redlinks represent potential new encyclopedic articles, or perhaps redirects to articles dealing with broader protests in the United Kingdom. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Personally, I would fully support an article titled "Squatting in the UK" which delves into the history and social import of such protests, with a list at the end of the article. I don't see the utility of simply a list of places where people squat -- there's no context and no assertion of notability.  I mean how would one even know what squatting is?  Leuko 03:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment In my opinion, there is no need for a "Squatting in the UK" page until the section in the squatting page gets big enough for it to deserve its own entry. I think you have missed the context here Leuko and I can only hope you did do some research before making this AfD and then broadening it. If we assume good faith the new pages are branching off from Squatting as I mentioned in my keep vote below ... therefore I think these pages do not need to be deleted but rather if there are issues with the individual lists, then they should be discussed on the lists' respective talk pages. Mujinga 22:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete and delete those other two as well if you want to nominate them. TJ Spyke 02:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: That was done above. Leuko 03:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added the afd notification template to Squats in The Netherlands and Squats in Spain, but there are several other "Squats in" articles, which you should add the template to if you wish to put them under consideration here:. Yomangani talk 09:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, these articles can serve as a basis to generate articles like Squatting in the UK, as suggested above. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unencyclopedic and unmaintainable list that suffers from potential arbitrariness and has verifiability issues as well. Other squat articles should be deleted as well. Eusebeus 09:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - move to Squatting in the UK and expand. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this and similar articles. Entries on "squatting" are one thing, and could perhaps include a list of well-known squats, but this list does not belong in an encuyclopaedia. Emeraude 13:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - move to Squatting in the United Kingdom, broaden focus, WP:CITE and expand. (Otherwise just delete: as it is the article is pretty worthless.) --Mais oui! 20:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Subsequent to the mucking-about with a disruptive page move (which removed the AfD notice): Delete. --Mais oui! 00:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep but on a few provisos, becuase this is a bit of a messy AfD already.
 * I came here becuase i saw Squats in The Netherlands has been put up for deletion, which is a bit strange since it is a perfectly acceptable list of notable squats, being slowly added to over time, with stub pages being added as blue links. It shoots off from the list of notable squats on the Squatting page and that seems entirely reasonable. So keep that page.
 * Keep Squats in Spain too, indeed keep all Squats in X pages if they branch off from the Squatting page, under my reasoning above.
 * Now for the UK i dont think that Squats in UK and Social centers in the United Kingdom are the same thing at all. Often social centres are squatted but not always for example the London Action Resource Centre is a legally owned space, Emmas want to (and mayeb now did) to buy a building etc etc. I think a list of social centres would be useful, and should be linked to from the squatting page. I think for now a list of UK squats should remain on that page until such a time as the list gets big enough to deserve its own page. AND while yer at it, keep to 'the United Kingdom'not 'UK' and 'social centre' not 'social center'!!Mujinga 21:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

*Keep and rename to List of squats in the United Kingdom. Some of the info from the main squatting article should be moved over, and a link should be made from said article. Ultra-Loser Talk 02:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Could be useful, but due to nature of squats list would be too difficult to keep up to date, thus would be unreliable.  Funky Monkey   (talk)  02:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I've just read through the section in the main squatting article and I think that there's more than enough information there already. Unless someone has a huge amount of encyclopedic information concerning the history and culture of squatting native to the UK that would warrant its own article, this list is pure cruft. Ultra-Loser Talk 02:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as list of mostly non-notable transient events (at least there are no sources to the contrary), comparable to e.g. List of broken windows in London. Sandstein 07:49, 10 October 2006 (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.