Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Squatting

Latest comment: 2 months ago by Asilvering in topic New article
WikiProject iconSquatting NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Squatting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of squatting on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
NAThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Eviction of La Ruina and El Kubo


Two of Barcelona's highest-profile occupied social centres were evicted recently.[1][2] Located in Barcelona's richest district, they've been a point of contention for quite some time, with some protests by right-wing groups demanding their eviction happening around this year's election. Thought I'd mention it here, in case anyone's interested in writing about them. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Interesting, they were owned by a bad bank. Thanks for the tip! Mujinga (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
This got me thinking about squats (or similar) that have pages in other language wikis but not on english wikipedia:

Reference lists:

Gauging interest in a broader tenant rights and history group


Hi! I'm LoomCreek and a member of the New York Housing and Tenant Rights Task Force where we've been documenting the history of land ownership and tenant advocacy in the state and city.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist and I want to gauge interest in creating a larger task force for worldwide history and/or more regionally specific ones. If interested, please add your username to sandbox/Housing and Tenant Rights, let us know about what your interests are and whether you'd prefer a regional task force, a world-wide wikiproject, or both. In a couple weeks we'll start creating them based on requests (5+ for a regional task force, 10+ for a wikiproject). Best regards, LoomCreek (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the headsup I'll add a comment now Mujinga (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

New article


I'm in a bit of pickle over a new article (Miguel A. Martínez) which has been added to WP:SQUAT. Looking at it I can see one book review and lots of puff, some of it unreferenced. It's mainly written by a single purpose account which I think has a very high chance of a conflict of interest, particularly because the same account also added a wrongly licensed photo of the article subject on commons. @Asilvering hope you don't mind the ping, you approved the draft (and added a BLP tag which was taken away again), and I was wondering why you think the subject is notable? I'm probably missing something but I don't think they are notable under GNG, or under NACADEMIC since their google scholar account gives high numbers yet is clearly confused with a prolific scientist. I have interacted with this person IRL so feel like I should not get more involved but I do think the article is not encyclopedic and at very least needs a COI tag. What do other people think? Mujinga (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hm, that's irritating that the tag was removed. But he does appear to meet WP:NPROF, or at least close enough to be worth discussing at AFD. This article is his, right? I'm not seeing the prolific scientist in his google scholar results. -- asilvering (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sorry yes you are right, if I click through from that article you linked, I don't see the scientist and then the impact does seem marginally notable.Mujinga (talk) 08:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I went deeper into the article and just found it puff basically. The book review that was on the article was written by someone in the same research centre?! But I did find another review, otherwise I would've been off to AfD. Instead I've queried if there is a conflict of interest. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Do feel free to remove content that you think is overly promotional. An AfC accept just means I think it will survive AfD and doesn't have anything so egregiously wrong with it that it can't be fixed with normal editing. (I definitely did not notice that the book review was written by someone in th same research centre, wtf?!) -- asilvering (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply