The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Previously ended up being soft deleted due to lack of participation. Someone WP:REFUND however no compelling sources have been offered. The article from the very beginning was sourced almost entirely from the The Ubyssey which is like a local paper. Another from a different college paper by the same author. I find that this former squat house of the local interest doesn't pass WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:NORG and in determining/ WP:SIRS, series of coverage by the same publisher or journalist is considered one source. The student paper as well as local centric sources fail the audience base, because it is a intended for Vancouver area coverage. It also appears that the article's creator was an involved party of the article. Graywalls ( talk) 01:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, to the contrary: local history books are often very good sources, especially compared to the alternative such as robot-creating articles from GNIS database entries. I have found, for example, the Arcadia Publishing ones invaluable for rewriting things such as Robert, California ( AfD discussion) or Escalle, Larkspur, California, and equally for filtering out truly non-notable things like The Arboretum, Charlotte ( AfD discussion). Local history books point the way, and newspapers and other stuff flesh thing out, correct errors, and suchlike.
This subject is another case in point. The only major coverage that I could find, stating how important the author thought it was, turned out to be authored by one of the squatters. And the article started out sourced to squatter press releases. There's a lot more independent coverage of " Woodsquat" at Woodward's department store in Vancouver than there is of this. It's that that has actually escaped its authors/creators and been independently documented in depth, with background and analysis. A geography professor has discussed it, for example, in Blomley 2004, pp. 39–50, as has another professor, in a university press book ( Robertson 2011) . (There is nothing similar for this squat that I can find.) The erstwhile photograph manager of the Vancouver Sun includes it, per xyr talk on these sorts of things and presumably in the connected book Bird & Demers 2017. That is definitely multiple people.
And once again Special:Whatlinkshere/Woodsquat tells us that we did not even know that we did not have this.
And if the squat that I hyperlinked isn't an organization or a company, then this also a squat isn't either; not that that matters because these principles apply well to everything, from beetles to squats.
at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary, which the source linked above and the documentary appear to satisfy), and there is another source, albeit from a student writing on a Pacific Rim College website in 2018, that describes the Frances Street Squats as "one of the largest and most notable public squats in Canadian history," which suggests that additional sources may WP:NEXIST. The article also is already more than a stub, which is part of what the WP:ORGDEPTH guideline seems concerned with avoiding. Beccaynr ( talk) 03:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization(emphasis added), and it includes reporting on the Frances Street Squats and the reference to a screening of the documentary as part of the larger opinion article, which both seem to emphasize the enduring notability of the Frances Street Squats long past the initial burst of news coverage. Beccaynr ( talk) 03:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material,and it does not appear to be a trivial mention per that guideline due to the commentary and context, nor within the list of examples of what constitutes trivial coverage in WP:ORGDEPTH, e.g.
listings and mentions not accompanied by commentary. Beccaynr ( talk) 04:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Delete The coverage highlighted above is not sufficient, it fails WP:GNG - the coverage in independent sources is not in-depth - I’m sure I could find a similar depth of coverage about my local grocery store. Additionally WP:ORG is the relevant policy and that requires a greater depth of non-local coverage than GNG. Those arguing it is not an organisation but a collection of buildings should consider that it obviously fails WP:NBUILD too. -- Pontificalibus 11:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Previously ended up being soft deleted due to lack of participation. Someone WP:REFUND however no compelling sources have been offered. The article from the very beginning was sourced almost entirely from the The Ubyssey which is like a local paper. Another from a different college paper by the same author. I find that this former squat house of the local interest doesn't pass WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:NORG and in determining/ WP:SIRS, series of coverage by the same publisher or journalist is considered one source. The student paper as well as local centric sources fail the audience base, because it is a intended for Vancouver area coverage. It also appears that the article's creator was an involved party of the article. Graywalls ( talk) 01:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, to the contrary: local history books are often very good sources, especially compared to the alternative such as robot-creating articles from GNIS database entries. I have found, for example, the Arcadia Publishing ones invaluable for rewriting things such as Robert, California ( AfD discussion) or Escalle, Larkspur, California, and equally for filtering out truly non-notable things like The Arboretum, Charlotte ( AfD discussion). Local history books point the way, and newspapers and other stuff flesh thing out, correct errors, and suchlike.
This subject is another case in point. The only major coverage that I could find, stating how important the author thought it was, turned out to be authored by one of the squatters. And the article started out sourced to squatter press releases. There's a lot more independent coverage of " Woodsquat" at Woodward's department store in Vancouver than there is of this. It's that that has actually escaped its authors/creators and been independently documented in depth, with background and analysis. A geography professor has discussed it, for example, in Blomley 2004, pp. 39–50, as has another professor, in a university press book ( Robertson 2011) . (There is nothing similar for this squat that I can find.) The erstwhile photograph manager of the Vancouver Sun includes it, per xyr talk on these sorts of things and presumably in the connected book Bird & Demers 2017. That is definitely multiple people.
And once again Special:Whatlinkshere/Woodsquat tells us that we did not even know that we did not have this.
And if the squat that I hyperlinked isn't an organization or a company, then this also a squat isn't either; not that that matters because these principles apply well to everything, from beetles to squats.
at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary, which the source linked above and the documentary appear to satisfy), and there is another source, albeit from a student writing on a Pacific Rim College website in 2018, that describes the Frances Street Squats as "one of the largest and most notable public squats in Canadian history," which suggests that additional sources may WP:NEXIST. The article also is already more than a stub, which is part of what the WP:ORGDEPTH guideline seems concerned with avoiding. Beccaynr ( talk) 03:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization(emphasis added), and it includes reporting on the Frances Street Squats and the reference to a screening of the documentary as part of the larger opinion article, which both seem to emphasize the enduring notability of the Frances Street Squats long past the initial burst of news coverage. Beccaynr ( talk) 03:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material,and it does not appear to be a trivial mention per that guideline due to the commentary and context, nor within the list of examples of what constitutes trivial coverage in WP:ORGDEPTH, e.g.
listings and mentions not accompanied by commentary. Beccaynr ( talk) 04:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Delete The coverage highlighted above is not sufficient, it fails WP:GNG - the coverage in independent sources is not in-depth - I’m sure I could find a similar depth of coverage about my local grocery store. Additionally WP:ORG is the relevant policy and that requires a greater depth of non-local coverage than GNG. Those arguing it is not an organisation but a collection of buildings should consider that it obviously fails WP:NBUILD too. -- Pontificalibus 11:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)