Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Squatting

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Main article

I just turned on my computer to check for instructions on how to remove a pesky splinter, then of course instead ending up copyediting and reformatting our main article, Squatting. Any thoughts on how to improve it in shapre or form? Splinter tips also welcome :) Mujinga (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)