Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Militant Forces Against Huntingdon Life Sciences

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. NW (Talk) 02:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Militant Forces Against Huntingdon Life Sciences[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe this "name" is notable per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), all the evidence points to the fact they are simply another front for the ALF (tellingly, the license for the main image illustrating the groups "work" states Images taken by the Animal Liberation Front and uploaded to Bite Back Magazine are always public domain.) Most of the sources provided at self-published via Bite Back. The only 3rd party sources that even mention them are a few newspaper reports, and they are reporting the attacks, rather then provide significant coverage to them as a group, their aims or objectives. We've been through this before, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Students and Workers for the Liberation of UCLA Primates. At best, this "name" should have a brief mention in the ALF and/or SHAC articles and the title redirected there. Rockpocket 16:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions and posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights. —Rockpocket 16:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone researching this article should be mindful of the risks involved in visiting 'extremist' websites. Jørdan 04:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify they are not another ALF front, like for example the Oxford Arson Squad, but like the Animal Liberation Brigade for example, as they oppose the ALF ideology as stated in the article. Because they posted to Bite Back Magazine it would be public domain, so I put what I put on the description to show that for MFAH it would be the same as well, admittedly not very clearly though. I've taken out the others section, as I realise it doesn't have a second notable source, however the two actions against the Novartis CEO were major news at the time with thousands of articles in Europe and the arson at highgate farm was reported on in the UK. I know its not much, but what has been reported they have received a fair amount of coverage for, I just didn't think I needed to include that many sources. Whereas before I had overlooked before that the UCLA individuals had only one or two attacks reproted in the same article and may not be an established group. In contrast MFAH claim to be as, as reported by the media. Maybe it should try be shortened further first similar to how other AR groups pages were before they expanded? (ThompsonFest (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Comment. Its well established (and covered in the ALF and SHAC pages) that the same groups of people use names like these to carry out illegal or violent acts, while maintaining ideologically clean fronts under a different name (i.e. the "non-violent" ALF or the legal SHAC). My point is that we don't have any reliable sources that tells us anything about this group or their ideology. Unlike the ALF or Justice Dept, which are discussed at some length in books, sociology literature and the news media, the only third-party sources that even mention these groups are news reports of the direct action, with trivial coverage along the lines "...and the attack was claimed by X."

It is telling that a report in the Daily Telegraph is cited in support of one of their attacks [1] and yet the report doesn't even mention this group, instead most of it is about SHAC, with the police claiming they were investigating all possible angles – “including SHAC”. I suspect that is because the newspaper is well aware of what is covered in the SHAC article: that the "legal" core of SHAC and the individuals that carry out illegal direct action in other guises have proven time and again to be one and the same. Likewise, the BBC report of the Highgate Farm arson doesn't mention the group either [2], never mind discuss it in any significant way.

WP:N requires we have reliable, third party sources about the subject of an article (i.e. in this case, the group); that significant coverage just doesn't exist for this group (as of yet). Until that time, this should redirect to SHAC and a brief mention of this front should be made on that page. Rockpocket 18:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 5 gnews hits in August 2009 means it fails WP:GNG. [3]. LibStar (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.