Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Students and Workers for the Liberation of UCLA Primates

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. — Aitias // discussion 15:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Students and Workers for the Liberation of UCLA Primates[edit]

I don't believe this group is notable per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). They (if they are a "they") are responsible for a couple of minor attacks in the LA area. The only 3rd party source that mentions them is the UCLA student newspaper and only then to report on the attacks, rather then give significant coverage to them as a group, their aims or objectives. In fact, we have no 3rd party sources that states what their goal is, who they are, or what their methods are. Most damning of all, the communiques are signed in all lower case, which rather suggests the "students and workers for the liberation of UCLA primates" is descriptive rather than the title of a defined entity as the article appears to suggest. Rockpocket 23:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to North American Animal Liberation Press Office. I don't think sufficient notability is established as an independent article, but the verifiable content is definitely good to reinforce notability of the North American article. MuZemike (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although i wonder if they are a registered student group... Amerique^dialectics 06:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Organization has received significant coverage from secondary sources meeting WP:ORG. Besides the references already provided in the article, I found this sources: 1, 2, 3, 4. This doesn't fall under WP:ONEEVENT, because the organization will continue to act until “at some point the university will stop or people doing the research will come to their senses.” and the LAPD and FBI are investigating the organization. --Jmundo (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the problem with this argument is that, under the leaderless resistance model under which AR people take direct action, the same people recycle names depending on the nature of the "attack", the city, the target, the particular sub-campaign it falls under etc. In this post 9/11 world, the attacks inevitably get reported giving them a claim of notability, but the inferred group behind it (in reality, its a front) isn't notable unless we have reliable sources telling us something significant about them. The sources you provide give only trivial coverage of the "group" behind the crime (it tells us they claimed the action... and thats about all). Moreover, how does the fact "they" claim they will continue to act mean that WP:ONEEVENT isn't relevant? Do we any secondary sources that tell us that? Even then, isn't that rather WP:CRYSTALish? The reality is the "group" is simply the same handful of people that signed their last action ALF, or ARM, or JD or RCLAB. Those groups have third party sources about them, rather than simply reports on an action signed as them. That is a key difference. Finally, you'll note that the sources state that the LAPD and FBI are investigating the attack, not the organization (because, presumably, they too are aware that it doesn't actually exist in any meaningful way). Rockpocket 23:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand your arguments, maybe they don't meet WP:organization because of the nature of the "group". What I can't understand is why we can't have an article about this "group" which actions got the attention of the FBI (notability). The article doesn't claim that the group is a registered organization. The article says that the group is "claiming to be students and workers at UCLA." This is not crystalish, article was created in December (WP:No deadline).--Jmundo (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:CRYSTAL definitely applies here. Also, FYI...they are NOT a registered student organization at UCLA. If they were, the UCLA Center for Student Programming would have them listed as such on this site. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. We don't even have evidence that the group exists; only some "so-called communiqué" claiming responsibility. I agree that WP:CRYSTAL applies too - lets see if the group gains real-world legitimacy/notoriety before writing up a wikipedia article. Abecedare (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rockpocket. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly merge (Animal Liberation Press Office would be a possible target, but there's not really much content worth keeping). The guideline WP:NOTNEWS would seem to apply here - this organisation, if it even exists, has not achieved lasting notability. Terraxos (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Abecedare. -- 68.183.104.7 (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2009 (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.