Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunt Retribution Squad


 * 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. 28bytes (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hunt Retribution Squad
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Group never appeared to exist in an official sense, and their existence is hard to prove- it was just the name temporarily used by a few animal rights activists involved in other organisations. One ever two incidents actually occurred where those involved called themselves the 'Hunt Retribution Squad'. As said, these people has links to other groups, so I think that their actions could instead be put under the Animal Liberation Front or the Hunt Saboteurs Association page
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 20.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  22:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The Hunt Retribution Squad is unique from all other groups as they have chosen extremely high profile victims and have taken extreme measures. They should not be placed in a larger group as they have come from them to create what they are.

The question is though, can they be classed as a group? There were, after all, only three incidents which occurred where they used this name, and only one high profile (or serious) one so I wonder if it justifies an article on them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Htinfo123 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - if the existence of the group cannot be reliably shown, then it doesn't need an article. Even if it's an umbrella term for people, that's still not article-worthy. It might justify a redirect to Animal rights activists though, or something similar. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. As Luke said, if the existence of the group can't be verified, we can't have an article. Beyond that, they seem to have had relatively little impact and taken little action, which brings notability into question as well. Ducknish (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- unless some one can provide reliable evidecne that this exists as an organised group, rahter than being a handful of self-appointed extremists on the fringes of more organised hunt protest groups. Since their activities probably involve illegal acts, that will be difficult.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 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.