Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get the L Out

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 and redirect to Feminist views on transgender topics. There are a lot of non policy based arguments given little weight here. The argument comes down to this being 1E or a FORK as covered elsewhere or both. The sourcing has been discussed in detail and a reasonable.case for failing N has been out forward bearing in mind we don't aggregate minor reports in lieu of a couple of really good sources. If there wasn't already coverage and context elsewhere then this would be NC but since this is already covered and the argument that this should be covered in context then the deletes have this per FORK. The redirect after deletion is an obvious editorial decision. Spartaz Humbug! 05:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Get the L Out[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Get the L Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Brazenly anti-trans POV fork that deserves to be nuked from the orbit. Fringe WP:1E organization that was universally condemned by mainstream LGBT rights groups for its disruption of 2018 London Pride parade. As the parent page Feminist views on transgender topics#Trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs) states that the group of lesbians are a fringe, transphobic minority backed by Christian conservative groups that sought to wrongly portray trans rights as in opposition to feminism, the "blanket initialism", "lesbian erasure" and "influence of gender-identity politics" bits in lead are overtly promotional and factually horseshit. The article itself prominently features large chunks from primary and questionable sources (Medium posts and TERF publications), as well as opinions from other feminists holding this fringe view, with an obligatory "survey report" written as fact from the fringe org itself which is certainly far from a reliable source. Recommend delete and salt, as the parent article already feature this organization's primary event at length. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cautious keep This organisation may be controversial but that does not mean that it isn't notable. If it was widely condemned then that does in a way contribute to its notablity. PatGallacher (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - while the WP:1E is a concern, infamy contributes to notability. Also, this nomination doesn't seem particularly neutral to me, so that also increases my apprehension to deletion. However, the sources do need some improvement, but secondary sources shouldn't be hard to come by. And if the article itself isn't written neutrally, make it neutral yourself, deletion is not cleanup. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 20:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concern is that, after removing all the primary, weak and non-neutral bits (including 2 change.org petitions supported by no secondary sources), the only content worthy to keep was the orgainzation's 2018 disruption and its reactions - which is already fully covered by the parent article as a paragraph. This fails both WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. With no other content, the existence of this article would be an endorsement to the WP:FRINGE organization. My position merely reflects mainstream feminism, which find anti-trans feminists appalling. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sourcing is pretty abysmal, and cutting out the unreliable stuff would leave nothing left. Flashes in the pan don't merit articles. The parent page covers everything that needs to be said, and does it better. XOR'easter (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a fringe extremist group that fails GNG. Troubling weakly related sourcing, and very troubling non-neutral rhetoric that tries to reframe a fringe extremist group as a "campaign" or "movement", when there is no evidence that it is any such thing. Fails to meet WP:CLUB, Wikipedia does not exist to promote any society of extremists that give themselves inflated labels based on behaving badly in public. --Fæ (talk) 09:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is sourced and the content of the article is supported by the sources. The "Get the L Out" movement started in 2015, perhaps not enough time as yet to be included in academic writing, but it has received coverage in reliable secondary sources used in the article such as The Independent, New Statesman, Patheos, BBC News, The Sunday Times, The Spectator, AfterEllen. GtLO has also received coverage, and has been acknowledged, in sources not used as references, for example: Heritage Foundation, The Western Journal, The Guardian, The Federalist, The Resurgent, Iona Institute, Reuters, The Article, Wales Online. What it stands for has drawn the attention of observers within and outside the LGBT community.
    The rationale given for deletion,  "Brazenly anti-trans POV fork that deserves to be nuked from the orbit.,"  reveals that the decision to nominate the article for deletion was based on emotions -- and those emotions obviously clouded the nominee's judgement. POV fork states: "POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first." The claim that it is a "POV fork" of  "the parent page Feminist views on transgender topics#Trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs)"  is unfounded. I created the Get the L Out article and I have not edited the so-called "parent" article. I have neither disagreed nor agreed with an editor of that article. You don't need to waste the time it takes to search for my name in its 8-year edit history, all you simply need to do is go to Wikipedia Page History Statistics >  project en.wikipedia >  page Feminist views on transgender topics >  search ... and scroll down to User statistics. "Pyxis Solitary" is not found because I have never edited that article. To accuse Get the L Out as being a POV fork of any other article is both absurd and a false statement.
    "Get the L Out" is a social movement within the LGBT community. The article about it is as suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia as the Incite! article was when it was created (and that one contains only 9 sources). This is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia provides information some people may not like, but that doesn't make the information unworthy of inclusion in it. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you list undermine your argument. The sources show that newsworthy-ness was all about one event. It is not a campaign, it is not a grassroots movement, it is not representative of something called "Sapphic Community", that's all rhetorical nonsense. Notably, your list does not include the BBC, despite you mentioning it, presumably because you are making claims about notability that are in no way supported by the sources. A handful of extremists trying to disrupt a Pride march and then endlessly blogging about it and claiming to represent lesbians or feminists more widely, does not make their society of friends encyclopaedically notable. --Fæ (talk) 10:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article effectively is a POV fork as it wraps already-covered content with extremely weak, POV, and promotional sourcing to pad its existence. While your willingness to write flowery languages for the fringe extremist org and write its self-victimizations as objective facts in wikivoice is already quite appalling. AfterEllen and FeministCurrent are renowned TERF (fringe anti-trans extremist) publications that certainly aren't reliable sources of any stripe on trans topics. While anti-LBGT conservative lobbyists and sources like Heritage Foundation and The Federalist are, flattering speaking, garbage-tier sources. Other than the primary event was already covered by RS, all the passing mentions and other horseshittery that's left can go to the incinerator. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I have already commented on the article's talk page before this AfD: Of those independent reliable sources that mention "Get the L Out", the BBC and The Independent have only a passing mention, and New Statesman has slightly more than a passing mention. The Reuters article is written by a primary source so is not a valid source. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Questionable edits are now being made to the article that are based on POV. A Heritage Foundation article was removed from the further reading section as a "pointless article from the right wing lobby site". An Uncommon Ground (https://uncommongroundmedia.com/) citation was removed as "an alt-right unreliable site" -- an alt-right website does not include AfterEllen, Vicitim Focus, and Feminist Current as one of its "Friends and Associates". A website that called for GtLO protests was deleted as "a vanity site". Activist edits diminish the purpose of Wikipedia. Pyxis Solitary yak 13:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Part II. Re Biased or opinionated sources:  "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." Re Bias in sources:  "biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone". Pyxis Solitary yak 14:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
¶ Once again, a source has been deleted based on a personal POV that it's "an alt-right website" -- which it isn't. And I'm not aware of a policy that requires a source to exist for a particular length of time before it can be used in an article. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
¶ And if a POV editor can't get his way -- the next step is exercising scare tactics by slapping a discretionary sanctions warning on an editor's talk page 5 minutes (@ 11:18) after adding one to the article (@ 11:13). Pyxis Solitary yak 12:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC) ; edited 21:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE The following comments that follow which have been posted by me, pre-date the above indented comments. Consequently the responses are not made against the later comments above, even though they may read that way. --Fæ (talk) 12:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How would https://www.mayday4women.com be a reliable source? Heritage Foundation is by its mission a right wing lobbying website, their blog added nothing not covered by other sources. By the way, with regard to "karma being an astonishingly real bitch", it would avoid general astonishment at you continuing to load the article with right wing and unreliable sources, if you could make some effort to find a balance in sources rather than pre-loading it with obvious bias. It might also help to work collegiately with others if you did not deride those who disagree with you as all being "activists". Thanks so much!. --Fæ (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you refrain from lurking my talk page. And if you have it on your watchlist, I advise that you remove it. Pyxis Solitary yak 14:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. How does any of that make mayday4women.com a reliable source? --Fæ (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pyxis Solitary: (reply to comment dated UK time 11:41, 21 May 2019) This is an AfD, please stop screwing around with the standard talk page indentation as a grandstanding tactic, especially for comments made by others. It is deliberate disruption making your comments, complaints and misunderstandings of process appear more important than replies which actually do follow standard talk page guidelines. --Fæ (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DS in relation to gender and transgender issues apply to this article. You have never been previous alerted to the fact that DS apply to this topic. If you have a rationale as to why this article should be an exception to the DS, especially considering Arbcom's motion earlier this year which clarified applicability, then make a proposal on the article talk page, preferably one that consists of more than claiming it is "scare tactics bullshit". Thanks so much for your understanding and patient consideration! --Fæ (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just so everyone who read that  ^  understands the what/when: If a Ds/talk notice didn't exist before you pushed the WP:EDITWAR envelope by deleting the same citation 3 times ... you don't have a leg to stand on for posting a Ds/alert on my talk page. You can add a Ds/talk notice, sure, but then rushing to an editor's talk page to post a Ds/alert is absolutely "scare tactics bullshit". Pyxis Solitary yak 00:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't an edit war, but claiming to be so and calling editors removing your truly abysmal and inappropriate sourcing to be POV is an useful tactic. Fae, as much as any other editor, have every right in leaving alert notices as a courtesy when they see you haven't been alerted in the past 6 months, while you have every right to remove it. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 00:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to help everyone understand the wider pattern here, @Pyxis Solitary:, have you blogged or posted about this deletion discussion anywhere? Thanks so much for any clarification. I am sure you understand why canvassing is taken seriously, especially when they include targeted harassment against Wikipedians. --Fæ (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
LoL! Pyxis Solitary yak 09:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but restrict - it is a movement that seems notable, but there are definitely editors involved that appear to have a conflict of interest and lack a neutral point of view.
    Orville1974 (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Subject has adequate notability and uniqueness. A145 (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note this AfD was opened by the same user at roughly the same time as another AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drop the T A145 (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All the sourcing undermines "adequate notability" and "uniqueness" is as empty as it sounds. As for the note: This is absolutely fine. I saw both articles at roughly the same time and thought they're valid AfD candidates. What is it that you're insinuating? Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I know why that is. I created the Drop the T article some days ago and Pyxis Solitary saw it and spotted a screw up on it, they removed it but I think the situation upset them and they created this article as a kind of response. Honestly, I think this subject is even less notable than the article I made, and people have made decent arguments for why that should be deleted/merged.★Trekker (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that I have nothing to do with your article being nominated for deletion, perhaps you should find out why another editor did it. As for my being "upset" over your including an allegation about one (and no other) living person in your article by using a source that specifically states "reportedly", and if you follow the crumbs you discover that what that claim is based on is inaccurate ... well, let's just say that I take my role as a Wikipedia editor seriously because I know that Wikipedia has become the go-to source for information by the general public, students, and many professional writers. So if your conclusion for my providing an explanation of why the living person should not have been singled-out in your article is that I was "upset" -- golly, gee, what other synonym will you go for when another editor bursts your bubble. Pyxis Solitary yak 01:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pyxis Solitary I never once implied that you nominated my article for AFD. Improve your reading comprehension and overreactionary behaviour. I only said that it's clear that your article was created very fast because you saw mine and didn't like it, this lead to this one very logically being nominated for deletion after mine was.★Trekker (talk) 07:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We create articles if and when we want to, and for whatever reason. Mine was indeed "created very fast" -- because it was constructed long before I finally decided to turn it into an article. It was biding its time. Pyxis Solitary yak 08:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:All the RS seem to be about the pride parade event, so this would fail WP:1E. The other sources are things like opinion pieces, dictionary entries, blogs and positions from organizations. Rab V (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re "opinion pieces": if that is considered 'below the bar' for sources used in this article, then Wikipedia has a huge problem because it's not the only article that includes "opinion pieces" (aka opinion articles) as reliable sources -- which include "opinion pieces" in the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Advocate, et al. In fact, here's a bunch of them that The Guardian considers the "60 most-read opinion pieces" of 2015, and there's the "12 most-read" in 2017 according to Wired, etc. etc. etc. When you stop to think about it, other than news reports, academic writing, and research reports, almost every published source used in a Wikipedia article is an "opinion". A film article, for example, includes a "Critical response" section, and film reviews are the opinions of the critics; ergo, "opinion pieces". Suffice it to say that if an "opinion piece" is not good enough for this article ... it's not good enough for any article in Wikipedia.
P.S. This is the article before it got hit with multiple edits after landing here. This is the article right now. Pyxis Solitary yak 02:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is wikipedia policy that opinion pieces are generally not RS, WP:NEWSORG. There are exceptions on if the author is an expert in the field but not met here. Using non-RS sources also sometimes is OK but they are not helpful for proving notability, which is what matters here. Rab V (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject isn't notable, it has little to no coverage in actually reliable sources. The fact that so much coverage from mainstream sources is missing also makes it impossible to have a balanced page honestly, it's just a few POV articles who say the same thing over and over.★Trekker (talk) 07:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Add Honestly, this subject has even less coverage than Drop the T, and that is likely to just be merged to Feminist views on transgender topics, maybe that is the way to go for this page too if people find there is anything worth merging.★Trekker (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the only thing notable about this group is a single event which is already covered by Feminist views on transgender topics. LokiTheLiar (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or Merge – I've gone through all of the references (from a slightly earlier version when there were 21 of them) and they break down into a few categories: a small number of legitimate articles about a single LGBT demonstration on Saturday, July 7, 2018 that was disrupted by a small group (a 2nd one got passing mention), a lot of opinion articles by the "usual suspects" on both sides (which are fine for indicating what their own opinion is, but not for conferring notability), and a lot of padding (references to dictionary lookups of related words, claims of related events or demonstrations where the relationship does not come from the sources, but from editor assumptions, and others). If need be, I'll add the list of references and comment, but perhaps that won't be necessary. As far as a WP:MERGE, I wouldn't be opposed in theory, but it would have to be carried out in conformance with policy, notably WP:DUEWEIGHT. In an article such as Feminist views on transgender topics, in my opinion, this group would be a tiny minority of world opinion on this topic, and per the policy, mentioning a distinct (and minuscule) minority... would give undue weight to it. Note also, that with regard to the legitimate sources now there, Note 3 of the GNG says, Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. The point being, such reliable references as the article does contain that are not opinion articles, all cover the same story and count as one reliable reference about the topic. The main notability I can see, is a highly effective public relations coup by a very small group, that if they could keep it up, might become notable. ACT UP would not have been notable enough after their first demonstration with 250 people in March 1987 and dozens of arrests, but they became notable in time. Get the L Out might in time become notable; they are certainly not notable now. Mathglot (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: What do you think of LGBT#Criticism_of_the_term as a merge target? Do you suppose they're notable enough to merge to / mention there? (If Drop the T were also be merged there, together they could perhaps form a paragraph on 'calls to remove letters' or something.) -sche (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@-sche: They don't have to be notable to be merged there (or anywhere) because notability is a property of a topic, not of article content. Content is governed by other policies, and they likely wouldn't pass the bar for WP:DUEWEIGHT in that section of the article, as currently consituted. If added there, it would be the first allusion to an intractable divide between certain lesbian and trans individuals or groups, and even if it contained such content already, this group would not be the most important instance of it. A possibly better target would be Radical feminism#Views on transgender topics, but I think it would face the same due weight issue there. The problem is to find an article topic of sufficiently narrow scope, that the group would meet the due weight threshold. The likeliest topic, imho would be at "Lesbian erasure", but that article hasn't been written yet. (And this group would still have to be DUE there, if/when it is.) But see Talk:Lesbian erasure. Mathglot (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In the face of this (redacted link to off-wiki canvassing and harassment, refer to explanation below) targeting Fae and me, the consensus for deletion should be clear. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or perhaps merge: I started looking through the references when I saw this AfD yesterday (when I saw the article being added to the see-alsos of articles I watch), and I see Mathglot has already said what I was about to - that they just don't demonstrate enough notability to merit an article. They might be sufficient to merit a mention in some other article, but where? This group/'movement' is accorded too little weight in sources about lesbianism to be WP:DUE much mention in e.g. Lesbian. Perhaps it has enough sourcing to merit a brief mention in the article on feminist stances on trans topics? Or perhaps to [[LGBT#Criticism_of_the_term]]? Tip o' the hat to WanderingWanda for mentioning that article/section in another AfD. If others like that last idea, I don't oppose merging to there in lieu of deleting. (And iff the content is merged to that page or some other page, then IMO obviously the current page should be a redirect to there rather than entirely deleted.) -sche (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and as usual I have a lot to say. I know I am disagreeing here with many editors with whom I usually agree on these issues, and I hope maybe this post will prompt some to change their !votes to keep.
    1. I'm here because I read about this on GenderDesk. Editors can decide if that makes my opinion less valuable.
    2. WP:1E is about biographies of people, which this is not. Even if it were, this would meet 1E, because it's a high-profile group of people, not a low-profile person, and also because the event (the protest) was significant, and the group of people that put it on had a substantial role in it. But 1E isn't really applicable, so let's put that aside. (Also, just a side-note, 1E doesn't mean we delete an article just because it's based on one event. Many article subjects are notable for one event, such as Lee Harvey Oswald. Editors often forget the high-profile/low-profile distinction and the significant event/substantial role exception.)
    3. The protest, as an event, meets WP:NEVENT. The coverage that satisfies GNG also satisfies NEVENT.
    4. Although the article says it's about a protest, "Get the L Out" isn't just one protest that happened last summer, it's now an ongoing advocacy group and has continued beyond the one protest, as documented by the RSes.
    5. The group/movement "Get the L Out" meets GNG by a mile, with WP:SUSTAINED, international WP:SIGCOV. We're well past WP:THREE: The Independent 7 Jul 2018, BBC 8 Jul 2018, BBC 9 Jul 2018, BBC 21 Jul 2018, The Spectator's blog 31 Jul 2018, NBC 14 Jan 2019, Reuters 15 March 2019, dueling opinion pieces published by Thomson Reuters Foundation News on 12 Apr 2019 (pro) and 15 Apr 2019 (con), and Wales Online 5 May 2019.
    6. Fringe? Reprehensible? So is Ku Klux Klan. We don't delete articles for this reason. In fact, quite the opposite, we document a whole bunch of notable fringe groups, specifically so people will know that they're fringe. It would be an oversight for us not to have an article about this group. Yes, the article has to be neutral, it has to be based on RSes (and not fringe sources), etc., but those are all reason to edit the article, not delete it.
    7. In this case, I think we have enough content from the sources that if we said everything we have to say about this group over at LGBT, it would be WP:UNDUE, making it seem like they're the major "countermovement" to "the LGBT movement". See WP:PAGEDECIDE for an explanation of this. An accurate stand-alone article would be better.
    8. Finally, because it's a recent (less than a year old) and ongoing (most recent source is from this month) advocacy group, I think it's quite likely that there will be more sources published in the future, and thus the article could expand. This is another reason for a stand-alone article (again see PAGEDECIDE). It's notable, there's enough sourced content for a full article, and good possibility of future expansion because it's ongoing, so keep. – Levivich 17:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per RS, There really aren't anything else that worth mentioning other than the initial disruption and its consequences, which our parent article already documents in detail. I agree that other than the parent article, this content isn't suitable anywhere else on this project as it would constitute WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. But I'm also more convinced by Mathglot's quotes and reasoning above. Futurism is not a determinator at all. If the group has made more publicity stunts or other reprehensible stuff, people can recreate the article and have this discussion again. But until then, the dumpster is in order. Also, Lev, I think you owe all of us an explanation on why the fuck would you read a terf blog this timely. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tsumi, just to be clear, because it doesn't translate in text, "I read about this" was past tense, as in I saw the post, not present tense, as in I am on ongoing reader. And "read" wasn't really accurate, more like "skimmed". I didn't really notice whatever it was they said about you and Fae, and I'm not going to go back to look now, but I can gather from the comments here that whatever it was was pretty awful, so I wanted to say I'm sorry you both were subjected to that. I just wanted to be up front that I came here from a link on that website, since there are canvassing concerns. – Levivich 00:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, I can't imagine how you see it as meeting WP:NEVENT. Where are the lasting effects on society and law? Where's the in-depth analysis in books, the feature-length articles in major magazines, the TV coverage on 60 Minutes and Newsnight? Where's the continuing coverage outside of spikes of news reporting shortly after an event?
Per WP:WHYN: If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. The content in this article already contains things of such earth-shaking importance as the actual text of the individual placards carried by protesters, and the exact number of people signing up for online petitions. The article contains about one or two sentences worth of reliable content, padded with as much chaff as could be acquired.
It would be ironic indeed, if this group continues to have an article, and the event they disrupted, the 2018 Pride in London event, with 500 groups and one million in attendance, does not. Mathglot (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, I can't imagine how you're skipping over three stories in the BBC over multiple news cycles, plus NBC, Reuters, and others writing about it a year later. I posted 10 of the most-mainstream RSes I could find, and there are more posted by another editor up above. In addition, here are two more from this month: [1] [2]. The Wales Online story is about a separate protest that occurred this month. There is in-depth, international coverage of this lasting a full year after the first protest. We can argue WP:PAGEDECIDE, but I don't think there is any argument that this group hasn't received WP:SIGCOV meeting GNG. I think the most WP:DUE place for this content is in a stand-alone article, because it would be UNDUE or otherwise inappropriate (too high profile) in any other article, like LGBT, and it would be just a glaring omission if we omitted this entire group from the encyclopedia. (Especially if we omitted it because we disagree with their politics–that's a blatant violation of NPOV. We cover racists, we cover sexists, we cover transphobes, etc.). And, BTW, we do have an article about Pride in London, but it would be undue to include content about this group in the 2018 section of that article. – Levivich 00:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, you are confusing a protest by the Lesbian Rights Alliance with the informal group "Get the L Out", who were not there.
Secondly The off-wiki rant you are mentioning, and were directed here from, is targeted harassment against Wikipedians. It is highly likely that a person writing on this AfD is also responsible for creating the off-wiki harassment in an attempt to manipulate this vote, they may also be responsible for anti-trans death threats a couple of days ago. I have removed the link to that site from this discussion and ask that everyone here respects its removal, it is in no way germane to the content of this AfD. If anyone has further information that could support sanctions being taken on Wikipedia, they can email me any evidence in confidence or email a member of the WMF Trust and Safety team. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wales Online wrote, on 5 May 2019: Get the L Out are a group of lesbians opposing what they describes as "the increasingly anti-lesbian and misogynistic GBT movement and the erasure of lesbians". Members believe lesbian rights are under attack by the trans movement and they are encouraging lesbians everywhere to leave the GBT and form their own independent movement. They took part in the Swansea Pride march yesterday at around 11.15am, carrying banners which read "transactivism erases lesbians" and "lesbians don’t have penises". (bold mine) So they did a protest in London in 2018 and then they did a protest in Swansea in 2019. What am I confusing? – Levivich 15:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I was going by the Stonewall demonstration that you linked to above. I would avoid exaggerating the Swansey incident, this was in fact 2 people with a home made banner who did not actually manage to disrupt the Pride march. They jumped out and walked backwards for about 30 seconds, not actually delaying anything, before police politely walked them back to the pavement. Though the 2 women claim to be "Get the L Out", it is unclear whether they were in any way actually connected to the informal group apparently created by Angela Wild. The risk for Wikipedia is mistaking people effectively promoting a Twitter hash tag for a coordinated group. If the Wikipedia article is about how people use the phrase "get the L out" rather than the informal group, it's not an especially strong way to justify a separate article from the potential parent.
Let's keep a sense of proportion. Pride London this year has 585 registered groups, and there will in addition be a few people protesting or waiving banners in the streets alongside who are not registered. Our CLUB guideline means that 95% or more of those different groups will never have a Wikipedia article, even if they have hundreds of members or have been around protesting for decades. The only difference between those groups and "Get the L Out", is how popular the hashtag was, how "lesbian riots" and anti-trans quotes like "raping lesbians" are great fodder for lazy journalists who basically end up reprinting bizarre tweets rather than fact based journalism. --Fæ (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only reliable sources about the movement refer to one incident described adequately in the parent article. Also comment: the content of the canvassing is also a pretty vile personal attack on multiple editors here. Anyone brought over from there should be very, very careful to consider whether they are contributung in an unbiased fashion. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 18:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly a news story. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. One day, this group may have done enough to warrant an article, but at this point it seems to be borderline and the risk that it becomes a POV battleground puts it over the edge for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StudiesWorld (talk • contribs) 20:28, May 22, 2019 (UTC)
Weak delete - Thinking more about what Levivich said, I agree with much of it, but I still think that for now, it is not independently notable. StudiesWorld (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge/refactor Seems to have received a fair amount of publicity, but may not last. There seems to be a movement here (see Drop the T, but I suspect its not important enough for its own article. So merge the two (and any otther related articles) into one article.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Get_the_L_Out&oldid=898991071"