Deletion of Get the L Out

Comment: 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: https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/why-the-lgbt-alliance-could-be-the-brink-schism   ''Heritage Foundation'', https://www.westernjournal.com/lgbt-groups-clash-get-the-l-out-shows-up-pride-parade/  ''The Western Journal'', https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/08/london-pride-organisers-say-sorry-after-anti-trans-group-leads-march  ''The Guardian'', https://thefederalist.com/2018/07/10/lesbians-accused-hate-crimes-objecting-transgenderism-london-pride-festival/  ''The Federalist'', https://theresurgent.com/2019/02/27/lesbians-are-realizing-trans-is-not-their-friend/  ''The Resurgent'', https://ionainstitute.ie/news-roundup/gay-women-block-uk-pride-march-to-protest-male-transgender-women/  ''Iona Institute'', https://www.reuters.com/article/britain-lgbt-rights/trans-debate-rages-around-the-world-pitting-lgbt-community-against-itself-idUSL1N2121Q1  ''Reuters'', https://www.thearticle.com/can-biological-males-be-lesbians/  ''The Article'',  https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/lesbian-protesters-clash-police-security-16228379  ''Wales Online''. What it stands for has drawn the attention of observers within and outside the LGBT community.  The rationale given for deletion, &nbsp;"{{tq|Brazenly anti-trans POV fork that deserves to be nuked from the orbit.}},"&nbsp; 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  &nbsp;"{{tq|the parent page Feminist views on transgender topics#Trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs)}}"&nbsp; 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 http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl  Wikipedia Page History Statistics > &nbsp;project en.wikipedia > &nbsp;page Feminist views on transgender topics > &nbsp;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 Wikipedia:Don't lie|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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)