Deletion of Get the L Out

Comment: All the RS seem to be about the pride parade event, so this would fail . The other sources are things like opinion pieces, dictionary entries, blogs and positions from organizations
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E)

Comment: 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 , Wikipedia does not exist to promote any society of extremists that give themselves inflated labels based on behaving badly in public
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CLUB)

Comment: Clearly a |news story
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:DUE)

Comment: or '''Merge'''{{snd}}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 , I wouldn't be opposed in theory, but it would have to be carried out in conformance with policy, notably . 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 {{xt|a distinct (and minuscule) minority... would give undue weight to it.}} Note also, that with regard to the legitimate sources now there, Wikipedia:Notability#cite_note-3|Note 3 of the GNG says, {{xt|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 ACT_UP#Wall_Street|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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Merging (WP:MERGE||WP:DUEWEIGHT)

Comment: while the  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, eletion is not cleanup|deletion is not cleanup. Kirbanzo&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E||WP:NPOV||WP:BOLD||WP:D)