Deletion of High Level Military Group

Comment: Fails , no significant coverage yet
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NORG)

Comment: The policy requires that an "organization ... is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (). It has acquired significant coverage in the newspapers below (all independent of the subject). While the HLMG has an explicit mandate that may very well bias their findings, I will note that political pressure groups are not ipso facto insignificant. Regarding independence, Wikipedia stresses that "independence does not imply even-handedness" (
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG||WP:IS)

Comment: does not meet ; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions and / or self-promotion.  per review of available sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NORG||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: Fails . \\\Septrillion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NORG)

Comment: the HLMG shows up a lot in various sources, including multiple reliable ones. Usually the organisation itself just gets a line or two (it's usually about their report) but sometimes they get significantly more. I need to review the various sources to decide whether I want to put any of them forward as meeting SIGCOV - given that this organisation would be bound by  not merely GNG, the sourcing requirements will be tough. The article (if it can be viewed as such) is not merely extremely lacking it's missing a rather key consideration of HLMG's viewed bias by many
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NORG)

Comment: A political pressure group masquarading as something semi-official.  They have no real notability themselves. Their material may have been used by notable politicians but 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)