Deletion of LGB Alliance

Comment: Since this was already rejected as a draft, it perhaps should go back to that state. The fact that someone can dump a bunch of Google hits on the talk page doesn't mean we have {{em|in-depth}} coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources; it means we have lots of at least passing mentions, until source analysis shows depth. I think it's likely this will turn out notable, given the volume of mentions. Regardless, some of the articles on groups like this are strong  candidates because they are written by opponents and are too one-sided to do much with. (See, e.g., my comments at Talk:Women's Liberation Front, a group that seems even less likely to be notable, and which has been treated even less neutrally. Disagreeing with the viewpoint does not give us license to do a hatchet job, this being Wikipedia not Facebook.) PS: I agree with DanielRigal about the off-topic WMG material. And I'm concerned that a recently arrived editor who seems to know an awful lot about process and policy is already hot to label various BLPs as "members" of this group (we don't even know if they have any such thing as a membership structure). I think the disruption potential, especially PoV-pushing against living subjects, is very high here. If this is kept, it will need watchlisters, and people checking "What links here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: and do not history-merge if at all possible; the article does not have the egregious  and  issues that caused me to draft-ify (and eventually stub-ify) the previous article.  Coverage in the Telegraph, the Independent, etc. is enough for GNG
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:BLP)

Comment: Present version is well-sourced and cautiously worded. That there are other unused sources which mention the article subject is ''not'' an argument to ''delete'': quite the opposite. Arguments for deletion on the basis of what they speculate the author's intentions to be, or what they speculate the intentions of other commenters to be, violate |Assume Good Faith. Objections about text that was in a previous draft but not in the article we're discussing are irrelevant. Arguments about the ''past'' consensus about the reliability of PinkNews somehow overriding the ''present'' consensus are just bizarre
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: Per a , there are many, many sources available. Sources include the https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/25/lesbians-facing-extinction-transgenderism-becomes-pervasive/ Telegraph, https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/12/29/eddie-izzard-pronouns-she-her-lgb-alliance-anti-trans-lobby-charlotte-nichols/ Pink News, https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/12/14/lgb-alliance-uk-media-david-paisley-petition-change-uncritical-platform/ Pink News (again), https://www.out.com/transgender/2019/10/25/lgbtq-community-rallies-against-anti-trans-lgb-alliance Out, https://www.icelandreview.com/news/lgbt-spokespeople-doubt-lgb-alliance-will-gain-foothold-in-iceland/ Icelandic Review, https://www.outinperth.com/people-like-us-an-open-letter-to-australian-lesbian-gay-bisexual-alliance/ Out in Perth, https://quillette.com/2019/11/04/meet-the-gay-activists-whove-had-enough-of-britains-ultra-woke-homophobes/ Quillette, https://www.dazeddigital.com/life-culture/article/46586/1/how-people-are-defying-a-new-transphobic-hate-group Dazed Digital, etc. The list goes on. And every one of those articles is from a notable publication, not Reddit or random blogs. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup|AfD is not cleanup
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)