Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGB Alliance
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
— User:SMcCandlish, 18:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:TNT (Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over)