The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Too many WP:NPOV issues plagued this article and it was WP:DRAFTified. This is a duplicate of the draft article. Elizium23 (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate in draftspace, not ready for mainspace. Oh wait, that already happened: Draft:LGB Alliance. What's this for then? A circumvention of process regardless of intention. Delete this. Crossroads-talk- 20:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there are a very large number of reliable sources available on the topic to expand the article including multiple articles from The Guardian, Pink News, BBC News, The Independent, The Telegraph, Attitude and single articles from The Herald, Polygon,The Scottish Parliament and Loughborough University. See a full list on the article talk page. --Trinkt der Bauer und fährt Traktor (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Please explain why the problems with Draft:LGB Alliance are being attributed to this article? It has no shared text and none of the source verification problems. Battleofalma (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the problem with the previous article (moved to Draft) is maintaining NPOV, but the current article (in spite of the gratuitous tag) complies with NPOV and MOS standards. It must continue to do so, but in any event AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Newimpartial (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have a problem though. If we keep this article and keep the draft then we have two, competing articles on identical topics. Which one do I edit? Which one do I watchlist? How does a draftspace article have any hope of being accepted into mainspace if there's already a competing article there? There can be only one. Elizium23 (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The policy-complant course, after the AfD is over, would be to Merge the page histories and the Talk histories (unless the result here is Delete, of course). Newimpartial (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial, the honorable thing to do would be for the creator to merge this one into the draft, regardless of AFD status, and CSD the mainspace article so that we can continue the draft incubation as planned. Elizium23 (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When the article was not NPOV,-compliant, there was a reason for draftification. This is not true of the current article, however. Newimpartial (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't seem complicated. Delete the non-compliant draft. I'm not sure the creator would oppose. Battleofalma (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not complicated at all. Happens frequently. That isn't a valid reason to argue for deletion. --Kbabej (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is nothing more than a copy of the Draft that was rejected by multiple editors for being an overtly biased and politicised attempt to call LGB Alliance a "hate group" because a particular group of editors dislikes them. It is in no way encyclopedic and should not be on Wikipedia. There appears to be yet a third version of this same biased Draft still being worked on by the original creator (who wrote in their bio that they created their anonymous account purely to work on articles on "hate groups") in their Sandbox. Wikipedia is not for personal vendettas against organizations we disagree with. This should be deleted immediately. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in the body of the article is the LGB Alliance referred to as a "hate group", so you've actually made up part of the article to describe as politicised. Suggest you reconsider your reasoning for supporting deletion. Battleofalma (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was clearly a reference to the original creator having written this after declaring that their anonymous account was created specifically to work on articles about "hate groups". This article is just as biased and un-encyclopedic as it was when it was rejected previously. There is no attempt at fair coverage and the heavy use of very biased sources such as Pink News has continued. This is a hit piece and nothing more, and a blatant attempt to skirt the process by which it was already rejected. Delete. Lilipo25 (talk)
I would encourage you to look at WP:RSP where Pink News has been listed as "Generally reliable in its areas of expertise". By describing Pink News as "very biased sources", I think that is showing you are not looking at the sources objectively. --Kbabej (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pink News has a warning on it that caution should be used in relying on it as a source in that listing. It is not an objective source (and was listed as an unreliable source not fit for Wikipedia at all just last year, before those who wanted to use it for exactly this sort of bias immediately re-opened a new RFC because they didn't like the results of the first one and screamed down all objections.Heck, Pink News' editor-in-chief himself took part to insist it should be used as a Wikipedia source, and how that was permitted I'll never understand). Lilipo25 (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is water under the bridge. It's obviously listed as a green-listed source now, and your dredging up old RFCs isn't relevant to this discussion except showing you aren't prepared to accept community consensus at RFC. Characterizing arguments other editors make as "screaming" isn't helpful. --Kbabej (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - I should have said WP:Bludgeoning. A particular group suddenly all appears together and attacks anyone who disagrees that Pink News' horribly biased attack pieces are a reliable source and then just won't let up until they've chased all dissenting opinions away. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The claim "created their anonymous account purely to work on articles on 'hate groups'" is false and I invite User:Lilipo25 to strike both versions of it; what is actually written on the user's page is "to write articles about hate groups, racism, conspiracy theories and other difficult subjects that would be very difficult with my other account which has quite a lot of personal information." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will remove the word "purely" and nothing else. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way User:Pigsonthewing, your quote is in fact NOT what the creator's bio said when they created the biased article at all - most of that was added after receiving criticism for creating what appeared to several people to be an anonymous WP:SPA in order to use Wikipedia to attack LGB Alliance. At the time, their bio said only "Hallo, I've been editing Wikipedia for around 10 years, I've created this second anonymous account for privacy to write articles about hate groups and other difficult subjects.". Lilipo25 (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You made your false claims on 27 January; the wording I cite was added on 16 January. And even the old, pre-16 January, wording which you now quote does not support your false claims - one of which you have still not struck. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My "claim" was that the author had stated they created their account to write about 'hate groups' when they created the original article, which this article copies from. That article was created on 15 January and heavily criticized on 16 January for being the work of an SPA, which is when they added the extra wording. Now you have made a false claim about me, twice, by misrepresenting what I said, and I would appreciate it i you would stop doing so. Lilipo25 (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your original claim, which I have already quoted verbatim, was "created their anonymous account purely to work on articles on 'hate groups'" (diff 1); once I pointed out that that was false, you struck one word from it, but you did not strike your other, also false, claim, which was that the "anonymous account was created specifically to work on articles about 'hate groups'" (diff 2). Both of those claims were signed, by you, on this page, on 27 January. None of my statements are false, neither have I misrepresented what you said, and all the evidence is logged in the history of this and other pages, where anyone may review it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And yet again, you have deliberately misrepresented what I said, after I asked you to stop, by cutting off the part of the sentence which shows you were wrong while quoting me. Despicable behavior. The full quote is the original creator, who wrote in their bio that they created their anonymous account to work on articles on "hate groups", which they did. Those were their own words. You cut off the part where I said they wrote that in their bio when quoting me to make it sound like my opinion. Stop. It is telling that those of us who vote against these Pink News hit pieces on feminist or lesbian groups/figures never seem to feel the need to pile onto the votes of those who vote 'keep', but instead concentrate on giving our own votes, while those who work to keep Wikipedia as biased as possible against all feminist and lesbian subjects never fail to do the opposite. Every time.Lilipo25 (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very well; your original claims, in full, were "There appears to be yet a third version of this same biased Draft still being worked on by the original creator (who wrote in their bio that they created their anonymous account purely to work on articles on "hate groups") in their Sandbox." and "That was clearly a reference to the original creator having written this after declaring that their anonymous account was created specifically to work on articles about "hate groups"." (diffs as above). I note that you have omitted the word "purely" in your latest attempt to deny the former; and "specifically " from your attempt to deny the latter, neither of which are, as you claim "the full quote"; it is not me who has "deliberately misrepresented" what you said. Both claims remain false. You have still stuck only one word from one, and none of the second. The evidence remains in the history for all to see. As for your fatuous comment about "the need to pile onto the votes...", I have said nothing about your views on the article, or the sources; I have not called on others to discount your comments, nor attempted to change your mind; I have simply addressed only your egregious and unacceptable misrepresentation of a fellow editor. Your further, and snide, allusion to "those who work to keep Wikipedia as biased as possible against all feminist and lesbian subjects" is also utterly unacceptable in this context. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can keep repeating that I have "still only struck one word from the first and none from the second" from now until next month, and it still won't happen. Because I told you from the start that is ALL I would remove, since the rest of it is completely accurate. And I really don't care how many times you order me to do otherwise. It's not happening. (By the way, you lied again - I didn't even quote "the latter" so I couldn't have "omitted 'specifically' from it" as you falsely claim. I omitted 'purely' from the one quote I DID make because it is struck out. I am growing inclined, however, to put it back since you won't stop carrying on about it). I didn't "egregiously misrepresent" your "fellow editor", either - they ARE a single-purpose anonymous account created to depict groups with which they personally disagree in a negative light, and they don't even have the courage to do it with their own account. Their original draft was one of the most outrageously un-encyclopedic, biased, vicious attacks on a subject I have ever seen anyone attempt to slip onto Wikipedia, and anyone who has been editing for "ten years" as they claim would know that it violated every rule in the Wikipedia handbook. Your personal affront at the slight to their honor is, frankly, peculiar. Now try concentrating on your OWN opinion of the article and stop spending all your time carrying on about mine.Lilipo25 (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that there is zero attempt in the article to use balanced sources. The author has used only those which are heavily critical of LGB Alliance's views and completely omitted numerous articles (from far less biased sources than Pink News) which depict the organization and its work in either a favorable or neutral light. Omitting one point of view is not in any way adhering to NPOV, as some users are claiming here.
There have been articles defending LGB Alliance and denying that it is a hate group, or discussing its POV and campaigns (as well as the criticism of it) in reliable sources like The Spectator (The Disgraceful Crusade Against the LGB Alliance[1]), The Guardian (Before We Hurl Insults Around About 'Transphobes', Let's Be Clear About What We Mean[2], Spiked (The Trans War on Same-Sex Attraction[3] and The Woke War on Lesbians[4]) and The Times ('Anti-women trans policy may split Stonewall[5], Trans People are Real, But So Is Biology[6] and Stonewall Has Lost Its Way On the Trans Issue[7]), just for starters. Yet none of them have been used here. Surely the author found these articles when googling for sources, but everything that isn't critical of the LGB Alliance is left out. Instead, the sources include such articles as Pink News' LGB Alliance Co-Founder Displays Basic Ignorance About HIV Prevention Drug PrEP.Lilipo25 (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that have been added since this was nominated for deletion are irrelevant and I have no issue with that particular Pink News supported addition being reverted. However, with regard to your suggestions for balance, I seriously doubt Spiked's reliability as a source and the Spectator is a 'marginally reliable' newsblog that has notably published pieces like ‘In praise of the Wehrmacht' and articles defending the Greek fascist party (and now proscribed criminal organisation), Golden Dawn. If you think the other opinion pieces stand up to scrutiny then by all means expand with a defence of LGB Alliance rather than pursue deletion. Battleofalma (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spiked has never been judged an unreliable source by Wikipedia. The Spectator is the oldest political magazine in the world and whether or not you agree with other articles they have printed is completely irrelevant.Lilipo25 (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spiked has had some limited discussion in various places here, here and here and from what I can see it's not coming out as something to give much weight to often because of the quality of its contributors and its self-published elements. And indeed I do not agree with those examples of what the Spectator prints but RS also concludes that it not very reliable so it's not just my anti-fascist hysteria at play here. Battleofalma (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The opinions of individual editors are also irrelevant. If we're going to disqualify sources based on some editors disagreeing with their use, we would most definitely have to get rid of all use of Pink News. If you wish Spiked to be dismissed as an unreliable source, you need to open a discussion of it on the Reliable Sources page. Lilipo25 (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well cited and constructed, neutral article of a controversial group - no mean feat. An important topic to be retained also. Smirkybec (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion is not cleanup, and the original should never have been draftified. A history merge should be undertaken, and much of the content from the original should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quillette is rarely a good source—see WP:RSP. — Bilorv (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Yes, I know that I said that I didn't think that this was a good idea over on Draft talk:LGB Alliance but this version of the article is (at the time of writing) way better than the various revisions I saw of the draft (not that I looked at them all) and I'm tentatively changing my mind. The article does a good job of presenting the subject in a neutral manner, neither credulously accepting their claims to be a genuine lesbian, gay, and bisexual advocacy organisation nor stating or implying that they are not. My only concern is that the short section on "Women Make Glasgow" is off-topic and not even supported by the reference given. (I am not even sure what "Women Make Glasgow" actually is, apart from a Twitter account, anyway.) Oh, and also that we can expect a lot of POV editing here to the extent where I'd almost be inclined to suggest permanent semi-protection from the very outset. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I sympathise with the people who are unhappy that the article was created in a way that bypassed the existing draft but the author has never edited that draft, and may not even have realised that it existed, so there is absolutely no reason to suspect that this was done deliberately to game the system. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 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. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re-draftify pending source analysis, or weak keep at best. 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 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 WP:TNT 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". — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 18:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the previous version of this article was not rejected as a draft, it was draftified BOLDly (but quite plausibly) because it didn't follow NPOV requirements, and editors were starting to WP:EW about it. None of these factors apply to the current article that this AdD is about, so I don't see a policy-compliant argument to draftify this one as well. Newimpartial (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SMcCandlish, thanks for your comment. I wrote the article unrelated to the draftified version and I tried hard to keep it from being a "hatchet job" I thought I'd stick to the most solid sources to begin with and just try and get the basic facts that
The LGB Alliance exists, it claims to support LGB people
A lot of LGBT organisations claim it is transphobic
I even specifically refrained from using the term "hate group" even though reliable sources support its inclusion. The problem is, the significant coverage that makes LGB Alliance notable is because it is considered as a hate group by so many people, and this just can't be drafted away. An article about something widely condemned will tend to look critical in tone. Battleofalma (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some meta-analysis: It's important to look at the sources of the condemnations. The Guardian or whatever quoting a trans activism group calling an LGB-focused activism organization a "hate group" isn't The Guardian doing in-depth secondary research and concluding that the latter is in fact a hate group; it's simply "controversy reporting", repeating the primary-source viewpoint of party A who is in a fight with party B (within the left, within LGBT+ activism). I see this problem running through a lot of these articles. It's the fallacy that everything ever appearing in a publication that is often a secondary source for some kinds of claims is necessarily secondary source material for everything. I recognize that this version is better than the last one, but I find it a bit disturbing that it is dominated by one sort of sourcing, and someone has firehosed a whole bunch more of the same kind of news site stuff (quoting all the same usual-suspect "opposed activism camp" talking heads) onto the talk page. This looks still half-baked to me, which is why I think it belongs back in the draftspace oven. And that's even assuming any of this material qualifies as in-depth, secondary, and independent enough for GNG. I think it's probable that it will, but this AfD is unusually characterized by "must be notable because it's been mentioned a lot" thinking, and devoid of detailed source analysis.
Honestly, I think it would be of more encyclopedic value to have a broad article on the nature of this socio-political dispute and work into it all the viewpoints of all the major players in it, instead of trying to fork off mini-articles on every little group and alleged group who've ever been quoted. What's happening now is re-re-reiteration of the entire fight, within each of these stubs. This is predictably, necessarily going to result in WP:POVFORKing and a lot of unnecessary drama. This has been better handled in, say, the current US politics area, where we are not generating a constant stream of mini-articles on every "militia" club and ranty webboard and self-declared "group", but covering them WP:DULY at broader articles on MAGA/Trumpism, the Capitol insurrection, etc. It's a more productive and practical approach. The fact that we might be able to squeak an article in under a generous interpretation of GNG doesn't necessarily make it the best idea. This will become more acutely obvious over time as the Web and social media especially make it possible to create new anonymous/pseudonymous "groups" on the fly, of people with no relevant credentials, yet without appreciably affecting the topic area from an actually encyclopedic perspective.
This isn't even really a new issue, just an exacerbated one. Back when I was a professional activist, before the social media explosion, it amused me that major newspapers would call up and quote various "organizations" for their viewpoints on policy news when I knew personally that the "group" being quoted was two guys working out of their bedrooms in their spare time away from their day jobs, or was a gaggle of students at a university, who were just good at making an important-looking website. This hasn't changed in any way other than gotten more common instead of being unusual. Being good at getting journalists to call you back or quote your tweets does not a subject-matter expert make. A news source uncritically quoting a well-spoken nobody isn't secondary sourcing; it's no different from regurgitation of press releases. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 14:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the current article doesn't assert that The Guardian applied any particular labels to the group; it only notes what has been reported in The Guardian, The Independent, etc., concerning the views expressed by others. This type of reporting is manifestly DUE, and (in this instance) reliably sourced.
Also, there is no incompatibility between having articles on organizations like the LGB Alliance and Stonewall (charity) and also having synthetic, source-based articles on topics. However, based on the editing history of Feminist views on transgender topics, I am not convinced that articles following the latter approach produce content that is more helpful to our readers. They are certainly more difficult to write and to edit, IME. Newimpartial (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the sources could be more in-depth and a dedicated piece about LGB Alliance itself would be good, but they are strong enough in concert to confer notability. Ff we're really doubting that I can add some pieces from the Herald Scotland (which I've just learned is the longest national newspaper in the world) and The Scotsman. Battleofalma (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets notability. Guardian, Telegraph, BBC are all major publications.Webmaster862 (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being mentioned or quoted by such sources is not our criterion. Being the subject in them of in-depth, independent coverage is. So which Guardian, Telegraph, or BBC News cites qualify, and why? — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 15:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources cited in the article are news stories about the LGB alliance and its activities, and all are independent of the organization itself, so I fail to see any issues with the depth or the independence of the coverage. The TL;DR of the "depth" requirement is to exclude passing mentions and regurgitated press releases, and I don't see any of either in the article's references. Newimpartial (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: bad procedurally to create this over a version that was draftified, yes, but that draft was probably better TNT'd anyway. PinkNews is not great for notability even in this amount of coverage, but The Scotsman, The Telegraph and The Independent all have non-trivial coverage. I wouldn't oppose a "multiple-way merge" (not sure if there's a better term) where each event being covered is incorporated into other articles and then this article is deleted e.g. Criticism of the BBC#Transphobia (not saying that section/article is in good shape...). If it's to stay then They have been described by LGBT organizations ... is a terrible case of opinions not being specifically and properly attributed. — Bilorv (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The POV of the article could be improved, but the article is definitely notable enough for inclusion. X-Editor (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not history-merge if at all possible; the article does not have the egregious WP:V and WP:BLP 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. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.