Talk:Get the L Out

More independent sources needed
Of those independent reliable sources that mention "Get the L Out", the BBC and The Independent have only a passing mention, and New Statesman has slightly more than a passing mention. The Reuters article is written by a primary source so does not count. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The article also doesn't cover that the movement is a very small minority of lesbians and that it's widley considered to be transphobic.★Trekker (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Does this group legally exist?
Based on getthelout.wordpress.com, the "activist group" exists only on an informal basis. There is what appears to be a personal PayPal account, a personal Patreon account, a free gmail account and a free wordpress.com blog.

There is no commitment to transparency or publishing any meeting minutes. If there is any evidence that the group can be verified as existing in a legally meaningful sense, it would be useful to be able to verify something. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Legality can be a pretty low bar, and passing that hurdle, as hundreds do weekly in my jurisdiction by registering a DBA and publishing it in a local paper's announcements section, doesn't confer notability. Conversely, a large demonstration can be highly notable regardless of its legal status. That said, I don't disagree that useful information might come from minutes, etc., but that is hardly sufficient. The emphasis should be on the notability guideline, possibly WP:ORG if it's an organization, WP:GNG if it isn't, rather than legality. Mathglot (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not that low a bar. This would mean that directors get named, there is a published real life contact address on the website and on all correspondence, and that accounts get kept and taxes paid. This leaves a trail of evidence so that question like, "how much money did they make last year and where did it go?", might have verifiable answers. --Fæ (talk) 08:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Should this redirect instead to "We're being pressured into sex by some trans women" § Get the L Out survey?
This page currently redirects to. However, Get the L Out isn't mentioned in that page. A description of it and a survey that it conducted (which was then used by a BBC article), however, is mentioned in. LightNightLights (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As I see it, the article was deleted in May 2019 -- which next month will make three years ago. Unless an organization becomes defunct, it continues developing with the passage of time. So, yes, I think it makes sense to redirect Get the L Out to its section in the "We're being pressured" article. Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 10:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you think about GtLO being redirected to the "We're being pressured" article itself instead of one of its sections? I agree that "Wbp" § GtLO survey would be a better redirect target instead of the current one, but I'm not sure if people will know why they got redirected to information mostly focused on one of GtLO's surveys (the BBC used it for a controversial news-article) instead of information mostly focused about GtLO itself. LightNightLights (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Until an article contains a considerable amount of material about GtLO besides its involvement in a survey, it's better to redirect to the one section that exists for it in an article. Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 03:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah. In that case, I'll wait for a while to see if someone else agrees or disagrees with us since this is a talk page of a redirect page and there might only be a few watchers. LightNightLights (talk) 05:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the current target is not the best option. I think we should use the WP:Redirects for discussion process, which will hopefully attract input from editors experienced in these kinds of redirect target decisions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:RfD is probably the correct process for this, though changing the redirect target seems pretty uncontroversial (WP:SNOWBALL, WP:BOLD). The section at "We're being pressured..." § Get the L Out survey isn't really very informative about this group, except the unsourced statement that it's an anti-transgender campaign group. (It is, but hate groups rarely call themselves as such). The redirect to the section might aid some searches, so I'm mildly favoring that outcome, although I see a fair rationale for WP:R. Notified from WP:LGBT, RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 16:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * While I mostly disagree that "anti-transgender campaign group" is unsourced (an NBC Out source in the article describes GtLO as one of the ), I agree with you that the "GtLO survey" section isn't informative on GtLO itself and that someone might succesfully argue to simply delete the redirect. A better redirect target though might be what Firefangledfeathers mentioned below. LightNightLights (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I support this redirection but understand if you want to RfD it too. Crossroads -talk- 18:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What about Lesbian erasure, which also mentions the group? The article itself is about a more general topic than the one about the BBC piece. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that WP:RfD would've been better for this redirect discussion, but I only became aware of it when you and RoxySaunders mentioned it. I think Lesbian erasure § In relation to transgender women might be a better redirect candidate than "Wbp" § GtLO survey, and I'm only wondering if it should redirect to the top of the "In relation to transgender women" section or to the top of the paragraph that mentions GtLO. LightNightLights (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * RfD started here with a link back to this discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)