This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
The comment that their filing an amicus brief is akin to "selling girl scout cookies" strikes me as unfair. It clearly indicates that they have activities that reach beyond specifically LGBT issues and therefore helps the reader to understand something about the group. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The filing of the brief in support of a immigrant group is clearly not part of a list of miscellaneous information, the trivia policy obviously does not apply. Altairisfar (talk) 02:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
This doesn't come anywhere near passing WP:DUE. This falls in the category of self-serving press release kind of stuff. Not encyclopedic. Now if this was covered by a 3rd party independent source, that would be different. – Lionel(talk) 02:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Self-serving press release kind of stuff? The source isn't a press release and it was not released by Equality Alabama. It was sourced by a reliable third party source that was not party to the amicus brief. Nevertheless, I have added an additional source. Altairisfar (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:DUE is about giving appropriate weight to majority/minority opinions. There is no opinion at issue here. Even if there were no other information that a press release, the fact that an organization engages in an activity or espouses a pointy of view that the reader might not reasonably expect from the organization's name is useful to the reader. And that's whose interest we are serving. Now if Equality Alabama actually starts selling Girl Scout cookies.... Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)