Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alt-left

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

The result was no consensus. Many of the comments in this discussion are not based upon Wikipedia policy; they are merely a reflection of trying to be “fair” or trying to delete an article about a term that the editor finds politically disagreeable. Wikipedia is not “fair,” it is netural, and articles are not kept or deleted because editors like or dislike a subject. The comments made without a rationale based in policy have been discounted.

The remaining comments have focused on whether the term should be deleted as unencyclopedic per the policy regarding neologisms--I address those here. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and should not serve as a platform for new terms that have not received notice. Many editors have made this point clearly in their comments. On the other hand, some neologisms can be considered a valid encyclopedic subject if the word or phrase has been “the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources.” This point has been made by the opposition. Simple Google searches reveal that the phrase is covered by significant, independent sources, qualifying the term as valid for inclusion in Wikipedia per our general notability guidelines. Those invoking the policy on neologism have tended to ignore these qualifiers in the policy; however, they raise a good point that this coverage may be reflecting mere sensation. On this, only time will tell.

But, my understanding of policy does not determine what the consensus is. Our guideline for determining consensus reads: “Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue…” Consensus reflects general agreement on the issue at hand. It is clear to me that those commenting on this discussion have not convinced either side or come to an agreement. I conclude that this discussion has not resulted in a consensus, and the article will be kept by default. Malinaccier (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alt-left[edit]

Alt-left (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no such thing as the "alt-left", it is a trendy pejorative in right-wing circles. The scant mention in actual media does not cover it as an actual political movement or ideology but rather are either done derisively/dismissively, or to discuss the non-existence. The sources may be enough to support some sort of Alt-left (neologism), if the coverage of its lack of credibility are deemed sufficient, but that would be another discussion for that eventual/possible article. There is not sufficient reliability or notability for alt-left as an actual thing. TheValeyard (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:TROUT Nom for utterly failing to do even the most cursory WP:BEFORE search, and, therefore, making assertions that are not supported by even the most elementary good-faith googling.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this really necessary? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you elaborate on why this is is a problematic delete request rather than using unnecessary ad hominem attacks? Please explain the reason for why is is fundamentally flawed rather than simply stating that the editor has "utterly failed" at "elementary" level tasks. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just another comment by Gregory aiming to belittle a nom he disagrees with and undermine a legitimate rationale. Ignore it and perhaps move it in chronological order. I do not see why it is appropriate to bypass all the other comments and !votes just to include an unwarranted WP:TROUT.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom failed to look, or he would have easily found WP:SIGCOV of this concept, such as a heavily sourced of the origins of this term that in 2016 in the Washington Post, or the in-depth coverage of the concept by, among others, journalist James Wolcott, historian Gil Troy, and literature professor Seth Abramson, all writing months ago. It is irresponsible to start an AfD without at least googling and reading whet you find. I do understand that tempers are running high post-Charlottesville and because Trump, but this does not excuse Nom.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, somehow I missed this initial trolling by EM Gregory, I must have been distracted by his berating several deletion voters below. Greg, I evaluated the citations present in the article and several via google search; the term is a bright, shiny, neologism, a new toy created by one ideological set of warriors to taunt the other. It isn't real, but could possibly support an article on alt-right-as-a-slur, as I noted in the nomination. Your personal attacks are an embarrassing spotlight on your own lack of decorum, and I strongly suggest a bit of self-reflection. TheValeyard (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I mentioned below (but since you chose to highlight it here), my feeling is that your revisions not only failed to show that it's sustainable, they showed the exact opposite, basically validating the argument that a reasonable article for this topic isn't sustainable at the moment - reducing the sources to only the usable ones resulted in an article that is almost entirely about a single usage of the term by the President, comparable to eg. his coining of Covfefe. A neologism worth covering should have more sources showing broad usage, rather than having nearly all the sources focusing on a single event; "here's a neologism the president used once, which otherwise has almost no coverage" isn't a viable article. --Aquillion (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete (or, if kept, weak strong merge) (!vote has been changed twice since first added) as a neologism with no notability.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Full opinion (Collapsed for the sake of space and ease of reading for others) --Mark Miller (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I feel obliged to elaborate on my opinion. A recent comment by one of the IP users on the article talk page made me have a slightly better understanding of what might be happening here. It was brought to my attention by User talk:98.247.224.9 that the article is supposed to be about different definitions of the word. What also strikes me with much of the support including that of the IP is the constant discussion of Conservatives, Liberals, Democrats and Republicans. Another stand out is that this term, even when it is agreed upon to be the same term used by Hannity and Trump still has no clear agreement or consensus of editors...as to what that defined as, what groups this attaches to and how it is generally used properly if there be any proper way to use the phrase.
  • There seems to be a great deal being written about in this article about individuals, political and protest groups as well as political parties. That is a concern for our BLP policy. While the talk page shows that at least two editors have shown doubt that political parties are covered by the WP:BLPGROUP policy, it really only says; "The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources.". But the BLP policy for multiple strong sources also applies when writing about accusations of one political party about anthor political party as well as claims by "conservatives against liberals" not to mention the claims about individual living persons.
  • It seems clear, at least to me, that the subject is not at all unambiguous. In fact, some feel strongly that this is not about a single subject at all. Our General guideline for notability have a few ways to determine notability for Wikipedia, one of those is; "Significant coverage". It is clear that there is support stating that there is "Significant coverage". But is there? If one looks it is clear that all of the sources right now are strictly online newspapers articles that are no older that a year or so. There are no scholarly papers or book sources. These are strictly sources from the media as news stories or opinion pieces. our guideline states; "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." While many articles have started from just news stories....many others were deleted as "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". Is this better off being merged (note the change in my !vote from delete to delete or merge) into other articles (there are many) and create a Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Under the notability guidelines it states; "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5]" ...which I think this falls under. WP:NEO; "Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." I believe this truly has little coverage in reliable sources as there are no other sources at this time other than online media and there does seem to be something of a promotional aspect of attempting to use Wikipedia to increase usage.
  • Wikipedia:Broad-concept article (an article that addresses a concept that may be difficult to write about because it is abstract, or because it covers the sometimes-amorphous relationship between a wide range of related concepts) states, "and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it". There is not a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous which are instances or examples of the concept. A majority of the sources state there is no such thing and are not actually examples of the concept. Sources that attempt to show examples conclude they are unrelated and for the most part just name calling with no self identification....which loops back to the BLP issue.
  • Reasons this could be deleted include the fact it could have been speedy deleted if not for this long discussion (and had I not edit conflicted with this nomination...oh well) because it was created by a blocked user and might even have qualified under another speedy criteria. The article may not be in good enough shape to keep it's current form even as a merge as many issues exist. On top of that, it does seem to be using Wikipedia as a platform to increase it's usage on the very day Trump created some controversy over his use of the term. The creation, content and lack of consensus on what the term or phrase actually is (not just Wikipedia editors, but academia) seems to demonstrate that this may not necessarily be about encyclopedic content. At any rate...that's my ten cents worth.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, this article only showed up over what Trump had to say today. Home Lander (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that some time has passed, this rationale that its recent interest is a byproduct of the recent presidential press conference honestly seems accurate as coverage of the "alt-left" seems to have already dropped off of the news cycle. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remove vote by now blocked sock-puppet ~Awilley (talk) 03:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Keep The word has significant notability, and has been used in thousands of mainstream articles. MaineK (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Admin, note: The above user is the article creator, and has only edited this article and Unite the Right rally since account creation, which was all of 90 minutes ago. (If I am reading time stamps right, these are tricky) TheValeyard (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: They have been blocked for sockpuppetry. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Antifa (United States). I think this debate ended today. Personally I've edited more than a thousand pages over the course of more than a decade, and no edit of mine has ever been reverted legitimately (that is, persistently, after review). So I'm not just spouting off. 98.247.224.9 (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I question how an editor, with only 16 previous edits claims a 10-year edit history, with 1,000 edits. @98.247.224.9: why does your edit history not match your claim. What were your previous monitoring names/IPs Nfitz (talk) 05:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post count, both small and large, is not an argument. Furthermore, it is not a substitute or excuse for an argument. That being said, even if that were to be dismissed and your edit history was to be significant, your claim simply does not match what can be found about your account. However, even if it did, per the reasons already stated, your post should be dismissed as it lacked a reason to substantiate your keep !vote. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post count of course isn't an argument. Except of course when the poster uses it first. Nfitz (talk) 09:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe y'all didn't read my current talk page before YOU spouted off? And those earlier IPs represent only a couple of years of activity. Before that, my ISP was changing my IP address every week or two, and it wasn't practical to show enough of that earlier history to make any difference. Anyway, I was just trying to head off the kind of ad-hominem attacks that are commonly aimed at new and IP users. Like the one that TheValeyard aimed at MaineK (who is not me!) in the previous bullet. But to the discussion at hand, and as I wrote in more detail below, I think maybe the right answer here is to merge this article with Antifa (United States), and I've changed my vote (above) accordingly. If "Merge" isn't something the robots can interpret in this context, I apologize. 98.247.224.9 (talk) 07:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good sir, I ask you to remain civil; I merely questioned, and you answered quite well. That doesn't tackle the issue, that no one outside the extreme right-wing has until the last few hours, heard of the term, the "alt-left" - especially the "alt-left". If it mirrors the alt-right; our alt-right article notes that White supremacist[6] Richard Spencer coined the term in 2010 in reference to a movement centered on white nationalism, and has been accused by some media publications of doing so to excuse overt racism, white supremacism, and neo-Nazism.. So are looking for radical communist/Marxist/Trotskyist/Leninist, anti-capitalist organizations, acting in some capacity of terror. Basically the members of Category:Far-left politics in the United States; i.e. the Black Panthers, Weather Underground, or something. The problems with groups like this, is they pretty much don't exist. Antifa seems to be some non-group that includes at various time simply those that oppose fascism, and others anarchical groups such as the Black bloc, who don't so much have a political stake, but are simply there to take advantage in the break down of law and order, to reak havoc; in a less politically-charged environment, such as the 2010 Toronto G20 riots these foreign-lead anarchists were condemned by right, left, and centre. So who IS the alt-left - and if the alt-left doesn't know they are the alt-left, then do they exist? Today - the day the word was effectively given birth, other than in the very fringes of society, the answer is there is no alt-left. Perhaps one day, the word will catch on, and we will need an article; but today is not that day. We can't create articles for phrases the day the come out of the president's mouth - it takes time; to this day I am not a crook is a redirect. I'm surprised that We begin bombing in five minutes actually exists, but the Soviets did kind of have a hand there in immortalizing it - but it still takes years. Will this one last forever, or be forgotten in 15 minutes. The sun is yet to rise, and it's already drifting off the news feeds. Nfitz (talk) 09:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What an eloquent apology you offer for having made no effort whatsoever to LEARN my history here before making false statements about it. Anyway, apology accepted. Now, as to the facts. It is a fact, as supported by multiple sources referenced in the article, that liberals have written about as many articles staking out definitions for the "alt-left" as conservatives have written. Some of those references were in the article before you made your statement to the contrary above, which means it is another careless falsehood. Similar false statements are made throughout the comments below as well; clearly those people are also being careless, commenting on whether the article should be kept without actually having read it. It is also a fact that the way the term is being used today (as opposed to the way it was used in some of those older articles), it does indeed refer to something real, which is basically the Antifa movement in the United States: extreme left-wing activists who are using violence to interfere with speech and actions they don't like and to destroy property owned by people they don't like. I think it's right and proper to title the Antifa article using the term they, themselves, prefer to use, but it seems necessary for that article to explain that their opponents have given them another name which is now being used by multiple notable, reliable mainstream media outlets for the simple reason that essentially overnight, the term "alt-left" has become far better known than the term "antifa." Which is also a fact. That's my position, anyway. 98.247.224.9 (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do confess, I hadn't realised that not all of the references (as they existed when I reviewed the article) were brand new; as for some reason someone had highlighted the date accessed, but not the more important date of writing! The older one though made it quite clear there was no alt-left. The one that seems to be just a few hours old that the utterance - in Jacobin - and to tell the truth, I don't fully see where the article is going. From that source, it seems clear, if the term does exist, it's not clear what it means ... centrist, left-wing, extreme-left wing. And this seems common in some of the other sources added. However, you are arguing merge, not delete - which is essentially a redirect. I think we have to be go back to our fairly clear policy in WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary where WP:Neologism tells us that that articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted but noting that To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, which I don't see - what I see are news articles. Where are the academic papers? The books? The dissertations? Well, it's too soon maybe ... that's the point. It's too soon. Which is why WP:NEO goes on clearly to say Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles.. Basically, it's WP:TOOSOON. If anything, the term exists, only because of alt-right - if there were to be a redirect (and I don't see that there should), it should be to alt-right. Nfitz (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." Yes, that's right. Which is why some of us have made a special effort to include multiple references to multiple reliable secondary sources that describe the origins and meanings of the term "alt-left." So this sentence is irrelevant, and the repeated plaintive calls to justify deleting the article on this basis are just incompetent WP:WL. Please stop, and refocus yourself on legitimate arguments instead. 98.247.224.9 (talk) 07:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • But what are these secondary sources? The policy says it is looking for books and papers; not news and magazines. And how can you violate WP:5P be using a term like incompetent? But let's assume then, that a redirect is okay. The definitions on "Alt-Left" are all over the place - clearly when alt-right is being used for Neo-Nazis, the KKK, and heavily-armed extremist militias and their sympathizers, then alt-left is going to be some pretty far left groups along the lines of Sandanistas, Frelimo, various ELNs, M26-7, etc. But we see nothing like this. Instead the term seems to be all other the place, and applied to anything that's further left than the current GOP, which is further right than it often is. It's even being applied to centrists such as liberals. I don't think redirecting it to any particular thing is appropriate, at least until (if it happens) the usage coalesces around a clearer meaning. So how is redirecting to your suggestion better than simply Alt-Right#Alt-Left? Nfitz (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no proof this exists. Just because Donald Trump says something doesn't make it true (quite the opposite, in fact!). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NEO. "Protologism is a term invented in the early 2000s by Mikhail Epstein, an American literary theorist, to refer to a new word which has not gained wide acceptance in the language. The word protologism describes one stage in the development of neologisms, at which a word is proposed, extremely new, or not established outside a very limited group of people. A protologism is coined to fill a gap in the language, with the hope of it becoming an accepted word." The word "Alt-left" falls under this category and Wikipedia isn't a platform for that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The RS in the article which mention the term itself, rather than putting it in quotes, say that such a grouping does not exist. If this article isn't deleted, it might have to be structured like Fascist (insult). Rigley (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:SYNTH. I understand that when Alt-right article was first started many of the same issues where present with original research and synthesis but there is also more coverage on that phenomenon than this one. Also Wikipedia isn't here to Right the wrongs and the fact that there is an Alternative right ariticle doesn't mean that there necessarily has to an article on the opposite side. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't enough consensus on what "alt-left" means to even say that it is "opposite" to alt-right. James Wolcott's definition (c.f. Dirtbag Left) implies that alt-right and alt-left are similar to each other in that they both reject identity politics. But then you have some sources saying that alt-left is characterized by identity politics.
    I advocated for "delete" on alt-right when it was on AfD one year ago for similar reasons. But a major difference here, is that alt-right started as a self-descriptor, so people who call themselves "alt-right" who did things IRL that got reported on by media, created notability. I can't see a similar thing happening for AL. Rigley (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree - Rigley made an important point that the "alt-right" became a term because people used it to refer to themselves and thus gave it an actual meaning. However, in the case of the proto-term "alt-left" there seems to be an active effort to "make it a thing" without anyone politically identifying as "alt-left." It wouldn't be politicizing this to say that this "left" term was invented by the right. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except I think this claim was invented by the left because the term has been used in all seriousness by at least five notable liberal outlets and individual commentators well before Trump discovered it. The real problem with the term over the last year is that it really hasn't been used consistently... but over time, there seems to be a consensus emerging that defines "alt-left" as a blanket term for left-wing activists who are willing to use violence instead of using what they consider to be the ineffective traditional political processes. This is also a practical definition of the antifa activists who have begun, relatively recently, bringing anti-personnel weapons to protests. There's no doubt in my mind that there are fewer people in these groups than in the self-identified alt-right, and that plus the fact that few self-identified members of the alt-right are known for personally endorsing violent activism, never mind being violent themselves, show that the alt-left isn't just a leftist equivalent of the alt-right. But that doesn't mean the newer term is illegitimate or unworthy of coverage in Wikipedia. I'm just starting to think that maybe the best answer is to fold Wikipedia's coverage of the alt-left into the Antifa (United States) article, at least until a narrower or otherwise differentiated definition emerges in practical usage. 98.247.224.9 (talk) 07:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, too much media coverage to ignore it. It is too notable and influential. We have a responsibility to clarify what facts exist about the concept. For one: Trump didn't create it, people writing at least in 2016 about it. ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the context of this media coverage? There is no established consensus on what the term means. Most media coverage is referring to it as as a neologism, which is one of the primary arguments for deletions. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as classic WP:NEO. If you'd term is still used in a month, I'd reconsider. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its obvious Wikipedia is becoming a very charged atmosphere. Whether you like or don't like the phrase shouldn't matter - there are extensive reliable sources writing about it as we speak. Yes it may viewed as a perjorative, but we have an article on Politiclal Correctness which is also a perjorative. And not every source is saying it "doesn't exist". Most of them are actually making an attempt to define it. I honestly don't see what the big deal is. Why such controversy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.67.118 (talk) 06:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Alt-right" started as nothing, and quickly became a thing people write (or "blog" or "tweet") about. Since that ice has already broken and since we're further into the future, this should reasonably accelerate quicker. That's not to say it should ever become bigger than the original, but it'll sooner pass the bar in common usage by the other half of the dichotomy. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe, but the website "Alternative Right" looks to go back to 2010. And it's not really clear yet that the "Alt-left" is describing anything people would self-describe as or that it's different than "Far-left politics in the United States." (Granted that's currently a redirect.) Also I'm not sure deletions has to mean recreation is impossible if an "alt left" actually develops as I think it maybe could.--T. Anthony (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The time between 2010 and 2017 is equal to the time between now and August 21, by my (admittedly lunatic) reckoning of the gravitational singularity. Something is spreading social acceptance of stupid words faster than ever before, though, and mocks fuddy-duddies and Grammar Nazis ever more ruthlessly. Just now, I saw it imply Oxfordians and Wikipedians are baby lions. I don't want an entire nation thinking I'm a baby lion, man! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't get anything on your like. For the record I'd be for Far-left politics in the United States being its own article rather than a redirect.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is reality, not the fantasy world of Trump. In reality there is no such word. --Jensbest (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have cuckservative, regressive left, mama grizzly, retarded time and moonbat. At least one of those is similar. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from retarded time (which is decisively not related to any of these), I don't think these belong on Wikipedia either. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those are also non-notable neologisms that don't merit articles. — Red XIV (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, just for comparison, here: [1] is how our article Alt-Right looked the day it was kept in May 2016.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - no one calls themselves the alt-left - it is just a term used by others to describe the far left. Therefore, it should redirect to far left or another similar page, and it can be discussed as a term there. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 10:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the fact that a name is created for you rather than by you in no way disqualifies that name from being notable. A classic example is the Philistines.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This morning's mainstream U.S. media are bursting with analysis of "alt-left." WP:RS material is now out there on what the term means, and who uses it and to what purpose. Moreover, reliable sourcing using and defining this term goes back at least as far as the December 2016 article by historian Gil Troy cited in article. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's worth noting that specifically this morning is mentioning it as this is the first time the morning news segments have a chance to cover "what is the 'alt left' mentioned by the president?" These articles so often focus more on non-agreed-upon attempts to define it. Some people say that anything far left, whether far auth left or far lib left, is synonymous with "alt left." Others define it as necessitating the use of violence. Others say it can refer to antifascism and simply the inverse of the alt right. Others say that its defining characteristic is its opposition to the alt right. This is a neologism and simply dismissing all delete !votes as examples of "just don't like it" (especially without substantiation for such a sweeping allegation) isn't a sufficient counter. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brendon, well-sourced, variation in the use/definition of a term can certainly be included in an article on that term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thorough variation in what defines it which presently fails to constitute a single meaning is precisely why this term still remains a young neologism and is not yet ready for an article. At best, its notability can only associate it with pejorative term articles, not as an article on an entire subsection of party politics. That being said, it has yet to fully establish itself as a pejorative either. I'm willing to reconsider my !vote in the future if this changes, though. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 12:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, but terms like liberal, Progressivism, metamodernism never do settle down, they evolve. Even fascist, which many thought had been buried in the Führerbunker, has been reincarnated and acquired new meanings. If we waited for descriptors of political ideologies to "to constitute a single meaning," as you suggest, we would have no articles on political descriptors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not an example of a political term evolving, we are discussing a political term being invented as a pejorative where now we must think of a vague definition. Fascists today hold the same values that they did in the 40s; the idea that it was "buried in the Führerbunker" does not relate to its definition, only its popularity. Furthermore, even if your argument was to be humored by considering "alt-left" to be an evolving term, let us remember that liberal, progressive, etc are all political positions with concrete definition today. While fascism's positions, values, and definition today remain entirely unchanged from its conception, one could argue that "liberalism" today does not mean what it once did due to the divide between neo/classical liberalism and how today the term often refers to traditionally leftist or near-centrist ideas rather than right-leaning ones. However, the definition is unchanged and fits perfectly with both classical liberals and what many refer to as liberals today. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority. Your argument was objectively incorrect. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The term "Alt-Left" is now being used to describe the alternative to the "Alt-Right" and should stay in Wikipedia. The article needs to be properly cited. The term alt-left is now defined in Wiktionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alt-left IQ125 (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism. This might be useful at Wikidictionary or as part of some kind of index or list article, but it doesn't justify a stand-alone encyclopedia article. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NEO: "When secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic.".E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please quote the whole paragraph here: "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles." There is no evidence that this coined term is widely used. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Knowledgekid87, I urge you to revisit this one, because the sourcing is there. As to "widely used," a heavily sourced, reported, December 2016 history of this neologism in the Washington Post calls this term a "mainstay" of the political conversation. and a gNews search gets ~250,000 hits.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the phrase is widely used, and as the article says, it is used by right-wing propaganda to draw a false equivalence between racists and liberals, as if both were equally irrational and violent, which is clearly not the case. If the article is deleted, that important information will be deleted. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not a specific movement with which anyone has been said to identify; it's a WP:NEO created in an attempt to establish moral equivalence in a belief that if there are extremists on one side then there must also be extremists on the other side. - Brian Kendig (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please speak to sourcing, not to assertions about motivation of article or neologism creator. Note that the fact that a name is created for rather than by a group in no way disqualifies that name from being notable. A classic example is the Philistines. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, then, more specifically: I don't see any sources discussing who represents the alt-left or what the alt-left has done or what the alt-left's goals are, specific to it as a group. Instead, I only see the term "alt-left" used as a counterbalance to "alt-right": people say such-and-such about the alt-right, but consider the alt-left! If you'd like to make the article stronger and more likely to survive this AfD, please add sources which discuss it independently of a comparison with the alt-right. - Brian Kendig (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On what basis are you requiring that article about the alt-left not discuss it in the context of alt-right? The point is that WP:SIGCOV of this neologism exists and has existed for almost a year.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the basis that there's a difference between a label defined in terms of its opposite (the radical fringe, just on the left instead of the right) and an actual group of people whose members, activities, and goals can be discussed. I haven't seen the latter. - Brian Kendig (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:HEY, Instead of making assertions, I did a modest expand, source of the article. Article now contains material from a heavily-sourced, December 2016 Washington Post history of this neologism. In addition to extensive discussions of the context and use of this term by journalist James Wolcott, historian Gil Troy, literature professor Seth Abramson and others. I think that a great many comments, including the comment by Nom, were written in the heat of the moment and under the influence of understandable outrage over Trump's appalling response to the violence in Charlottesville. But it's time to cool down and look at the sources and WP:SIGCOV of this term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot see how these changes would affect anyone's vote already cast, the sources discuss why the "alt-left" does not exist. At best, these edits would be suitable for a different article on alt-left-as-a-slur. ValarianB (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sourcing actually looks much worse now. Nearly every source refers to a single event (Trump's usage of the term in a recent speech), which makes this article look like both WP:RECENTISM and as an attempt to take something that clearly lacks the breadth of sourcing necessary to support an article and prop it up by finding a dozen slightly-different news articles all saying the same thing about the same event. We don't have an independent page about Covfefe; your revised list of sources makes this look even less notable than that - the bulk of the article and the coverage treats it as another flash-in-the-pan bit of linguistic oddity from a President whose struggles with language are infamous, but one with significantly less coverage than the infamous Covfefe. I've updated my position to "strong delete" accordingly. --Aquillion (talk) 02:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing got worse, but it was better before. I strongly disagree with you that there is not enough RSs for this article to remain an independent article. A better alternative to deleting this article is improving it, adding better sources (such as the sizable amount that existed prior to Trump saying the term). WP:UGLY comes to mind. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per much of the earlier arguments, particularly because reliable sources that cover the term do so in a dismissive manner, not because the "alt left" actually exists. The alt-right is a label chosen by and marketed by the actual alt-right people, while the "alt left" is a slur created by the right to target those on the left. If the sources can be used to justify an article called "Alt-left slur", then that should be created independent of this attempt. ValarianB (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like it or not, it is now a term being used. The fact that the president of the United States used the term makes its notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You mean to say "Like it or not, this term is being used in this news cycle. This is a pure neologism, invented this week by the far right (which includes the President of the United States) to divert attention from the fascist terrorism in Virginia. It has zero coverage in the scholarly literature. Zero. Carrite (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge: While it is steadily coming into use because of Trump's use of the term, it should be included in some form on the site. If is isn't retained as a separate article, it should be merged into Alt-right. Shortly before I discovered that an article now exists about the alt-left neologism, I added a section to the bottom of the alt-right article that makes note of the "alt-left" term's origins, which started in 2016 as a disparagement by centrist and center-right members of the Democratic Party aimed at progressives that some conservatives later adopted for similar reasons. That info could be integrated into the existing "alt-left" article to shore up the definition and the article's notability. TVTonightOKC 16:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, both parties have used the term to disparage liberals. Leftists to the ideological center or right-of-center disparage fellow members of the political left who believe in progressive ideologies by identifying them as the so-called "alt-left". This isn't the only derogatory neologism/term to be included on Wikipedia, and many factors from notability to the extent of its usage play a factor in the article's long-term/permanent inclusion. TVTonightOKC 18:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The focus should be on how the sources are discussing the coined term, there is also WP:GHITS to consider as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is no such thing as the "alt-left". Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting WP:MADEUP neologisms, or for manufacturing false equivalency.- MrX 17:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alt-left" is not "something that one or one's friends simply made up". Whether or not the term is a false equivalency is immaterial to whether the term has received sufficient coverage to merit inclusion, which by any reasonable standard it has. Should the article on White pride be deleted simply because it's a ridiculous concept? Certainly not, and this seems to be the same grounds upon which you are advocating deletion of this article. Furthermore, as others have said above, "alt-left" as used by Trump is not its only usage - it's been used for around a year now by centrist Democrats as a term used to criticize left-wing Democrats. CJK09 (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not it is a false equivalency is quite important, actually. The premise here is, if the "alt left" is an actual "thing". Is there an identifiable political movement that is known by this name, i.e. if it is comparable to alt right. Or, is it a label used by a fringe political people to attack others of an opposing ideology, such as libtard. It is pretty clear from how the sources describe the term that it is far closer to being a slur than it is a genuine political faction or movement, as the alt right is. The question here is whether it is notable or not as a slur. ValarianB (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
re your "is there an identifiable political movement that is known by this name" objection, self identification is not a requirement. If someone said they did not shoot person A but we have on film they shot person A, we still say they shot them. Do you think there are people self a identifying as lugenpresse or that every white supremist identifies as a white supremist? The concept being notable is reason enough. ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlike the Alt-right, a self-coined, loosely organized hate group founded by Richard B. Spencer, "alt-left" is a non-existent group of people and is a phrase only recently asserted by conservative groups to create a false equivalency. It is meant to counter and deflect the spotlight away from Donald Trump's tacit support of racist, white nationalist organizations. No such group exists. [1] sunkorg (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Is There Such A Thing As An Alt-Left?
  • Once again, whether or not the use of the term is valid is irrelevant to whether the article merits inclusion. CJK09 (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC
  • The qualifications or lack thereof are relevant when WP:GHITS compliance is required. This new term doesn't pass the sniff test under those guidelines (i.e. it's WP:MADEUP). sunkorg (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the text of WP:MADEUP: Wikipedia is not for things that you and/or your friends made up. If you have invented something in school, the lab, your garage, or the pub, and it has not yet been featured in reliable sources, do not write about it on Wikipedia. Write about it on your own website or blog instead. The relevant part here is and it has not yet been featured in reliable sources. The term has been extensively featured in reliable sources, even before Trump's comments yesterday. CJK09 (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are missing key facts under WP:GHITS, including: Wikipedia is not a news service—articles will not simply be kept because they are of timely importance. Once it's "timely importance" is exhausted, it will no longer be relevant, because no such organized group exists. (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In general, please everyone assume good faith here. Lets not accuse editors of having a political motive behind their opinions. I feel that WP:ARBAPDS would apply here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The page was obviously created to promote belief in the existence of such a group. The same goes for the August 16 changes by user Tvtonightokc to the Alt-right article.173.186.192.134 (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: this user has made no edits outside of this discussion. CJK09 (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete (or merge / redirect into Alt-Right; no usage or meaning independent from that term. Almost all the sources on this article are just discussing it as a spin on the term 'Alt-Right' rather than as a neologism with common usage or solid meaning in its own right. --Aquillion (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nor hath "leftist" any meaning independent of "rightist; nor "day" independent of "night." Nor doth the snowflake generation call itself by this term of scorn. What, pray, is the basis of thy argument? Have we some hitherto unheard of policy stating that we must delete Left-wing politics because, it has little "solid meaning in its own right" independent, that is, of Right-wing politics? A truism since 1789. And yet, no WP guideline supporteth such an argument.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insulting or dismissing editors as part of the "snowflake generation" is not a substitute for an argument. Please keep discussion civil and disregard any political agenda. Do not use ad hominem attacks in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles on those subjects have sources that describe and use the term independently, including (in most cases) academic papers tracing their history and usage. This page, on the other hand, is sourced mainly to blogs and coverage of quotes that have used the term as a one-off, often in reference to different things; and virtually all of them treat it as a spin-off to alt-right, or as something to say in response to it. In other words, it is noteworthy only in the context of that term, and doesn't have the independent significance necessary to spin it off into its own article like this. This is a relatively minor subtopic of Alt-right and should be covered on that article, not here. --Aquillion (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article is about a notable epithet. It doesn't get more notable than to have the President of the United States say it and major new organization repeat it. This makes the article just as valid as the article Democrat Party (epithet). Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should also mention that there seems to already be a consensus at the Donald Trump article that not everything he tweets or says that is repeated by the media needs an article or a mention in his article. Notability as a Wikipedia standard is much higher than that.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:N (the very first sentence) "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.". Like it or not, that's the Wikipedia standard for notability. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After August 15, the term will be included in all dictionaries, whatever we think of it, or him.Axxxion (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On what basis can you make the claim that it will be included in all dictionaries? I'm assuming that your use of "or him" was referring to President Trump; if your argument is that this page has achieved noteworthiness because the president popularized a new term, that is logically equal to saying we shouldn't have deleted Covfefe in favor of a redirect. That's not to say that one can't argue that the term "alt left" is in any way equal equal to a memed typo, but that argument is similar to the arguments that supported a covfefe article, notably that the president had popularized a new term and achieved viral coverage regardless of what people thought of the president.BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was my opinion based on the fact that the U.S. president is the most watched&followed person on earth, just like Hitler is the best-known person in human history... All else are emotions.Axxxion (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but - what??? That genuinely did not make sense. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What indeed. Axxxion are you trolling or just being daft? Regardless, please provide a source regarding dictionaries. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I may be daft, but am saying precisely what i am saying: the term will be included (future tense used). My impression from reading many threads on this topic is that some anti-Trump folks (forgive my being blunt) are so het-up about Trump (ditto), that they plain fail to see a text being discussed, very often. Loss of concentration as a result of overheated brain cells, apparently. Which i find quite amusing, for if one believes that his nemesis is wrong/evil/stupid, the best way to expose him is by accurately quoting precisely what he says, instead of spouting mounds of heat-of-the-moment gratuitous/partisan interpretations. That said, the term is already in at least two online dictionaries, incl Wiktionary (the entry was created in February this year).Axxxion (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please remain civil when editing and rely on objective, encyclopedic research as opposed to dismissing the opposing sides as "partisans" whose arguments come from "overheated brain cells" motivated to "expose" their "evil nemesis." Wikipedia is a collegian environment. With that aside, as for your comment in the future tense I direct you to WP:CRYSTALBALL: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Editors often protest the deletion of their articles on the grounds that their new idea is bound to take off and become popular soon, so why not have an article on it now? Sometimes they might be right, but other times they might not be, and once again there is no way for the reader to verify that their idea is going to be the next big thing. Wikipedia deals with subjects which are already notable and written about. It doesn't speculate on what might become well known in the future. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - neologism that hasn't been sufficiently established to deserve an article. It's clear from the article that although this word has been used a few times, it hasn't yet fixed on a particular meaning. Most appropriate solution would be to redirect to Alt-right, which has a small section on the idea of the 'alt-left'; that's all that's needed at present. Robofish (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Obviously passes WP:GNG. — JFG talk 20:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article necessitates more than simply notability unless it undergoes a merge or name modification. Rather than an article about merely a notable term, this is intended to be a high-importance article on an entire subsection of party politics when it's currently only a neologism which lacks definition, followers/self-identifiers, or affiliated parties. If the term's only use is by its opponents as a pejorative, it could qualify as a pejorative article, but it has no place on Wikipedia as a subsection of party politics. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No group identifies as "alt-left", and merely being spoken by a famous person does not make a neologism notable enough to merit an article. — Red XIV (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please cite the policy whereby we delete well-sourced WP:WORDISSUBJECT on the grounds that "No group identifies" itself by the word? E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The word is non-notable. It doesn't actually describe anything. Having recently been used by a celebrity is not sufficient to establish notability, even if that celebrity is the President of the United States. "alt-left" no more merits and article than does "covfefe" (which is a redirect). The alt-right article already has a section about the term, specifically noting that it's an attempt to invent a "liberal equivalent" to the alt-right where none actually exists. A separate article is not merited. — Red XIV (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that a predominate argument has been that we must delete this article because no person or group self-identifies as a member of the "alt-left." by this argument we would have to delete all articles in Category:Ethnic and religious slurs, and most of the article in List of religious slurs. I urge editors to look at the sourcing on the page before opining. page shows indepth coverage of WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Page also shows serious coverage of alt-left dating to autumn 2016; denial of the existence of which has been the other leading argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counter Note Such an argument would merit this as article as a pejorative slur equivalent to cuckservative, not as an article grouped with established subsections of party politics. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dispute your contention as a matter of formal logic. Nevertheless, I refer you to Category:Pejoratives. But suppose I take your point. Cuckservative was kept after FOUR highly contested deletion debates. Terms of this sort attract WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT arguments, either from Angry white male (FOUR AfDs; 1 no consensus close; THREE that closed as KEEP) or from Social justice warriors (only 1 MERGE debate, and 1 AfD but, hey, we skew left.) Now, can you cite a policy to support your argument above that "This article necessitates more than simply notability"?E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I direct your attention to the policy that has been cited several times throughout this discussion: WP:NEO. Rather than an article describing a genuine branch of politics, of which people and their political parties would identify such as the center-right, far-left, etc., this term is a neologism created not as a new political path but one coined with the intent of being a pejorative to refer to one's political opponents. If it has established itself as a term notable enough for Wikipedia then it would be an article on the campaign for a neologism, as said by Mark Miller. This article has no place in the template on party politics. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know. I cited it myself, above, more than once. Please read it, and explain in what sense this fails WP:NEO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and I've already responded to that post; your supporting evidence for the counter to WP:NEO was citing Google hits, which is against Wikipedia policy. Additionally, your quote from WP:NEO was missing important information: what precisely are we to consider the valid secondary source documents, and what are their primary source documents to legitimize them? My previous post still stands: if it has established itself as a term notable enough for Wikipedia then it would be an article on the campaign for a neologism, as said by Mark Miller. This article has no place in the template on party politics. The context of this article's current form is important and relevant to this discussion: this article, which openly and explicitly refers to itself as a neologism, is currently being displayed in a template as a legitimized subsection of party politics, which per the reasons already stated is very problematic. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you didn't even read my post before responding. Separately, the issue of whether ot include the article in a specific tamplate can be discussed on the article's talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stating that a someone didn't read your post is not a clarification of why they missed/misinterpreted its point, nor is it answer to my question regarding why you believe this term has been well-documented enough to deserve a standalone article despite its status as a neologism rather than deleting, merging, or renaming it. As it has been stated myriad times, much of the media coverage (including the references cited in the article itself) refer to it as a non-existent group, a pejorative, etc. Those that do try to define it do not provide definitions comparable to those that can be found in similar articles on the same topic. What is the primary and secondary source to support this article? I'm willing to support a rename if this subject is undoubtedly proven worthy of a standalone article rather than a footnote in the Alt Right article. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say the better analogy would be something overtly made-up for political/antagonizing purposes such as White History Month, which i see here is just a redirect and not a standalone article, thankfully. Cover the attempt to legitimize it, sure, somewhere as part of another article. But don't treat it like it is a genuine subject. TheValeyard (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would say this article is akin to Campaign for the neologism "santorum" and might need a change in article title if is remains. Just a thought.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Citing WP:NEO as grounds for deletion is ridiculous, as the term is now widely used on the US national and international media, whether you like it or not. כארומיל (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per MrX reasoning. Neologism that can't be applied to a specific group. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 23:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you cite the policy you are applying to this WP:WORDISSUBJECT topic? But do note that sources on page do identify and define the alt-left, in this, the article is not dissimilar to such neologisms as Bernie Bros, Generation Snowflake, Soccer Mom, trems, that is, coined and used by non-members of the groups labeled. If you meant that there is no formal group called "Alt-left," please familiarize yourself with the rules of Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey,E.M.Gregory. Decently familiar with the rules of Wikipedia, but I keep learning every day as they are endless. I know there is no formal notable group called "Alt-Left." Soccer Mom is pretty legitimate slang term that has been adapted by a wide variety of sources and publications (look it even has a film after the term: Soccer Mom (film)!). Bernie Bros hopefully won't exist five to ten years from now and will be merged with Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016. Probably the same with Generation Snowflake and Snowflake (slang as they are both just pejoratives used by people if they come to a disagreement. But I guess we are not here to get into the full merits of those terms. I kinda see this as the same debate as Covfefe debacle. Not every word President Trump says should have its own Wikipedia page. At the end of the day my vote is weak delete, but delete for now. Please ping me if you want to keep talking about it, as I don't really watch pages. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 02:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and embellish. The creation/development of this wiki is a truly wonderful development. I am glad to have been a part of its initiation. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Alt-left, or Alternative Left is a term used by President Donald Trump in reference to the radicalized counter protesters that erupted into violence during a permitted protest rally in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 12, 2017.[3]. Speaking at Trump Tower in Manhattan, Trump questioned "What about the alt-left that came charging at, as you say, the alt-right?"
Members of the alt-left typically do not support First Amendment guaranteed free speech and engage in premeditated rioting, fighting and demonstrating against persons with opinions that differ from theirs. The alt-left is a hate group that openly participates in violence and bigotry while claiming the moral high ground. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither of those statements were included in the cited source, nor related paraphrases. As a side note, please avoid soapboxing; your description of the "alt left" wasn't included in your source, leaving it to be an assumed opinion piece. Each edit to your original statement is becoming more politically charged and less neutral. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

::::*User:Let us eat lettuce, I see that you are newish here. Welcome. Just fyi, Articles for Deletion (AfD) is a place where we discuss whether or not a specific topic passes the WP:GNG. Bringing a source, as you did, is a way to meet part of that Guideline. But we really do try to confine discussions here to notability, as laid out at WP:GNG and related guideline pages. It's not a place for discussion of question such as what the alt-left supports, or does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

  • In other words, you have articulated no actual reason to delete. Just expressing feelings about liking it and the Wikipedia, followed by some Hannity-fed propaganda. TheValeyard (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eat lettuce did bring a source, which is a step beyond mere opinion. And a good start to learning the arcane ropes of AfD discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a really good source defining alt-left... <Victor Davis Hanson, What is the “Alt” Left? https://amgreatness.com/2017/04/02/what-is-the-alt-left/ , April 2, 2017> The Alt-Left largely dismisses the old liberal idea of 1960s Civil Rights. Preference, diversity, and segregated safe spaces have become the new agendas. The purpose of safe spaces and trigger warnings is to provide purported “victims” their deserved extra-constitutional protections. The Alt-Left does not believe in free speech. A chief assertion of Alt-Left is the moral superiority of the Left. The Alt-Left’s idea of the nullification of law holds that local laws override federal legislation, and thus entitle sanctuary cities to shield illegal aliens. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not a "really good source", it is an awfulsource, low-quality blog which the Wikipedia does not consider a reliable source, so it would not be usable in the article. As for Gregory, the Hollywood Reporter tabloid is not much better. I realize this discussion may not be going the way you'd like, given the brow-beating you've been leveling at nearly every editor who thinks it should be deleted, but tabloids and blog-citing editors aren't helping your case any. TheValeyard (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of a group blog on which a notable scholar, such as Victor Davis Hanson, writes a post, his article in American Greatness can be cited for his opinion. Even, in the case of a well-known scholar, a fact in his specific scholarly field can be cited to his blog comment - with caution, I have seen this done and defended only on narrow points of scholarship Stuff like the decipherable of a bit of ancient epigraphy. And opinion, however, can be cited to the notable individual writing on a blog, at the same level of reliability as an op-ed. (In certain scholarly fields, this is done quite widely.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Really!? Just trying to define the Alt-left and display the term is being used by others.. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to Let us eat lettuce, amgreatness.com is a strictly partisan website with an intended bias. Wikipedia necessitates that all information must be encyclopedic, verifiable, and neutral. Regardless of whether a source is strictly left or strictly right, it cannot be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Additionally, although Wikipedia does not go based off of raw vote counts, please state your !vote only once. I've crossed out the "Keep" from your latest reply (don't worry, I too have put "keep"/"delete" in all of my replies on past articles for deletion where my extra !votes were struck through) BrendonTheWizard (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, group blogs like American Greatness can be cited for the opinion of the individual authors. This is Standard Operating procedure.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the context you described yes, it would be fair to cite an author and reference their opinion. However, in this context there was an attempt to cite it for the purpose of definition where the mentioned definition is loaded with POV. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • VG! btw, this subject is really sparking a good debate. didn't realize what I started yesterday, on the talk page of Alt-right... Let us eat lettuce (talk) 02:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for now - I think it's got enough to be due a mention, wait a month or so and revisit if the usage is becoming more popular or was a brief flash. Seems a fairly obvious political label for the extremist or violent part of the left. Seems similar to Hard left in the UK, and perhaps containing the Anti-fa and Black bloc movements. Term seems)reflecting the opposite of the more common Alt-right, along with ALt- usages Alt-lite and Alt-fact of political speech in America. I see some media coverage(Washington Post "What is the Alt-left", CBSnews.com "What is the alt-left") outside of the higher profile today over "Trump lashes out at alt-left", so again -- revisit in a few weeks whether the term is now in ocmmon use. Markbassett (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Keep for now" isn't how AfD works. Either it's notable or it isn't. And since it's a WP:NEO with no real meaning, it isn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and Soft Delete Delete "big time" - I thinks this term is pretty unorganized from start but somehow used by Centre-right Democrats via 'Clinton-wing' and Right-wing circles to supposedly criticized people to originally Bernie Supporters and their Democratic Socialist/Progressive beliefs but now Trump used it to refer to all Left-wing specturm to presume violent. But set side, It's needs to be deleted until more people used it. Chad The Goatman (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of the term ever having been used by Democrats to refer to Sanders supporters. That's merely assertion made without citation in the alt-right article. — Red XIV (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, Several people in Democratic Party like Joy-Ann Reid used term only refer to Bernie follower and it's ideology as dumb slur before Trump hijacked it to refering all left-wing specturm as "violent". And also found something that Vice and Vanity Fair point it out. Chad The Goatman (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Homeopathy and Flying Spaghetti Monster both have articles despite the fact that neither is a real thing. The term is being used by prominent members of the far-right in the US (including the president) and the term is getting coverage in secondary sources, so it seems sensible to have an article here covering it. If the term falls out of favor at a later date, the article can be deleted/merged/redirected. --ChiveFungi (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't say that pseudo-medicinal practices or satire religions are fitting examples to compare a political neologism to. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Delete coatrack repeated BLP violations mess. There is section in another article that covers it. See Alt-right#Alt-left. QuackGuru (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete See above. We aren't a dictionary of neologisms. Worth a sentence in a related article. A user above just said, Keep for now - I think it's got enough to be due a mention, wait a month or so and revisit if the usage is becoming more popular or was a brief flash. I can't think of a better argument for deleting it. wp:not news wp:coat rack wp:dictionary Edaham (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How embarrassing. remind me to look twice before I come back from the bathroom Edaham (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does pointing out Wikipedia policy violations/concerns count as or "expose" "bias?" Attack arguments, not editors. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge with Alt-right or Unite the Right rally. Not everything the President says is notable enough for its own article. We had unnecessary and quite frankly ridiculous articles for "covfefe" and "last night in Sweden" and thankfully those were merged with their appropriate topics. Some other commentators and sites have talked about alt-left besides Donald Trump but not widely discussed by reliable sources. I say this would fit nicely as a section in Alt-right (since the new term is basically just derived from that) or Unite the Right rally, the context in which Donald brought up the term. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 05:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current !vote is roughly 33 delete, 20 keep, 5 redirect/merge. It remains to be seen whether this will become a commonly used term to refer to Antifa, or a term used mainly by the alt-right, or if it will fade into obscurity entirely. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the end of the day, AfDs are resolved through consensus and not votes, so it'll be up to the editor who closes this discussion to see all the arguments and decide. I think it'll mainly be used by the alt-right, but we don't know yet. I think it's too early to know. Whatever the outcome of this AfD is, it would be good to revisit this discussion in six months or a year and see how well the term aged. 179.228.12.242 (talk) 05:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, forgot to log in. That is my IP, by the way. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's too early to know... I concur! Let us eat lettuce (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the end it will be up to the administrator that closes this to weigh the arguments and determine the consensus, though I add that if it genuinely is too early to know if this term will become a mainstay of politics, or if it is expected to some day be found in dictionaries, or if it'll simply be a frequent "trumpsim" used during the president's speeches, then we should discuss the creation of the standalone article in the future if/when it proves to be more than a neologism popularized by celebrity use. WP:CRYSTALBALL for now. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's now a real-term covered in RS's and bound to be repeated by Trump as much a Fake News. It' the inclusive term used to describe the left leaning people that attend alt-right assemblies. It's broader than the violent anarchists of antifa. --DHeyward (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bound to be"? Lets keep things in the here and now, the sources that talk about the "alt-left" discuss why it doesn't exist. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some do, but others (Washington Post 2016 article) trace the history of its origin, use, and definition, while still other sources were exploring the terms' meaning, significance and context in the political conversation long before Charlottesville/Trump. (see this: [4] old, pre-edit-warring version of article) Even most of the sources that assert that the "alt-left" doesn't exist, or that the term should not be used, go on to discuss and define the term itself and the groups of activist that it is said to describe. An altogether normal conversation to swirl around a political neologism, and very like the conversation about "alt-right" in the year's before what's-his-name stood up and asserted that he and his publication were "alt-right."E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have seen this source pop up in the discussion but even if I were to give you that one it doesn't show in depth usage of the term. If we want to define the term then there is Wiktionary. Even if this page is deleted there is still a mention over at Alt-right#Alt-left (WP:TOOSOON). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Term has been used way before Trump did and I'm not sure the term was even started by conservatives. Lot of center-left democrats used that term last year to describe Bernie Bros.[5][6][7]
  • Delete It's a neologism. Can be redirected to Antifa. Wait a while, if it's still used in 6 months, there's no problem with recreating the page. LK (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Alt-left includes multiple groups not just Antifa, so your suggestion will not work. IQ125 (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • IQ125, I agree that redirecting to Antifa is not the best decision, though because that definitions of "Alt-left" vary. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Today, a new, in-depth, exploration of the origin of the therm "alt-left" in the Washington Post. The alt-right didn’t invent ‘alt-left.’ Liberals did., here: [8]. Just the latest in a mountain of WP:SIGCOV, WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Unlike the 2016 reported article, this one is an op-ed. WaPo publishes ~10,000 op-eds per day online. They are as reliable as their authors. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not new information and it serves no purpose to post it here. We know that neoliberals used it against progressives associated with the "Sanders wing" of the Democratic Party during the primaries. What is your point supposed to be? Even had this been relevant to post here, claims on the main article that it was popularized by Trump are not falsehoods, and even had they been as well, this is still a neologism. I fail to see the relevance of posting this on the article for deletion. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This opinion article doesn't present any evidence that Clinton voters invented the term during the primaries. Rather it talks about how the term "Bernie Bro" transformed into "alt-left" by February 2017. Anyways, opinion articles aren't accepted as reliable sources for anything except one's opinion. FallingGravity 20:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point was that the conversation about this WP:WORDISSUBJECT continues; that men in really good Stetsons are weighing in, like David Clarke (sheriff), today, Trump is right: The alt-left exists and the media ignores it here: [9]; and that the cumulative weight of so much ink adds up to notability. Even if I personally cannot admire the motivations of many, perhaps most, of the people pushing this term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per E.M.Gregory. Even if this is a neologism, it is still a significant one. Even if it isn't a thing, the term is still notable. Even since the nomination has been made there has been enough significant coverage in reliable sources to justify an article. StAnselm (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a liberal i support the creation of this article it would be nice if we could have a ideology for the alt left because it's annoying when people call liberals crazy racists when it's actually the alt-left. Hillary popularised the term alt right why can't popularise alt left comment made by User:Jack1234567891011121314151617, editor who joined us less than a month and ~ 50 edits ago. And who has an, er... unusual pattern of editing for a newbie.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should ping an admin.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Pinging (had pinged Drmies, but no need). My guess is probably no at this point but one can always ask.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:G5: "To qualify, the edit or article must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. ".E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and PerfectlyIrrational was already blocked and created the article as the sock puppet MainK.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, it looks as though he was not blocked until today under this identity [10], unless the rule applies to the earlier identity under which he was banned?E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how it works but nice try. Frankly at this point there may be too many people editing the page for an admin to speedy delete even if it is only a handful of contributors.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now you're just being uncivil by attempting to make my comment out to be an assumption of bad faith and calling it snark.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark Miller: This and the above remarks about the nominator are a bad trend by Gregory whom I have tried to help out by saying not to become overly involved in AfDs. Not every comment here needs a reply, comments should be about the article and not about the editor. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And this isn't even the worst of it: Gregory does this on a regular basis at political or criminal AfDs. I have extended a lot of rope for him but I'm thinking a tban proposal from AfD and page move discussions will soon be necessary. He has received enough warnings.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must say, it seems like a waste of everyone's time to have a do-over.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it can be speedy deleted under G5 at this point as the guideline is clear; "[C]reated by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others".--Mark Miller (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It still might be eligible for speedy delete under G10 as pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity and/or G11 as serving no purpose but unambiguous advertising or promotion of the term for political reasons.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark Miller: Likely a G11 can speedy this --209.249.5.130 (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • More info The alt-right, or conservative news media didn’t invent ‘alt-left.’ Liberals did. The 2016 Democratic primary exposed a long-brewing schism in the liberal dis-order. Bernie Bro, the Clintonites caricature of a childish "deplorable" white man who just can’t bear the thought of a female president. The “Bernie bros” were exactly the people center-left Democrats were describing when they first said “alt-left.” It was meant to cast Bernie Sanders supporters as not just unreasonably radical but also a bit sexist and racist. They didn’t just mean the “antifa,” or anti-fascists but more an alt-left of center-based Liberalism.[1] Let us eat lettuce (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Molly Roberts | Washington Post, The alt-right didn’t invent ‘alt-left.’ Liberals did. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/08/17/the-alt-right-didnt-invent-alt-left-liberals-did/?utm_term=.3c6bb74f5a36 , August 17, 2017
    • While it is true that some anti-Sanders writers invoked the term "alt-left" during the presidential primaries, I wouldn't say they necessarily created the term either. The moment that the term "alt-right" become a familiar term (and likely before then), there were certainly people who started using the term alt-left. It's who used the term and how high profile those people were/are that matters most. Most of the mentions of the term at this point revolve around this nebulous polar opposite of the alt-right. Master of Time (talk) 01:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: The term "alt-left" is now a term notable enough for it to have its own article. Numerous sources talk about it, and even the President of the United States mentioned it. Now, I am not going to go into any arguments into whether there is an actual alt-left in the United States or the world -- whether a thing actually exists is not a criteria for whether we can or cannot have an article on the topic. We have articles on all sorts of things that don't exist: Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, Moon landing conspiracy theories, Holocaust denial, to name some extreme examples. This article discusses the term, and the term is notable enough to have its own article, whether or not the article topic actually exists. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the term, even if it is just used as an epithet, is notable enough to have an article for it. It has received a lot of media coverage, as the sources in the article show (quite a few of the cited sources came long before Trump recently mentioned the term, so this term is independent of Trump and the Charlottesville violence). --1990'sguy (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the term is used to attack the Left is also an invalid argument to use for deleting this article. We have articles on Democrat Party (epithet) and Bernie Bro -- because the terms received a lot of coverage and notability just like this one.--1990'sguy (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If media-usage of the term since this weekend's terror attack is an indicator of whether we have an article, then you are correct. However, that is not the criteria here - I think you may have mistaken this project with Wikinews or Wikitionary. There's a very, very clear Wikipedia policy on neologisms, which tells us that that articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted. It further notes that To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers. So tell me - where are these? All I see are news articles. Where are the academic papers? The books? The dissertations? Well, it's too soon maybe ... that's the point. It's too soon. Which is why WP:NEO goes on clearly to say Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles..
Tell me, if you think this is even a marginal keep (let alone strong), how do we allow this article without violating WP:Neologism? Nfitz (talk) 06:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin's note on G5: no admin in their right mind is going to delete something speedily if it has an AfD that's 90k big. Drmies (talk)
  • What about one who's in a left mind? Sorry ... couldn't resist ... I'll get my coat. Nfitz (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - For fuck's sake, Wikipedia is NOTURBANDICTIONARY. There is no such thing as "Alt Left" — the "Alt Right" is a name the American fascist movement has bestowed upon itself; this is an attempt by the Lunatic In Chief and his accomplices to slander the left. Period. Start an article called Lunacies of Donald J. Trump and redirect to that. Carrite (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Carrite I fully understand your frustration. This debate derides the spirit of wikipedia. It's a definitive example of people trying to use the project to change the world rather than report on it. Edaham (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned just above, just because a term may not exist in real life does not mean it cannot have an article. This term has received a lot of media attention, even before President Trump mentioned it. There is no comparing this term, which has received a lot of objective coverage making it notable, to you POV "Lunacies of Donald J. Trump" article you proposed. If "Lunacies of Donald J. Trump" were a notable term for whatever reason, it would be appropriate to add as an article, assuming it would not exist as an attack page, but rather to describe the term itself. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I mention in response to your mention just above (see just below), it's almost as if WP:Neologism was written specifically so that this article could not be created at this time. As for Currite's comment - crude, but accurate. Very frustrating, given that "Alt Right" seems to be more a term created by a PR expert to white-wash the neo-nazi movement - and this has been reported directly by neonazis in mainstream publications. Nfitz (talk) 06:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Alt-right#Alt-left ~Awilley (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The highest government official in the United States - Donald J. Trump - used the term alt-left. And the mainstream media widely covered his use of the term alt-left. Snope.com says: "Use of the term “alt-left” gained ground quickly online (according to Google Trends charts) when conservative Fox News host Sean Hannity used the term in a debate with BuzzFeed writer Rosie Gray over media coverage of the so-called “alt-right“. Searches for the term spiked again directly after Trump used it in his 14 August 2017 press conference:"[11]Knox490 (talk) 07:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The world is not US, even less is it Fox or Hannity (who he?). The ravings of any of the three don't automatically acquire significance on WP, sorry to break it to you. Pincrete (talk) 10:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale of "the highest government official used it" is very flawed. Not every bushism or trumpism warrants a standalone article. Wikipedians agreed on that when deleting Covfefe word in favor of a redirect. Not even Nixon's infamous I am not a crook statement was found worthy of an article. At best this article could in the future be made under a modified name to clarify that the title is a pejorative, or perhaps we can do as another user suggested and name the title Campaign for the neologism "alt-left" to have a name similar to other attempts to invent new political terms for political opponents such as Campaign for the neologism "santorum". This term's use is limited to the Democratic Party referring to the "Sanders wing" and the Republican Party referring to (more or less) anything associated with the left that they disapproved of, whether it be antifa or progressives, etc. In short, the president using it is not sufficient reason to create an article about it. Furthermore, citing Google Trends goes against the Wikipedia policy on google hits See WP:LOTSOFGHITS. I acknowledge that when Google Trend represents a consistent trend of interest, it isn't violating any policy to cite it, but both in the long term and short term, there is no trend of significant interest in "alt-left" so citing the recent spike in "alt left" (especially contrasted to other recent search terms) would be a clear GHITS violation. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The term existed long before Trump mentioned it (as several cited sources here show) -- Trump using the term is not the sole reason for the term to have its own article, and the term is notable enough for us to keep it (the level of activity on the AfD page is more evidence of this). --1990'sguy (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial merge and redirect. The content here is not entirely useless. Overblown? Probably, but I actually learned something. I had assumed that it was a term that Donald Trump just made up, on the spot, in front of the cameras, a few days ago. Finding out that it dates back to the antediluvian past of 2016 was interesting and worth knowing. The problem is that what we have here is an article on a subject that says "Subject is not a real subject." which might be fair enough in the case of some(non)thing like the Luminiferous aether which represents a coherent, if incorrect, idea which was widely believed in for a long time by many people. For this, I don't see it. It is the neo in neologism (yes, even if it is not quite as new as I expected) and the lack of mainstream use (except in the recent "What is Trump blahering on about now?" coverage) that seem to doom it as an article subject. It is just a made up name with little wide acceptance. What it refers to is a subject we already have articles about. So, it is absolutely vital that anybody typing "alt-left" into the search box gets redirected somewhere where they can find out what on earth is being spoken about but also that we don't make this look more like a real thing/name than it is. I'm not sure about the best target for the suggested merge. There are some reasonable suggestions above and I'm not sure which is best. Probably not something directly Trump related if he did not invent it himself. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, phenomenon doesn't exist, is not sufficiently established as a pejorative to be able to define it, term has been notably used once, what is there to defend? Deserves a brief mention in "alt-right" or possibly a D Trump article at most. Pincrete (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – This is just another abuse of authoritative speech that the media is forced to consider. Debouch (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the concept doesn't exist and nobody actually identifies as 'Alt-Left'.Wadaad (talk) 07:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:NEO. This Wikipedia page has blantantly been created to promote this newly coined satirical and derogatory phrase. This article even states that this phrase is a neologism and that there aren't any subscribers to such a movement because no such movement exists. Wikipedia is an encyclopeadia, derogatory neologisms for non-existant movements belong on Urban Dictionary. 82.7.159.235 (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As a socialist accused of being part of the alt-left I would like there to be a page discussing the inflamatory history of the term as well as reasons why some of us are embracing it. It fits in with the various alt* accounts on social media, e.g. the AltYellowstone twitter account. It distinguishes us from neoliberals, giving clear indication to people out there who don't like the right that there is a movement within the left that is not neoliberalism that the neoliberals won't hijack, etc. I do not like the conditions under which the term came about but on the other hand, it is a gift of sorts, because we can embrace the term despite the inflamatory history to provide people with a clear alternative to mainstream left politics, making it clear that lesser of two evils isn't the only option. 2600:1010:B01F:8DEC:227:10FF:FE1C:D13C (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This user has no edits outside of this page. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: That would be because other than occasional obvious non-controversial typo corrections, I do not make contributions to WikiPedia. Too much drama in that process, so a formal account is not needed. The IPv6 is a Verizon wireless, they are not static. 2600:1010:B01F:8DEC:227:10FF:FE1C:D13C (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic. --Mark Miller (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Which radio/television media did you discuss this? Hmm, one of those links is broken, two seem to be a stereotype, not a group; one if a Republican group - how is that even left? Anothers leads to a disambiguation page. Neither BLM nor Occupy seem to be exlusively made up or one side or both of the centre. Nfitz (talk) 01:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hannity, Rush, Lou Dobbs = watch and listen... Who supports Trump??? He supports you!!!! He supports all Americans, and.. again, He supports you!!! come on' Join us! Let us eat lettuce (talk)
Could you stop further disruption on this AFD please.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yes, of course.. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 04:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn't even close. The topic has received widespread coverage in numerous reliable sources. Arguments in favor of deletion seem to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If this wasn't a politically charged topic, this never would have been nominated for deletion.

List of Reliable Sources Demonstrating That This Topic Meets The General Notability Guideline

BTW, it only took a few minutes to find these sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that discuss the non-existence of the "alt left" as an actual entity or movement, yes. We've discussed this, you're a bit late to the game. WP:NEO seems to have been written precisely for this sort of situation, for made-up buzzword slurs created out of a false sense of moral equivalence. TheValeyard (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of WP:NEO and it doesn't say what you think it says. WP:NEO says articles about neologisms are commonly deleted if there are little or no reliable sources about the term. It also draws a distinction between sources that use a term and sources about a term. As demonstrated about, the term has received significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Try reading WP:NEO again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is that really a lot of sources? I notice they are all news or opinion pieces. This is not an article about a group or organization but about a phrase used as name calling. The article Alt-right already has a number of BLP issues, the most blatant are photos identifying individuals and stating that they are the leaders of the alt-right in the captions with no reference or source. All claims in images must be sourced like everything else. I can imagine the disruption and controversy over images people will want to upload and claim to be the alt-left leaders when there is no actual group. So, this is an article about a slur with only a history of about a year and a half with only half the amount of news sources the alt-right shows on a google search with no additional RS of any kind. The Alt-right as a subject is about an actual entity and has both book sources and scholarly papers that could be used on top of the newspaper and magazine articles. The alt-left is simply a fringe concept. It's origins were always one side calling the other side this name to belittle them and their campaigns or political aspirations but never in a mass, organized manner. Sean Hannity and Donald Trump can claim the earth is flat but that does not elevate the theory to mainstream nor does it make the alt-left real or tangible.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's more than enough reliable sources and it only took me a few minutes to find them. I'm sure other people can find plenty more. Yes, news organizations are generally considered reliable sources. Please see WP:NEWSORG. The rest of your arguments are WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The issue here is whether or not this topic has received significant coverage of reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not one of those sources meets the criteria of WP:NEO. These are all newspapers and magazines, and WP:NEO asks for books and papers for neologisms.It's easy to find neologisms in yesterday's paper - which is why that's not the criteria! Nfitz (talk)
WP:NEO says no such thing. You're misreading that guideline. That part to which you are referring is where WP:NEO distinguishes between sources which use that term and sources about a term. Try reading it again. It does not say only books and papers sources count.
In fact, if you continue reading WP:NEO, it says "a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject [if it] passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources". WP:RS clearly states that news organisations are generally speaking reliable sources. See WP:NEWSORG. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the original post by A Quest For Knowledge, at this point there's far too many !votes to simply invoke WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a way to dismiss all of them at once under the assumption that any disagreement is rooted solely in dislike as opposed to Wikipedia policy & ambiguity regarding the longevity of its notability. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a right-winger, I think it's only fair that if there is an acknowledgement and article for a somewhat derogatory term for the right, there should be the same for the left. I feel that this falls under WP:NPOV. Cganuelas (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. "Tit for tat" is not a principle advocated in any any Wikipedia policy. The difference between the two is that there clearly is a significant set of groups that call themselves "Alt-right" so we have an article about that. "Alt-left" is just a name with nothing coherent behind it. There is no real equivalence. Also, "Alt-right" is not a derogatory name for the right. It is an extremist movement within the right. If you are right wing and reject the label Alt-right then that is in no way inconsistent. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's pretty apparent that sources exist to support an article. HampsteadLord (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not the sources required for a brand new neologism. Where are the books? The papers? Instead we have newspapers and magazine articles, which are more about the President's use o the tem, many nmoting that it's either a real movement, or a real word! Nfitz (talk) 08:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. While the term does have usage in fringe sources it is almost completely absent from reliable sources. Mostly because no such thing exists.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    First, WP:NEO doesn't say that articles about topics that have received significant coverage by reliable sources should be deleted. Second, since when are the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, The Guardian, Los Angeles Times, etc. fringe sources? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I just commented above, shortly before you posted, WP:NEO asks for books and papers for neologisms. Not newspapers and magazines! It's easy to find neologisms in yesterday's paper - which is why that's not the criteria! Nfitz (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NEO says no such thing. You're misreading that guideline. That part to which you are referring is where WP:NEO distinguishes between sources which use that term and sources about a term. Try reading it again. It does not say only books and papers sources count.
In fact, if you continue reading WP:NEO, it says "a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject [if it] passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources". WP:RS clearly states that news organisations are generally speaking reliable sources. See WP:NEWSORG. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
May <> Must, this is where editors have leeway to decide cases like this, where the media goes batty over a non-existent word that Trump says or tweets, e.g. covfefe. Everything about this stems from a single Trumpian utterance, one could not hope for a better example of a fly-by-neologism than this. Come back in 6 months if any leftists actually adopt the term in the way the alt-right did, ten you can get an article. TheValeyard (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Every word in every language in the history of time came from somebody's single utterance. The only issue that matters is whether or not the topic has received significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject. The answer to that is a resounding yes. Whether or not any leftists adopt the term is irrelevant. Please see WP:GNG and base your arguments on that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A resounding no actually. Half the sources of the Alt-right with absolutely no book sources or scholarly papers.--Mark Miller (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule that says articles must be supported by books or scholarly papers. Your argument has no basis. Please read WP:RS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will base my arguments on what I choose to, buddy, and leave it to the administrator who closes this to evaluate it. Not you. The GNG is all well and good but it is not the only criteria on which to judge article suitability. TheValeyard (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're making up rules that don't exist. If you want to cite WP:IAR, then just say it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's apparent the term has been in usage for past 2 years already and there are many sources to back the terminology. What really needs to happen is to differentiate conservative groups, liberal, communists, far-right, supremacist groups, nationalist groups and ethnic groups so that they are not bunched or lump in as one overwhelming group. When the media describes someone as alt-right they somehow misrepresent that person, as someone who is right of the center. I feel the same will happen if the media describes the alt-left as anything left of center. Candidates that should be included in the list are BAMN, Antifa (United States), Redneck Revolt.F2Milk (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can see what you are thinking with that list. If this term were to have a meaning then your list is probably in line with what most people would expect that meaning would be, but where do we have sources, never mind reliable ones, saying that these are part of something actually called "alt-left"? Without that it is just unreferenced speculation which groups are included or excluded. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per the arguments above. Wikipedia is certainly not a collection of neologisms, especially ones where the origin is uncertain and the subject is too broad to apply to. Even the WP:RS that could potentially be used in such a situation where this article manages to stay up acknowledge that it's an ambiguous, amorphous, made-up term about as relevant as "covfefe," which doesn't have an article. There are plenty of articles outlining the American Left, creating this does not serve an encyclopedic purpose. Buffaboy talk 15:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect After further review, I believe that the best course of action would be to just merge and redirect some of the key points into alt-right, while still mentioning that it is a neologism. If this doesn't suffice, then I still believe deletion is the ultimate solution. Buffaboy talk 01:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Plenty of RS coverage. If I didn't know better I would probably say that the delete votes are politically motivated, but since that isn't civil I'm not gonna assume anything :). Jdcomix (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - You may note that this discussion was had before back on April 23, and the consensus was Delete. I hope the opinions of the editors who came before will be considered. 104.220.69.43 (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a ridiculous POV article. "Alt-right" is a term the Trumpian movement uses about itself. There is no movement calling itself "alt-left" or that is called so by any serious sources. The article claims that this supposed neologism is used by the extremist far-right to describe "groups or outlets or individuals who were perceived as being critical of President-elect Donald Trump." However, those "critical of [...] Trump" are the conservatives (every single of them as the word is understood in most of the world) and generally everyone who isn't a neo-Nazi, KKK supporter or some other form of white supremacist/far-right extremist. --Tataral (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can clearly see that you dislike Trump with a burning passion. However, this isn't the place to discuss your politics. The question isn't whether or not the alleged "alt-left" self-identifies as such, the question is whether there are enough reliable sources covering the topic to warrant an article. Jdcomix (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. There is no movement called "alt-left" by reliable sources. Breitbart and similar extremist sources are not reliable sources. A supposed "movement" comprising everyone critical of Trump would by definition include everyone except the extremist far-right, from the conservatives to the political left. That is a nonsensical idea. --Tataral (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly WAPO, NYT, and NBC disagree with you regarding there being no RS coverage. Check the citations on the article. Jdcomix (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They don't cover this as a real phenomenon/movement, but only as an example of "extremist language," i.e. the language of the extremist far-right. The sources in question would be sufficient to mention in the article alt-right that they call their opponents "alt-left," not to invent a fictitious "movement". --Tataral (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These sources seldom refer to it as anything more than a neologism and those that do attempt to use it as any other term fail to agree on what the term even means. The fact that the article has "Antifa" (anti fascism) and "Left-wing fascism" (fascism) in the same See Also should show the demonstrable flaws with this article and its sources. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NEO, and redirect to Alt-right#Alt-left. As Trump's usage shows, it is understood as, 'Alt-right, so there must be an alt-left', and the encyclopedic way to treat it now is in context -- "alt-right" created a language lacuna, which had to be filled. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In the event that no general agreement is met: As I'm noticing a near-equal amount of !votes with reasonable argument; should this close as a No Consensus, I recommend either merging to Alt-right#Alt-left. or renaming to Campaign for the neologism "alt-left" or to Alt-left (neologism) rather than defaulting to keeping as-is in the event of a thoroughly split !vote. This is based on how both delete and keep !votes have commented on similar proposals. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have some sympathy for this proposal, but the connection to the alt-right is weak, a matter of analogy-by-symbol-manipulation at best. It would be more relevant to put this material into its proper context by merging it with one or both of the most commonly linked groups, Antifa (United States) and either Democratic socialism or Social democracy depending on how you interpret the reliable sources referenced in this article as it stands. Next-best would be to just make a section in the Left-wing politics article, which at least is undeniably relevant. Of course there should be a redirect from Alt-left to wherever this material ends up. 98.247.224.9 (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understandable, though due to the lack of clear definition on when the pejorative "alt left" is or is not used it would be difficult to merge it into any one left-related article and social democracy is center-left progressivism while to my understanding or lack thereof this term is intended to refer to "far left" (that being said, you're right that people have used this term on the center-left and more or less on any example of leftism that one disagrees with). I wouldn't give it a section in Left-wing politics due to how it doesn't give actual positions their own sections, but even if it did this term is a neologism pejorative rather than a subsection of party politics. Perhaps a rename with redirect would alleviate the concerns regarding where a merge should occur. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or merge to Antifa (United States) or Alt-right#Alt-left. We are so vulnerable to this proliferation of RECENTIST, politically-driven neologism. We are NOTNEWS and not part of the blogosphere. Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC) (update to include alt merge target. this one is ok by me too Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep - I feel that this falls under "when a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject." The fact that the thing that the phrase describes is not real doesn't mean Wikipedia shouldn't cover the phrase itself if enough usage and discussion exists that it would be beneficial to human knowledge to be able to look up where the phrase comes from and whether or not it refers to a real thing. For example, I got here by virtue of checking that myself. —CrazyDreamer (talk) 03:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Obviously this might require a rename or similar. I have no objections to move/merge suggestions that wouldn't imply that it's an actual name for a group on whose page it appeared. —CrazyDreamer (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain your vote? What part of WP:NEO leads you to believe that this article should be deleted? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the article is about the term not about any organisation, movement or coalition. As it should be. The term is notable, as evidenced by 3rd party coverage, and an encyclopedia article is appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking a term is not an encyclopaedic subject. I'm not saying that it never is but WP:NOTDICT seems to point us away from this. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep articles exist on things that don't actually exist or on terms that are used as slurs ("when a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject."). This term exists and is clearly notable, completely aside from any concerns about there being any actual group (which there is: Antifa). The extreme left also clearly exists as well (i.e. communism). — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 05:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's a neologism with a bunch of google hits. As Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage of a word doesn't mean we should have an article. Sometimes we have articles on neologisms, but here the term has no clear meaning. It's used in relation to or in reaction to the alt-right, which despite widespread use was likewise not a notable term until it was the subject of several in-depth articles trying to define it. We don't have that sufficiently yet for this term. I see it being used synonymously with other terms and groups we already cover, for various groupings of activists, and with no clear meaning at all. Usage != article in an encyclopedia. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To add to your argument, the Google hits of this term are highly overstated as it's near irrelevance and the recent media coverage only shows an increase in interest in the alt-right while the alt-left barely increased in notability at all. Keep !votes that try to cite the amount of GHITS are in clear violation of WP:LOTSOFGHITS (though ironically there's not lots of GHITS which only further demonstrates the lack of interest contrary to what has been said). BrendonTheWizard (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neologisms can be notable too, and while a 'bunch of google hits' doesn't make a notable neologism, articles in reliable sources about that neologism do make it notable (a Quick google news search will reveal plenty). Yes, even if those sources conclude that there is no such thing (and not all of them do). — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 19:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and re-tone as per non-news sources like James W. Ceaser; Andrew E. Busch; John J. Pitney Jr. (2017). Defying the Odds: The 2016 Elections and American Politics. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 23. ISBN 978-1-4422-7348-1. ....and as per the essay Wikipedia:Does deletion help? "Whatever your strategy, don't leave our readers without any information on subjects of notability...."..--Moxy (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete There is no such thing as an "alt-left." Nobody uses this term to describe themselves (unlike the term "alt-right", which was initially coined by the members of the that group and continues to be used by them). Furthermore, over half the sources cited in the article are sources explaining that the "alt-left" does not really exist. At least one of the sources is literally an article entitled "There is no alt-left." --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether they exist or not is not really relevant much. Unicorns don't exist, but we have an article because the sources exist for it. HampsteadLord (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies if this sounds too harsh but that's a very, very poor comparison. It shouldn't need to be said why the concept of "unicorns" has its place on Wikipedia due to the long-lasting cultural relevance due to its depiction both in media of the distant past and the present, as well as even being the official state-recognized national animal of Scotland. This, however, is a recently invented pejorative that doesn't refer to anything and may be loosely used by certain neoliberal factions of the Democratic Party of the United States and/or conservatives that use it on any left-wingers that they disagree with whether they're as centrist as social democrats or as radical as anarchist, whether they're peaceful hippies that endorse the lib-left or violent antifascists that endorse the auth-left. It's too early to determine if this term will stick and to say that it's going to would be a clear instance of WP:CRYSTAL. The overwhelming majority of its online interest came after its mention in the American president's response to a single press conference question. It's less comparable to the concept of a unicorn and more comparable to the insult "cuckservative." BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To prevent any more citing of the Google hits as an example of how the term "alt-left" has sufficiently reached notability, here's a few noteworthy comparisons that demonstrate how little interest there actually is in the term. Here is one contrasting alt-left to the nonexistent country San Escobar which only survived deletion because it proved its notability based on the standard for other nonexistent country articles. A more telling contrast is comparing the spike in alt-left to that of the alt-right to that of the former Confederacy. Let us not quickly assume the conclusion that this term's notability is established as anything more than a product of the Unite the Right rally. This is further demonstrated to how | interest in the alt-left is equal to that of the rally itself, while "fascism" shows a greater interest. Note that this comment is not a counterargument to keep votes in general, but I've seen both keep and delete posts frequently mention that it has "a bunch of hits" when that isn't true in either context. I also acknowledge that if I were to cite this as the sole reason to not keep it then this would by a GHITS violation on my part as well; I've already made several other counterarguments throughout this AoD. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @BrendonTheWizard: your confederate states comparison, uses two search terms, and one topic, creating the warning "This comparison contains both Search terms and Topics, which are measured differently". Though replacing it with a much more interesting search term like "Kate Perry" or "covfefe" does put the whole thing in perspective. Nfitz (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Alt-right#Alt-left -- appears to be notable only due to its use by the "alt-right" personalities, so a discussion of the term in the context of the target article makes sense. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Alt-right#Alt-left, actually, as this section already exists in the target article and is sufficient. If there's anything else that needs to be added, it can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes it maybe neologism but is notable one as its easily passes WP:GNG I didn't see policy reason given by delete votes expect WP:IDONTLIKEIT
  • This clearly doesn't reach notability for a standalone article; it's a mere example of WP:RECENTISM where its interest is coupled with a greater recent interest in the alt-right and an equal interest in the Unite the Right rally as demonstrated the previous comment responding to certain keep !votes that cited google hits as supporting evidence for this article's alleged interest. WP:NEO still applies. I request that you offer a counterargument with more than a sweeping dismissal of all disagreeing !votes as an example of "I just don't like it" and instead elaborate on why you believe that the arguments against a keep !vote (such as delete, merge, redirect, rename) are insufficient and/or not compatible with Wikipedia's policies. I have yet to see refutation to how assumptions that this article's relevance will last violate WP:CRYSTAL. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In order to judge recentism, the passage of time is required to make that judgement. It's premature to conclude what the future holds. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply because it's about unverifiable speculation. There are plenty of verifiable reliable sources about this topic. As for WP:NEO, what part of WP:NEO leads you to believe that this article should be deleted? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except WP:CRYSTAL applies entirely. Many of the arguments to keep this were framed in the future tense and they used the words future tense. I've even seen arguments here that asserted that after the press conference the term "alt left" will be found in every dictionary. The assertion that it will become more relevant in the future is based on nothing more than unverifiable speculation Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Editors often protest the deletion of their articles on the grounds that their new idea is bound to take off and become popular soon, so why not have an article on it now? Sometimes they might be right, but other times they might not be, and once again there is no way for the reader to verify that their idea is going to be the next big thing. Wikipedia deals with subjects which are already notable and written about. It doesn't speculate on what might become well known in the future. In other arguments it's been outlined how this topic as-is lacks sufficient notability as even after the press-conference spike the term never reached the interest of covfefe which was deleted and redirected. Any assertion that it's interest and notability will be greater in the future would be an example of WP:CRYSTAL and if it genuinely is too early to assess whether or not this article would be an example of WP:RECENTISM then it's too early to have the article in the first place. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge due to WP:NOTNEO and WP:RECENTISM. There is no evidence this word will be in use in a few weeks. No-one self-identifies with it and it's just a slur. // Liftarn (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What part of WP:NEO leads you to believe that this article should be deleted? WP:RECENTISM is about unverifiable information, so that doesn't apply since we have a ton of verifiable reliable sources about this topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RECENTISM is about unverifiable information Yes, that's why the word "verify" or any version thereof appear exactly zero times in the entire essay. Reading is good. TimothyJosephWood 22:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your snarky response aside, I must have accidentally went to the wrong policy or guideline. Nevertheless, you did not answer my first question: What part of WP:NEO leads you to believe that this article should be deleted? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snarky? I'd probably prefer "sarcastic but direct rebuttal of most of your argument". As to NEO, I personally would agree that most people have been interpreting that pretty objectively wrongly, but I've yet to see any rebuttal against SUSTAINED whatsoever, and more so, basically everyone arguing GNG flatly ignoring it. TimothyJosephWood 23:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Alt-right#Alt-left as others have suggested. I'm not sure WP:NEO applies (at least if it does, this one is a bit of a stretch compared to more run-of-the-mill cases), but WP:SUSTAINED certainly seems to: Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. The term only seems to have gained wide spread popular usage (thus not NEO) following the events in Charlottesville, and, since there seem to be not actual self-identifying adherents, there doesn't seem to be any obvious reason to believe it will take on a more substantial meaning or remain in popular usage in several months, much less years. TimothyJosephWood 14:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG easily, with even more coverage daily. Since there are many reliable sources for the subject NEO does not really apply. PackMecEng (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IP blogspam

there are actual self identifying adherents of the alt left dating back to late 2015 earliest use https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/proposal-for-an-alternative-left/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternativeLeft/ https://altleft.com/ https://www.facebook.com/alternativeleft/ https://altleftjournal.wordpress.com/ http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.co.il/2016/09/a-proposal-for-alt-left-political.html https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2016/10/26/liberal-race-realism-precursor-to-the-alt-left/ http://altleft.com/2015/11/14/a-clockwork-greenshirt-introducing-the-alt-left/ https://web.archive.org/web/20151119073815/http://altleft.com 2001:8003:117E:6D00:A0C4:8FED:ECAD:1157 (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)— 2001:8003:117E:6D00:A0C4:8FED:ECAD:1157 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 2001:8003:117E:6D00:A0C4:8FED:ECAD:1157 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Note. The person behind the IP address above has spammed these blog links to many editors and other places like the Teahouse (whatever that is. Wikipedia has cozy chatrooms?) and a Wiki Project page. See contributions. TheValeyard (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No significant, in-depth coverage of word as a concept independent of alt-right. Maybe a brief mention at alt-right would be called for, but there is no reason why every term of abuse gets its own article. Neutralitytalk 22:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Strong keep The sheer fact that there is so much controversy over this term in the press warrants its existence as an article about the term, if not about the subject the word refers to. This term is a neologism, yes, but it has long passed NEO standards. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  23:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UMD? Are we trying to break a record for how many people can misinterpret policy and/or cite policy that has flatly nothing to do with deletion? If so, bravo. Strong Keep - This AfD discussion is long AF I'd also note the hat note there to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which is where most terms as terms in-and-of-themselves rightly belong, and happens to actually have something to do with whether or not we keep an article. TimothyJosephWood 00:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not necessarily a reason to make articles. Media tumult can die down, etc. Still I think there is some history for the phrase "alternative left" and there is a party in Switzerland with the name Alternative Left. So maybe?--T. Anthony (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. See [12]. A simple Google search returns hundreds of news articles with the term "alt-left" in it. Either this or merge/redirect with the Antifa article, assuming "alt-left" refers to groups such as Antifa. It is a notable enough term to at least have a redirect. CatcherStorm talk 04:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly this is a new label - but so was alt-right. The term has gained wide-spread acceptance (or at least recognition that it is a term used by others - and repudiated). The article should stay - the exact meaning, tone, reliability, etc. - probably will change. But so has alt-right.Icewhiz (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This term is a reactionary creation of the alt-right to try to balance out criticism they received for being the "extremists of the right." Data shows that it spiked with the Charlottesville attack and subsequent responsibility deflection. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The etymology of a term is not a valid reason for deletion. The key issue is whether or not this topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right... I am saying that it is not a term used by reliable sources in the scope that alt-right as they are the ones trying to push it into the American lexicon. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. If they succeed in that then we almost certainly will have to have an article on it at some point but they have not won that battle yet and it is not our job to assist them in their efforts. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We'll need an article on it if this is put into American Lexicon in the future? Perhaps, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so that's another discussion for another time. You're right though, it's not our job to assist them in their efforts. Wikipedia is not a platform to popularize neologisms, and any articles covering them should be over ones that already have proven their notability over time. The information known about this subject can sufficiently be covered in Alt-right#Alt-left as-is. If it gets into the dictionaries, perhaps we can have a real discussion about the need for an article on this subject, | but evidently, well-respected dictionaries have no intention of adding this neologism. Data still shows that this term hasn't even reached the interest of covfefe which was ultimately deleted and redirected to another article; we can do the same with "alt-left" by redirecting to its subsection on the alt right article which already exists. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per the policy and guideline based arguments of Brian Kendig, MrX, and Carrite. Mojoworker (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alt-left&oldid=1149826605"