Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative facts

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 keep. Closing early per WP:SNOW because even after two days it is evident - with a headcount of 62 to 24 in favor of keep - that this will not obtain consensus to delete. That said, many opinions are rather ... perfunctory and seem to reflect more the current state of public discussion about the Trump presidency than a considered assessment of the lasting importance of this recently coined phrase. A renomination is therefore possible, perhaps in a few months when the lasting notability of the topic might be better able to be assessed. Of course, discussions about a merger also remain possible.  Sandstein  17:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative facts[edit]

Alternative facts (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)

Phrase used once by a campaign spokesperson during a single interview. It doesn't even rise to the level of a political neologism. Not useful as a redirect. Odie5533 (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Snow keep: I already commented on this AFD possibility at Talk:Alternative facts. I urge the OP to withdraw this AFD and wait a couple of weeks as I suspect this neologism will have wider currency by then and not just in the cited context.--Penbat (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTNEWS / WP:CRYSTALBALL. You are speculating that the topic will be notable in the future. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Give it a chance - the neologism is one day old from its birth. It's more trouble than its worth to delete this article and then possibly resurrect it in a few weeks. What is the big deal about waiting two weeks before putting in an AFD ? --Penbat (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While it may be a day old neologism, it is culturally significant and captures the rapidly changing trend in media content consumption, production, and reaction. I see no reason to delete it at this time. It may be a speculation and the term may not hold in the long run, at this moment, it does highlight a way a certain group of people with authority are dealing with information and facts. --aakash58 —Preceding undated comment added 22:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    propaganda is already a page. Wikipedia doesn't need a page for every WP:NOTNEWS instance that 'captures' cultural trendsFullmetalalch (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per E.M.Gregory. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, see arguments of Penbat. --déRahier talk+contrib 22:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete But consider copying essential info to a subsection of Sean Spicer and adding a redirection if anyone still cares about this 6th page news by next thursdayFullmetalalch (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The person who used the term was Kellyanne Conway, not Spicer. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think both could have a couple of sentences or a subsection on the issueFullmetalalch (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No reason, other than political, to be in a rush to delete. This phrase strikes me as one that has virtually guaranteed staying power—similar to Stephen Colbert's 2005 coinage of the word ″truthiness.″ Scott Rollans (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't assume I have a political motivation for nominating this for deletion, nor that those voting delete are politically motivated to do so. WP:AGF --Odie5533 (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more because it's WP:NOTNEWS that's hardly worth three sentences in Sean SpicerFullmetalalch (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Deletion is for that which does not matter. This matters FLY 23:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC).″ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archlinux (talk • contribs)
    That's a nice philosophy to live by, but Wikipedia's guidelines are slightly more stringentFullmetalalch (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:MrX - not just a neologism but an encyclopedic phenomenon covered by a wide variety of reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seddon talk 23:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This phrase has not passed 'the test of time' yet, and I think it's too early to grant it its own wiki page. I do support merging the contents into Kelyanne Conway's page. Amin (Talk) 23:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. This article is a bit premature, possibly, but no matter what happens with this term, the content of this article is definitely encyclopedic. In a couple weeks, once we know whether the term has sustained coverage, we can determine whether we should merge it or keep it as a standalone, but why delete the work of editors on clearly encyclopedic content? ~ Rob13Talk 23:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to propaganda or maybe fake news. It's not a standalone article per WP:NEOLOGISM but makes sense as a search term. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Although fairly thin right now, it is very likely that this will become part of a pattern of behaviour for Trump. There are three likely long term outcomes for this article 1) being incorporated into other entries, such as "double speak", 2) being incorporated into an entry deal with Trump's general attacks on the media, or 3) Growing it as its own thing as Trump's press people double down on this strategy. I think it is unlikely that we will have to wait very long to see which of these three outcomes is the most appropriate. We also should not rush to option 1, since this does not expand the theoretical discussion of "double speak" by itself; from that point of view, it is just another example so far. Deleting this is just throwing this notable event from history down the memory hole. Qed (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect (if a suitable target can be found); if it does become notable we can still create an article in a week, or better yet in a month. WP:Recentism is a thing, as is WP:NOTNEWS. To Qed: Assuming this does become a pattern, do you suggest creating new articles for every new explanation given by Trump's spokespeople? If not, why for this one? Huon (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Overwhelmingly so. It's already becoming a meme that's drawing cultural and political criticism and discussion en masse. That said, I feel it needs expansion regarding it's cultural impact and reactions. Quotes from more than just one political commentator are necessary I think. --173.170.159.16 (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to good old propaganda or disinformation. Do we really need so much newspeak? — JFG talk 23:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
if you actually bother to read the article on newspeak that you link to, you'll realize that it's a distinct concept from "propaganda" or "disinformation".Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure JFG is reffering to 'alternative-truth' as newspeak, and not comparing it to either of those two. Fullmetalalch (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear VM, I'm sure you will agree with me that "alternative facts" is just a fancy newspeakful way to say "propaganda". — JFG talk 00:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not. Read the article you yourself linked.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - At least for the moment. The article is more about the concept of facts being somehow interchangeable ("my facts are different from your facts"), rather than the specific term itself. There are already think pieces out there exploring what the concept means to governance and the reporting of same. It is not the same as propaganda, which also refers to positive information. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that a great many articles were created on similar politics-related neologisms during the past year. Many (Cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basket of deplorables were created and deleted soon after the term hit the news cycle. Others (Cf. Act of Love (political statement and advertisement) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernie Bro were not merely created months after the first time the WP:NEO was in the new cycle, they were created after political journalists had had time to write about the origin, use and impact of a newly coined phrase itself.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think WP:NEO really applies since the article is not attempting to promote the phrase into common usage. If fact, I hope I never hear a member of my government say it again. There are a number of phrases associate with political subjects that have survived attempts at deletion, for example Binders full of women, Internets, and You didn't build that.- MrX 00:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some that closed no consensus (Ted Cruz–Zodiac meme) should probably be reconsidered. Others Jeb! The Musical reached consensus, but still hang out in a weird sort of WP:Limbo. It's easy to get over-persuaded by a topic in the news cycle.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. It seems to be impactful at this very moment, but let time decide whether it remains so over the longer run. If it doesn't stand the test of time, it will be something to include in Conway's page rather than having its own. Morgengave (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The high profile of the speaker, the importance of the subject matter and the pivotal timing of the comment make it notable. Ordinary Person (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there has been significant coverage on the matter. It's about as newsworthy as kompromat. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 00:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the very significant distinction that kompromat has been in wide use for many years. "“Kompromat” didn’t start showing up in English-language news sources until Boris Yeltsin served as Russian president in the 1990s." WSJ here: [6]; How ‘Kompromat’ Became a Word for Using Scandal as a Weapon.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per WP:NEOLOGISM. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 01:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the hell is this doing on here? Redirect to Lie and insert a mention there. WAY too WP:RECENT. Definitely a neologism that can be discussed elsewhere. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plenty of coverage Victor Grigas (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's significant coverage. See Ordinary Person's comment. It's not going to go away. JSFarman (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete via WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. --Lingveno (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now at least. Seems to have sufficient coverage from reliable sources and the media in general, and has had quite a repercussion and backlash in social media. It might be a case of WP:RECENTISM, but let's wait at least a month and then we'll see. κατάσταση 02:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be a clear attempt by editors with an agenda to smear this President and his administration. It was a one-off statement by a White House aide, not really that notable; also, per WP:NEOLOGISM. SuperCarnivore591 (talk)!
  • Keep: While this is very recent "WP:RECENT″, the dialogue over the past ~18 months has shown sufficient history to justify this neologism and predict it's very applicable use in the coming years. Wait through the next 98 days, give it a chance "WP:CHANCE",don't demolish "WP:DEMOLISH" until it has had a chance to be built because there is more to come. If it gets shut down now, it will only be rebuilt again. And those most against it will want to take it down because they don't want their lies pointed out "WP:IDL", but that doesn't mean that they are entitled to their own facts.64.66.124.134 (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)ahhm[reply]
  • Keep. The term has received significant coverage in RS, and been the subject of much debate. --Tataral (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very newsworthy and telling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.66.124.134 (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There is substantial media coverage of the term, its initial use is a notable event, and if current events with the incoming administration continue as they are presently unfolding it will likely see substantial further use from reliable sources over the course of the near future. Charwinger21 (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- As amusing as the existence of this article is to me personally, E.M.Gregory makes a host of valid points. Someone can squirrel the text away and resurrect it in a few months if the term still has the notability some claim it will. -AdamRoach (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Calibrador (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep WP:NEOLOGISM is irrelevant now, considering that multiple sources from around the globe from Forbes[7] to Sydney Morning Herald[8] to The Guardian[9] to France 24[10] to South China Morning Post[11], and even dictionary sites like Merriam Webster[12] are already reporting, discussing and propogating the term without the benefit of the Wikipedia article. Zhanzhao (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for now. People will be searching for this and it shouldn't come up as a redlink, but also because WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL, it really isn't worthy of its own article yet. It probably will end up having staying power due to the international coverage and commentary, but as before, WP:CRYSTAL. Will need consensus of where is best to redirect it to tho. Gatemansgc (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Clearly WP:GNG and we have hundreds of articles on various disasters that were created on the day of their occurrence, so this is one of many exceptions to WP:RECENT. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Revisit it in 6 weeks. It is all over the news and it may enter the lexicon, but for we do not know yet where it is going. Furthermore, it is my opinion that, generally speaking, premature deletion of any article with wide-ranging media coverage just discourages enthusiastic editors. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This phrase is not only seared into the public consciousness for the forseeable future, it is supported by the best independent and diverse news sources available.198.58.172.228 (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Conway's article. Recentism, term unlikely to retain lasting notability. WP:NEOLOGISM remains relevant, so far as I can tell, mainly due to this fact. Should this term still be in circulation a month a now, maybe I'd think otherwise, but it seems unlikely. Mélencron (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect at least for now, needs evidence of ongoing notability, per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, etc. It may warrant its own article later, but right now it's just speculating on its impact. --Xanzzibar (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Much more than just a neologism, this is a major news story. There's large amounts of news coverage about this in reliable sources, well beyond what would normally be needed to establish notability. -- The Anome (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term has now been widely picked up and discussed in various leading media outlets (even Billboard at http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/7662621/lance-bass-alternative-facts-joke-kellyanne-conway ) beyond just the context (the interview) where it first came up. The New York Times and Huffington Post others have analyzed the concept of "alternative facts" in general. It has also entered memes. So it's not just a single-use term and has grown in prominence as a term and concept. --Mousepadrightmousepadleft (talk) 08:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The term seems to cover quite well an existing stream in politics & society and is becoming a history as we speak. Maybe later on it can be incorporated into some sort of summary of the epoch but for now I would keep it separate.--evgf-wiki (talk ) 08:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Maybe the article s premature as it is hard to predict whether the term catches on, but it has been picked up by numerous outlets and involves a significant political office. Even if a separate article is found to be unwarranted it is likely that a term that is covered so broadly will be mentioned in some article on the Trump administration or Ms. Conway. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT alternate fact redirects to Counterfactual thinking; -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is so salient, this is not something that needs evidence of ongoing notability. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Where did the consensus to only keep things that have passed through more than 1 media cycle (48 hours) go? REDIRECT to FALSE Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The current page is just a vehicle to attack Sean Spicer. An article on this term is really failing WP:Neologism. As a controversy this is just a WP:One event. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree about the Neologism part and the one event part — pointing out when an individual has made demonstrably false statements is not an attack. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too soon for an article. It is too early to know if this will have lasting notability or is just a catchphrase of the day. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That is exactly my point but I voted "Keep" as I suggested doing a more considered AFD after 2 weeks when we will get a better idea. Article has already been created and it is too much of an upheaval to delete article now but then possibly resurrect it again in a couple of weeks.--Penbat (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or merge & redirect): There will be handful of people looking for this, no need to censor information from them. Petrb (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, Petrb – there have been nearly 18,000 pageviews in the last 24 hours... [13] Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Kellyanne Conway with a mention at Sean Spicer, with short mentions at inauguration of Donald Trump and first 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency. This is noteworthy within the context of these articles, but in my view is not independently notable for a standalone article. Neutralitytalk 15:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For now, delete with content merged into appropriate Trump-related articles. In a few weeks we'll know whether the concept is mentioned for more than a news cycle or two. The Land (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency. That article should have a section on "Early days" to highlight early actions of the administration. That should also include Spicer's first press conference and the controversy around that with a followup on "alternative facts". The redirect should go to that section. As it stands now, it is not notable in any other context. If the term has been widely used later on, a stand alone article can be recreated at that point. Z22 (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Inauguration of Donald Trump#Crowd size, which covers the same topic. Having a separate article for a single phrase from a press conference is peak WP:RECENTISM. Smurrayinchester 15:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I'd humbly suggest that the phrase "Alternative facts" will not disappear, as memes such as "Alternative facts" have tremendous staying power. Linguistically, the almost-oxymoronic phrasing would, even without political motivation, give it more "legs" than even the "truthiness" term. Add the very unusual historical context (i.e., the first Meet the Press interview by the brand new President's counselor talking about the first press briefing on the first full day of a new administration) and the circumstances under which the neologism was generated could hardly be more salient. Additionally, I would point out the first sentence on the Doublespeak page: "Doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words." Offhand, it's hard for me to think of a better example of "reversing the meaning of words" than "alternative facts", especially in the context of Ms. Conway defending Mr. Spicer and denying his falsehoods.Nuggetkiwi (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I think is not sufficient as a stand-alone article Shadowcat45 (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with possible review in another six months to one year. It currently seems significant at the catch-phrase level; Google News search on the phrase in quotes turned up just under a million hits. While not all catch phrases deserve such documentation, longer lasting ones seem to be considered to merit such recognition. In light of his presidential campaign, it seems to have the potential to come to characterize the entire term of President Trump, and deserves to have its earliest origins documented contemporaneously to help maximize the accuracy. Abb3w (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is a lot of talk and deeds centered on controlling information which usually ends in its deletion. Knowledge and information should never be deleted and so must be somewhere. It is unfortunate that this discussion is taking place and therefore this article should be kept to prevent the deletion of more information141.238.15.236 (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC) A concerned college student[reply]
  • Delete: Citing op-ed articles as "sources" for "facts" undermines this article's claim to authenticity. Once those sources are removed, the remaining content is barely a stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.80.222.11 (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This claim right here appears to be an "alternative fact" itself. It's just simply not true that most sources in the article are op-eds.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It became a term picked by media (e.g. theguardian, independet, forbes) and characterizes the paradigm shift in US policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.182 (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: But perhaps incorporate into the Wikipedia articles "Orwellian" or "Doublespeak" or "Rebranded White Nationalism" or "Post-truth politics" or "Kellyanne Conway," or all of these. But keep this content somewhere. It is very historic for a highly-placed adviser and spokesperson for the U.S. president to so blatantly and casually engage in such gross and raw Orwellian doublespeak on live TV.
    Orwellian usually refers to technological authoritarianism, not shameless lies. Doublespeak is the act of holding contrary views, which I don't see how that's related. I also don't see how the Rebranded White Nationalism is related either. Really the only relevent artice would be Post-truthFullmetalalch (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree with incorporating it into the Wikipedia articles "Orwellian" or "Doublespeak" or "Rebranded White Nationalism" or "Post-truth politics" or "Kellyanne Conway," or all of these. But keep this content somewhere. Important to document that a highly-placed adviser and spokesperson for the U.S. president unblinkingly used Orwellian doublespeak on live TV.
  • Keep - Per Ghmyrtle. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 17:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-truth politics is an excellent topic for a redirect & merge. This article is undoubtedly a subset of the topic that is covered in Post-truth, albeit the target article needs a cleanup for NPOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Deserves a mention in the Kellyanne Conway article and/or the post-truth politics article, not an article by itself. Talk to SageGreenRider 18:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This neologism does not qualify, under our rules, for a stand-alone article. Whatever can be usefully sourced about it belongs here: Inauguration_of_Donald_Trump#Crowd_size. David in DC (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect somewhere. Trivial neologism. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without prejudice to repeating AFD in a month. When an event obtains very broad media coverage, as this did, and seems like it might possibly have some lasting significance, my preference is to let it have a chance to develop. There is no deadline, and we can revisit the issue after a while when it is clearer whether or not it actually did have lasting significance. If not, the relevant bits can be merged into the inauguration article, or elsewhere. Dragons flight (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm tempted to put on my admin hat and close this as a SNOW keep, which is where this is headed--"no consensus" defaults to keep, and it's certainly clear there is no consensus to delete. As much as I hate NOTNEWS and every political fart being written up here (I just made that "argument" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeploraBall, this is not just a fart--it is being discussed in reliable sources, rightly or wrongly, as providing an insight into the new US administration, and as such it clearly rises above the fray, the fray of walls of meat or local marches or whatever. And not all sources are op-eds, as someone argued. So keep, yes. Drmies (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong objection to the idea of snow closing a one-day-old AfD about a two-day-old neologism. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't count objections, but sure, guys--your objections are noted. There's no rush, E.M.Gregory, but you yourself already changed your mind and this, like so many needless discussions whose most negative outcome is "no consensus", is a waste of time and server space. Guy Macon, if you want to object to anything, object to the creation of such articles in the first place. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I will not. I have no position on keep/delete/redirect. My objection was entirely proper, it will be counted by any admin considering a snow close, and because others have agreed with my objection, this AfD will not be snow closed any time soon -- if an admin snow closes it against consensus we will take a trip to WP:AN and discuss it. Speaking of closing admins, I fully expect all !votes based upon arguments such as "I suspect this neologism will have wider currency by then", "it's use and timing make it highly likely to become a commonly used reference", and "[I] predict it's very applicable use in the coming years" to be discarded as being against Wikipedia policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Although this is literally a one day old neologism, it's use and timing make it highly likely to become a commonly used reference for perceived or actual misinformation and disinformation by the Trump administration.--Drewinmaine (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No position on keep/delete/redirect, strong support for allowing another AfD in a month or two --Guy Macon (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, the OP User:Odie5533 should have kept his powder dry. I made this very point on Talk:Alternative facts before this AFD even started. Not sure how you can delete now yet have a second AFD in a months time. It would be very disruptive to delete now but possibly ressurect in a months time. Much easier to Keep for the time being then reconsider with a new AFD.--Penbat (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconding the stipulation that there be no prejudice against a 2nd AfD in a month or 2.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Its common sense to make this a SNOW keep for now to stop wasting everybodies time but by all means have another AFD soon when picture becomes clearer. --Penbat (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Agreed, "Trumpiness" is significantly less notable. Celestialghost (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep with the suggestion that the closer notes in their closing rationale that there be no prejudice against renomination in the next few months. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Totally agree - its common sense. --Penbat (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep for now, it's notable right now--- let's see if it's still being used a few months from now. (I have a feeling it will, but time will tell.) Paris1127 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now: The phrase and what it symbolizes has already been translated into multiple languages. [14],[15],[16],[17]

Radioswede (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This doesn't even come close to qualifying for notability, to keep it short. There's no way getting around it.Spilia4 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now We can always revisit the matter, if it drops out of common use. jxm (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, Let's see how this plays out before deleting it. TBMNY (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, lets see how this goes.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CRYSTALBALL. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agreeing with many other rationales here such as User:The Anome & User:Tataral.
  • For the people citing WP:NOTNEWS: please read its actual 5 points of non-wanted content and this part: editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. It's very useful and important that we provide information on current events that the public is interested in. Especially as these specifically have typically a very high interest by the public (that decreases by time) and because there's a lot of confusion and scattered information for such. If there's enough WP:RS on it there's no reason to not have an article.
  • For those that cite WP:NEO: this term has a high usage by RS already.
  • For those that cite WP:CRYSTALBALL: the page doesn't attempt to predict the future and is about an historic event. Whether or not this event is an isolated incident or part of a series / indicative of such or anything else doesn't matter because that single event/behavior is notable enough.
--Fixuture (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -"Alternative facts" is not a neologism (newly coined word). The phrase "alternative facts" has a very long and common history of use among attorneys and judges. In that context, it is a perfectly legitimate phrase. Using Google Books, I found it being used in the legal context as far back as the year 1898. This Wikipedia article on "Alternative facts" can serve to educate the public about this legal phrase, and about reactions to its use in contexts outside of the courtroom. To see this phrases' many uses in the legal context, just search in Google or Google Books for "alternative facts" simultaneously with "evidence" and "law" and "court". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Credidimus2 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now: Currently notable. Keep it around until we see how the situation develops. Celestialghost (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This is the sort of thing that could catch on in a big way (like economical with the truth but coming from an even more high-profile source), it seems on a par with some of the most infamous political phrases. It likely *wouldn't* be up for deletion if it happened decades ago and people still alluded to it occasionally. We won't really know for years, though. While recency may seem like a good reason for deletion, there is no realistic way to embargo articles, however much some would like to. Like it or not, people are most motivated to work on current events articles right after the event happens. If the incident is totally forgotten within a year you can always renominate it. 169.231.39.57 (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is a currently important article and is still ongoing. Deleting the article would be against what Wikipedia stands for. Gcock2k10 (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as WP:NEOLOGISM. SEWilco (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as WP:NEOLOGISM. Vivaldi (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a long history of usage means that it is not a WP:NEOLOGISM. Meets WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - like it or not it is here, notable and well-documented. DBaK (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to one of the participants - most likely Kellyanne Conway or possibly Sean Spicer, where it is adequately covered. Not enough for a standalone article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above arguments plus additional note that the reference to "alternative facts" in previous works dating back to 1991 (sparsely cited, but cited) do lend relevance to the existence of an article which addresses both the concept of "alternative facts" and the explicit application in the last few months. Benjitheijneb (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Side Comment - the previously cited mentions and discussions of the notions of "alternative facts" should sufficiently defy WP:NEOLOGISM, with the implication that it is simply not a neologism of the mid 2010s, but a longer-standing if discrete notion. Benjitheijneb (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The concept of the word "alternate facts" existed before Kellyanne Conway said that line. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 03:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - New sources have emerged showing a full crowd at the inauguration. Cards84664 (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as WP:NEOLOGISM and SNOW. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 03:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep – per all of the above. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - or at least redirect to related content on Spicer or Conway article. The importance is in its identification of a significant event regarding the beginning of a presidency, not in the notability of the phrase itself.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "Alternative facts" has become already a famous political catchphrase, and will probably remain such for some time. Wikipedia already has articles dedicated to single political catchphrases, for example "Vast right-wing conspiracy" (1998), "You didn't build that"(2012), and "Basket of deplorables"(2016). In a similar vein, Wikipedia has an article dedicated to the "Bushism" phenomenon ("unconventional statements, phrases, pronunciations, malapropisms, and semantic or linguistic errors in the public speaking of former President of the United States George W. Bush.") "Alternative facts" deserves its own encyclopedia article because it is already one of the famous political catchphrases of the Trump presidency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Credidimus2 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to lie.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 06:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM, WP:RECENTISM, I'd also add WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:10YEARS (whose application is as questionable as any of the "historical event" claims above). --Vituzzu (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "alternative facts" article got 57,315 hits in the last 24 hours.--Penbat (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's amazing how many separate articles have been spawned about Trump here since his inauguration - this is a good example of WP:RECENTISM in action. I also agree with the other arguments put by Vituzzu. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:NEO is not applicable here because older sources attest to its use. It is clearly discussed deeply and well sourced in multiple reliable sources. Whether WP:RECENT applies is, ironically, subjective here. Bearian (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The notability of the term per WP:GNG is fulfilled, the article contents is reasonably well balanced, so it's a clear case for "Keep". The term is in the news all over the world, so we have hundreds of reliable sources. WP:NEO does not apply. I think, as an encyclopedia for everyone, we have an obligation to have an article about this topic so that anybody can make up his/her mind about this new US administration. Other WPs found it similarly important to create articles as well. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the delete reasons stated above. I can't believe anyone with sense thinks this is stand-alone encyclopedia article worthy (unless, of course, they have a particular political agenda). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AGF. Please don't assume people arguing for keep (or delete) are doing so for political reasons. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also discussion Alternate reality#Trump´s alternate reality. There is a need for this kind of article.Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For now. As of now this is something that Kellyanne Conway said in an interview once. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM and WP:10YT apply here. Unless this becomes a reoccurring phrased used by the Trump administration, anything worth keeping can be transferred to the Kellyanne Conway article.LM2000 (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Normally I'd say it's WP:TOOSOON, but here it doesn't surprise me that it has been created, I'd fully expect a Wikipedia article on this topic. Of course, might as well one day be a section in one of the target articles suggested above. GregorB (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The terminology is scrutinized by almost countless sources. Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 24 January 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/Alternative_facts&oldid=1148685670"