Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alt-left: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 06:42, 16 August 2017

Alt-left

(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]

Delete as a neologism with no notability.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:43, 16 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]
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]
Keep 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. {{ping|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]

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]

Delete. per WP:NEO. Tegeril (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at "best" Redirect to List of alternative media (U.S. political left).--T. Anthony (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neologism. GaidinBDJ (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no such thing. Fake news from the fake news master. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NEO. Minimax Regret (talk) 03:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NEO Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 03:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Why do we need a word that isn't defined or isn't used? The article as written implies "Delete me". If the alt-right can get a meaning to catch on, that would be different, a case of descriptive usage. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The links in the footnotes haveen very useful to me ; the stub has fastened my research. --Neun-x (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At this point, an actual definition of "alt-left" cannot be established and the article is plagued by WP:SYNTH.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism. Definition can't be established. Extreme WP:SYNTH. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 05:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really a real thing. May as well close per WP:SNOW. AusLondonder (talk) 05:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I started reading the references - which seem to point to this word not being real. It's clearly a neologism, and doesn't have reliable long-term usage. Also, I note the objectors to removal here, is one IP only 16 previous edits, who claims to have edited over 1,000 articles. One is the article creator, whose account was created shortly before creating the article. And the final keep vote's, case to keep, is because they find the "links in the footnotes" useful - which has no basis in policy. As such, with 18 calls to delete the article in only a few hours, that WP:SNOW be applied Nfitz (talk) 05:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This violates WP:NEO - and it's SNOWing. As Quinton Feldberg said, this is also a very clear example of WP:SYNTH. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everyone let's take a deep breath. Please google the term. The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post and CBS news all currently have an article about the alt-left. It makes sense to at least consider having an entry on this term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.197.81.245 (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you mentioned have articles about how it quote "isn't a group." To just say "google it" is not a counterargument to it being a neologism and a pejorative, especially when that's exactly what is found by googling it. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 06:26, 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 term shouldn't matter - there are extensive reliable sources writing about the term 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 "the term 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?

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 :* 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 [[WP:NEO|neologism]], which is one of the primary arguments for deletions. [[User:BrendonTheWizard|BrendonTheWizard]] ([[User talk:BrendonTheWizard|talk]]) 06:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' as classic [[WP:NEO]]. If you'd term is still used in a month, I'd reconsider. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 06:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' Its obvious Wikipedia is becoming a very charged atmosphere.  Whether you like or don't like the term shouldn't matter - there are extensive reliable sources writing about the term 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 "the term 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?