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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:47, 16 August 2017

Alt-left

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(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]

WP:HEY Article has had a WP:HEYMANN upgrade.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:31, 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]
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 ; 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]

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]

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, especially since as far as I can tell it just means "leftist politics that I don't like" 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. Der Spiegel-Washington Correspondant used the stub in his article today: ist ein Kunstwort, das Trump erfunden hat und hier erstmals nutzt. Ein entsprechender, allererster Wikipedia-Eintrag stammt von Dienstagabend und nennt als einzige Quelle Trumps Pressekonferenz.
(translated: is a made-up word coined by Trump and used there for the first time. A Wikipedia stub was created Tuesday evening; the only source it names is Trumps press conference) --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]
Note: This user has made little to no edits outside of this page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:00, 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, August 16, 2017 (UTC)

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, August 16, 2017 (UTC)

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]

Delete as per WP:NEO. We don't have articles for similar terms such as 'libtard'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:21, 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, August 16, 2017 (UTC)

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. 207.98.198.84 (talk) 20:45, 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]
- Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that is not a valid rationale for something to exist. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:20, 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]

Citing the amount of hits on Google News is in direct violation of WP:GHITS. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:26, 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]

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]
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)

Keep per above. Widespread and sustained coverage in reliable sources, even before Trump's comments yesterday. CJK09 (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.- Mr X 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]

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

^ 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]
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]

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]

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]
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. 207.98.198.84 (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Forbes:_Is_there_such_a_thing_as_an_Alt-left-1] Is There Such A Thing As An Alt-Left?

[1]

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 ::We have [[cuckservative]], [[regressive left]], [[mama grizzly]],  [[retarded time]] and [[moonbat]]. At least one of those is similar. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 09:36, [[August 16]], [[2017]] (UTC)
 :::Apart from retarded time (which is decisively not related to any of these), I don't think these belong on Wikipedia either. [[Special:Contributions/PeterTheFourth|PeterTheFourth]] ([[User Talk:PeterTheFourth|talk]]) 09:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
+:::Those are also non-notable neologisms that don't merit articles. [[Special:Contributions/207.98.198.84|207.98.198.84]] ([[User talk:207.98.198.84|talk]]) 20:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 *'''Note''', just for comparison, here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alt-right&oldid=720811869] is how our article Alt-Right looked the day it was kept in May 2016.[[User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory]] ([[User talk:E.M.Gregory|talk]]) 10:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 *'''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. [[User:El cid, el campeador|<span style="color:black">'''‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:el cid, el campeador|<span style="color:teal">ᐐT₳LKᐬ</span>]]</sup>  10:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@@ Line 105: / Line 106: @@
 *'''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. [[User:Robofish|Robofish]] ([[User talk:Robofish|talk]]) 20:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * '''Keep''' – Obviously passes [[WP:GNG]]. — [[User:JFG|JFG]] <sup>[[User talk:JFG|talk]]</sup> 20:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
+* '''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. [[Special:Contributions/207.98.198.84|207.98.198.84]] ([[User talk:207.98.198.84|talk]]) 20:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)