Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alt-left

Alt-left

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)

• 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)

• Is this really necessary? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Mhmm, and it also does not excuse WP:BLUDGEONing the AfD process yet again but that has not stopped you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

• WP:HEY Article has had a WP:HEYMANN upgrade.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Delete as a neologism with no notability.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, this article only showed up over what Trump had to say today. Home Lander (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• Keep The word has significant notability, and has been used in thousands of mainstream articles. MaineK (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

  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)

  Note: They have been blocked for sockpuppetry. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• Delete. per WP:NEO. Tegeril (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• Delete or at "best" Redirect to List of alternative media (U.S. political left).--T. Anthony (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - neologism. GaidinBDJ (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• Delete There is no such thing. Fake news from the fake news master. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:NEO. Minimax Regret (talk) 03:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Delete Neologism. Definition can't be established. Extreme WP:SYNTH. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 05:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Not really a real thing. May as well close per WP:SNOW. AusLondonder (talk) 05:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)
• Note: This user has made little to no edits outside of this page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• right on!! ScratchMarshall Let us eat lettuce (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

Those are also non-notable neologisms that don't merit articles. — Red XIV ^(talk) 20:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
  • Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that is not a valid rationale for something to exist. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Citing the amount of hits on Google News is in direct violation of WP:GHITS. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• "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)
• 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)

• 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. sunkorg (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

References

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

• Note: this user has made no edits outside of this discussion. CJK09 (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

I'm sorry but - what??? That genuinely did not make sense. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• Keep – Obviously passes WP:GNG. — JFG ^talk 20:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• Note: This user has made little to no edits outside of this page.[2] BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• you're right. I was indicating things I have heard on Hannity. Currently, not sure about a citation for it. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

::::*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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)
  • "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)

• Comment and Soft Delete - 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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

• your bias is exposed. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

Oops, forgot to log in. That is my IP, by the way. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think it's too early to know... I concur! Let us eat lettuce (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)

• "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)

• 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)

• 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)

• The 2016 WaPo history of the term is in-depth, RS, secondary coverage, as are the essays - dating back many months - devoted to exploring the alt-left by journalists James Wolcott, historian Gil Troy, literature professor Seth Abramson and others. Serious, WP:SIGCOV more than adequate to pass WP:NEO exists. WP:WORDISSUBJECT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

• Comment: Alt-left includes multiple groups not just Antifa, so your suggestion will not work. IQ125 (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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. ^Falling_Gravity 20:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• How unbiased and neutrally phrased.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Note to editors - Just a quick note to mention that the editor that created the article, User:MaineK was blocked indefinitely as a confirmed sock puppet of User:PerfectlyIrrational.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• So would this qualify for Speedy Deletion per WP:G5? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we should ping an admin.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Pinging Drmies. My guess is probably no at this point but one can always ask.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

Yes and PerfectlyIrrational was already blocked and created the article as the sock puppet MainK.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• You know, you could WP:AGF, instead of spewing snark.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• Speedy delete G5 block by PerfectlyIrrational --38.96.9.224 (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)