Deletion of Alternative facts

Comment: It's amazing how many separate articles have been spawned about Trump here since his inauguration - this is a good example of  in action. I also agree with the other arguments put by {{u|Vituzzu
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: as 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEOLOGISM)

Comment: a long history of usage means that it is not a . Meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEOLOGISM||WP:GNG)

Comment: for now. People will be searching for this and it shouldn't come up as a redlink, but also because  and , it really isn't worthy of its own article yet. It probably will end up having staying power due to the international coverage and commentary, but as before, . Will need consensus of where is best to redirect it to tho
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: to propaganda or maybe fake news. It's not a standalone article per  but makes sense as a search term. &ndash;&nbsp
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEOLOGISM)

Comment: as |too soon for an article.  It is too early to know if this will have lasting notability or is just a catchphrase of the day
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: WP:NEO is not applicable here because older sources attest to its use. It is clearly |discussed deeply and well sourced in multiple reliable sources. Whether  applies is, ironically, subjective here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:RECENT)

Comment: or '''redirect''' at least for now, needs evidence of ongoing notability, per , , , etc. It may warrant its own article later, but right now it's just speculating on its impact
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE||WP:RECENTISM||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per , , I'd also add  and  (whose application is as questionable as any of the "historical event" claims above
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEOLOGISM||WP:RECENTISM||WP:SINGLEEVENT||WP:10YEARS)

Comment: Clearly  and we have hundreds of articles on various disasters that were created on the day of their occurrence, so this is one of many exceptions to 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RECENT)

Comment: The notability of the term per  is fulfilled, the article contents is reasonably well balanced, so it's a clear case for "Keep". The term is in the news all over the world, so we have hundreds of reliable sources.  does not apply. I think, as an encyclopedia for everyone, we have an obligation to have an article about this topic so that anybody can make up his/her mind about this new US administration. Other WPs found it similarly important to create articles as well
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NEO)

Comment: Meets  in spades. It has received widespread, non-trivial international coverage from major news sources. The article is not really about the phrase, nor is it actually a neologism; It's about the position conveyed by Trump and his counselors Spicer, Conway, and Preibus that facts are fungible. 'Alternative facts' has drawn reactions from the likes of Dan Rather and Allan Lichtman, numerous celebrities, and many across social media
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: or '''redirect''' (if a suitable target can be found); if it ''does'' become notable we can still create an article in a week, or better yet in a month. ecentism is a thing, as is . To
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Redirect (WP:R||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: to Conway's article. Recentism, term unlikely to retain lasting notability.  remains relevant, so far as I can tell, mainly due to this fact. Should this term still be in circulation a month a now, maybe I'd think otherwise, but it seems unlikely
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEOLOGISM)

Comment: via 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE)

Comment: at least. Seems to have sufficient coverage from reliable sources and the media in general, and has had quite a repercussion and backlash in social media. It might be a case of , but let's wait at least a month and then we'll see
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: to Inauguration of Donald Trump#Crowd size, which covers the same topic. Having a separate article for a single phrase from a press conference is peak 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: Appears to be a clear attempt by editors with an agenda to smear this President and his administration. It was a one-off statement by a White House aide, not really that notable; also, per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEOLOGISM)

Comment: Normally I'd say it's , but here it doesn't surprise me that it has been created, I'd fully expect a Wikipedia article on this topic. Of course, might as well one day be a section in one of the target articles suggested above
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: The current page is just a vehicle to attack Sean Spicer. An article on this term is really failing eologism. As a controversy this is just a ne event
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:O)

Comment: While this is very recent "″, the dialogue over the past ~18 months has shown sufficient history to justify this neologism and predict it's very applicable use in the coming years. Wait through the next 98 days, give it a chance "",don't demolish "" until it has had a chance to be built because there is more to come. If it gets shut down now, it will only be rebuilt again. And those most against it will want to take it down because they don't want their lies pointed out "", but that doesn't mean that they are entitled to their own facts.Special:Contributions/64.66.124.134|64.66.124.134
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENT||WP:CHANCE||WP:DEMOLISH||WP:IDL)

Comment: For now. As of now this is something that Kellyanne Conway said in an interview once.  ,  and  apply here. Unless this becomes a reoccurring phrased used by the Trump administration, anything worth keeping can be transferred to the Kellyanne Conway article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:RECENTISM||WP:10YT)

Comment: as per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEOLOGISM)