Deletion of Regressive left

Comment: I understand this is a heavily polemic topic, however it's an article that is well sourced and easily meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: For me, this is in principle .  is established from my POV. I don't see any  in the article. The only valid argument is , However, insisting on  inevitably makes WP silent on a real concept, until such time a reliable third party has published something about the concept (without using it or being partisan). I think that keeping the article '''tagging''' the lack of sources (or the fact this is a "nascent concept", or something) is better for the average Wikipedia user than deleting it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:WORDISSUBJECT||WP:N||WP:OR||WP:RS||WP:RS)

Comment: On a quick first pass and by looking at additional sources, it really is quite evident that this term is being used over time (years) in a consistent way by some very well-known people. It is being used to convey a culturally important concept. A referenced article on notable people using conceptual language to explain our world is ''precisely'' what encyclopedias are supposed to be all about. This term is not a blatant invention by a crazy person in their garage, sniffing galaxial neoligism glue. The article does need clean up and some expansion. There are already some reasonably notable references but this can also be improved. The tendencies pointed to that are seen as stepping toward |synthesis are eminently correctable. I have started on some clean up
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: it is unfortunate that this has been canvassed outside Wikipedia, but there is evidence that the term has entered widespread use, enough for this to meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: trivially fails  due to the lack of secondary sources.  This is a recent, non-notable neologism with no significant coverage in secondary sources.  Additionally, '''note to closing admin''':  This AFD has seen extensive off-site |canvassing, including by the person who coined the term, https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/683104111974330368 here.  Wikipedia, though, is not the place to document every new political buzzword
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:CANVAS)

Comment: As ever in AFD debates, "Keep, meets GNG", "it has sources", "I hear it all the time", "the world needs to know about this debate" aren't answers to whether a page meets WP guidelines for existing. WP is |not a dictionary, a resource for explaining to people what the latest neologism is or a place to thrash out political debate. The term is a polemical, pejorative and recently coined adjective-noun composite occasionally used by some liberals to chastise leftists with whom they disagree. It has no purchase in academic classification of poltical tendencies and is not used, AFAICT, by third parties outside of the debates in question
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: The term itself isn't that new, though it could be argued that the widespread usage of it is. Plenty of reliable sources and a great foundation to build a decent article... the real question is if a simple summary in another article would be more appropriate (also discrimination is a slight stretch, it's a categorization term, though I can see where that's coming from). Regardless, none of this really applies to AFD, it certainly isn't . Also, while it's true GamerGate is one of the catalysts for its recent usage as mentioned above, it is merely one of many
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Do people actually follow wikipedia guidelines at all? It very clearly say at |Wikipedia is not a dictionary that "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." That seems to be absolutely applicable in spades here. We have a lot of people using the term, and discussing the concept, but no clear secondary sources talking about it. I personally have no real problem with a discussion of the term, but the wiki policy seems reasonably clear here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: There are plenty of sources. If the nominator has OR concerns they belong on the article's talk page. 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP)