Deletion of Alt-left

Comment: There is no such thing as the "alt-left". Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting  neologisms, or for manufacturing false equivalency
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (WP:MADEUP)

Comment: Neologism. Definition can't be established. Extreme 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: This morning's mainstream U.S. media are bursting with analysis of "alt-left."   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.   is not a reason for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: per , especially since as far as I can tell it just means "leftist politics that I don't like
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: There's a |neologism with a bunch of google hits. As |Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage of a word doesn't mean we should have an article. Sometimes we have articles on neologisms, but here the term has no clear meaning. It's used in ''relation'' to or in ''reaction'' to the alt-right, which despite widespread use was likewise not a notable term until it was the subject of several in-depth articles trying to define it. We don't have that sufficiently yet for this term. I see it being used synonymously with other terms and groups we already cover, for various groupings of activists, and with no clear meaning at all. Usage != article in an encyclopedia. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:NOTDIC)

Comment: per . "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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: Per . This Wikipedia page has blantantly been created to promote this newly coined satirical and derogatory phrase. This article even states that this phrase is a neologism and that there aren't any subscribers to such a movement because no such movement exists. Wikipedia is an encyclopeadia, derogatory neologisms for non-existant movements belong on Urban Dictionary. Special:Contributions/82.7.159.235|82.7.159.235
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: This violates  - and it's |SNOWing. As
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:SNOW)

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

Comment: Citing  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: 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  be applied
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: Passes  easily, with even more coverage daily. Since there are many reliable sources for the subject NEO does not really apply
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per . While the term does have usage in fringe sources it is almost completely absent from reliable sources. Mostly because no such thing exists
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: 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 . 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:WORDISSUBJECT)

Comment: to Alt-right#Alt-left as others have suggested. I'm not sure  applies (at least if it does, this one is a bit of a stretch compared to more run-of-the-mill cases), but  certainly seems to: {{tq|Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability.}} The term only seems to have gained wide spread popular usage (thus not NEO) following the events in Charlottesville, and, since there seem to be not actual self-identifying adherents, there doesn't seem to be any obvious reason to believe it will take on a more substantial meaning or remain in popular usage in several months, much less years
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:SUSTAINED)

Comment: Yes it maybe neologism but is notable one as its easily passes   I didn't see policy reason given by delete  votes expect 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: as per . We don't have articles for similar terms such as 'libtard'. Special:Contributions/PeterTheFourth|PeterTheFourth
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: Obviously passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per . 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 Wikipedia:Other stuff exists#Deletion of articles|an article on the opposite side
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS)

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

Comment: or '''Merge''' due to  and . There is no evidence this word will be in use in a few weeks. No-one self-identifies with it and it's just a slur
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTNEO||WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: Not really a real thing. May as well close per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: This is not a specific movement with which anyone has been said to identify; it's a  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)