Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alt-lite


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The "don't delete" argument seems to be slightly more convincing than a "delete" case, but I don't see a clear cut consensus between "keep" or "merge"; I suggest that people start a merge discussion with alt-right Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Alt-lite

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not satisfy the relevant notability policy on neologisms, WP:NEO. This term has little usage by reliable sources, and arguably none in their own voices. Moreover none the sources even defines the term. It appears to be simply a put-down of a political group, and in that sense this article amounts to nothing more than an attack piece (similar to articles like Libtard, which has been deleted three times). I would suggest merging into Alt-right, but I don't think any of the current content is worth keeping. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Clearly fails WP:NOTDICT and WP:NEO. - GretLomborg (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a neologism, but one that gets defined and coverage from reliable sources.  Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The article may meet WP:V due to its coverage in reliable sources, but that's not the only bar it has to meet. It also needs to pass WP:NOT, which it clearly doesn't because its little more than a dictionary entry for a neologism (it fails the WP:NOTDICT and WP:NEO parts of WP:NOT). - GretLomborg (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The articles I linked above go well beyond just merely defining the term, but explaining how it plays into the dynamics of different segments of the alt-right, and would seem to meet the WP:WORDISSUBJECT requirements to have an article about a word. WP:NEO doesn't wholesale bar any neologisms, just those that do not get coverage in reliable sources, which this one clearly does get. Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , could you please provide links to the sources you believe define "alt-lite" in their own voice? Merely using a term, or quoting someone using the term, is not the same as defining a term. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The Nagle piece for one does so. Many others do so as well. All of the sources in my previous comment use the term in the context of explaining the friction between different alt-right groups, which helps create an encyclopedic basis for an article. Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The Nagle source is opinion and not reliable, but I agree that some of those sources include (somewhat conflicting) definitions of the term. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Many but not all opinion pieces are ipso facto unreliable. In this case, Nagle is a communication Phd and the author of a book on the alt-right, and not just a rando columnist.  Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't think covering this neologism is in keeping with what Wikipedia is about. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge selectively and Redirect to alt-right. There's some coverage, but it's entirely within the context of the alt-right (and, of course, the term itself is based on it). WP:NOPAGE. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Although, the current state of the article needs alot of work. --Justforthefun17 (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The alt-lite and alt-right are two different ideologies which share some platforms with each other and have completely parallel views on others. Having two different articles would be beneficial for users.
 * Merge and redirect to alt-right. This term can easily be covered by a section on the alt-right article. It is an offshoot which is understood in relation to the larger alt-right movement, so there is no need for a separate article. The alt-right article itself still needs plenty of work to cover this material properly, so this sort of content should remain there while it grows. Bigdan201 (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The article says it is a term used by members of the alt-right to describe people they think are not sufficiently alt-right. It is not apparently a term used in mainstream sources to describe a distinct group.  Its usage can be mentioned in the alt-right article and there is no reason for a separate article.  TFD (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to alt-right, but I don't think there's too much we could really say about this particular term beyond a few sentences or a short paragraph. I've checked the sources provided by Patar knight, but I am still unsure how much substantial coverage exists on this phenomenon. As it stands, a stand-alone article is clearly unsuitable. GABgab 22:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Term is being used more and more by many mainstream reliable sources (American Thinker, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, just to name a few). It is a separate ideology from the alt-right and thus should not be merged.  2602:301:772D:62D0:79C9:EF93:3212:49B1 (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.