Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social justice warrior (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. The article's subject is found to be notable. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Social Justice Warrior
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article's previous deletion discussion resulted in a merge with Social Justice. Consensus emerged that the content was to be deleted at page it was merged to. As disagreed with that, he restored it here, ignoring the previous consensus to merge. Article has not changed since restoring- merely an explanation of a neologism. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – yes the article needs cleanup and expansion but this is widely used enough and now has enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. sst  ✈  00:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  00:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 00:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 00:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * If the consensus is to merge to Social Justice, then the content should stay at Social Justice; a local consensus there shouldn't override this discussion. However, given that there are doubts about the relevance of this term at that article, I'd prefer a stand-alone article for it, to avoid interfering with other topics. Opposition to including extended coverage of this topic somewhere at Wikipedia has been driven by ethical arguments contrary to giving voice to people who support the GamerGate fiasco, but those are not valid arguments against inclusion. The topic clearly meets the WP:GNG as shown by a sensible amount of reliable sources presented in previous discussions at Talk:Social Justice and Talk:GamerGate, and an article can be written about it that extends way beyond a dictionary definition. Diego (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Almost certainly unintentional, but just FYI you removed 's !vote and the delsorts. Restored now. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 01:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't noticed the . Thanks for the cleanup. Diego (talk) 08:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Of the article's five sources, three are about Gamergate and the other two cite Urbandictionary. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do either of those disqualify sources? WP:N is clear about it not needing to be the subject of the source, but regardless, this is in fact the subject of many sources (irrespective of whether they're currently cited). That includes reliable sources which refer to unreliable sources like Urban Dictionary. For example, in the Washington Post's article about the term ("Why ‘social justice warrior,’ a Gamergate insult, is now a dictionary entry"), it quotes directly from Urban Dictionary. I haven't determined for myself what the best course of action is with this, but there are definitely a lot of sources (some are gathered on the article talk page). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 04:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Rhododendrites, but that's baloney. There are no more reliable sources on the "article"'s talk page, and frankly there are no reliable sources in the "article" either. This whole two-sentence piece of crap is Diego Moya's crusade to keep alive something that should have been deleted during its first AfD in November 2014. Enough already! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I presume the part of my comment you're calling "baloney" is just that which refers to the existence of sources and that there are some on the talk page, and that's fine. I don't actually remember what went into that list and probably shouldn't have mentioned it before checking. I just know that there are sources out there sufficient at least to make this not open-and-shut. I'm not trying to convince you to change your mind, though -- and if I try to do so, I'll come equipped with links. The point was just to say that "three of the cited sources are about Gamergate and two cite Urban Dictionary" does not contain an argument for deletion other than a bolded !vote (because we don't just consider what's cited in the article, having a different primary topic doesn't disqualify a source, and referencing Urban Dictionary doesn't disqualify a source from being reliable for the purpose of supporting notability). If it's "enough already", that seems like an exigency for sound argumentation. I realize that a comment like this is kind of annoying, but I think one of the problems with many such discussions, is that participants' patience is already exhausted so they get bogged down by impassioned, poor arguments and head for sub-optimal outcomes. I'll leave it at that, though. Not actually looking to give you a hard time. &mdash;  Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 04:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I added 2 more sources. WaPo article dedicated to the term and Oxford dictionary includes it.  --DHeyward (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:NEO. Sourcing for this as a phrase/ neologism is simply not there yet.  Perhaps because it does not need to be.  "Social justice warrior"   and "social justice internet warrior" do get used, but they are perfectly intelligible without parsing them as unique terms, which social justice undeniably is.  What I mean is that a phrase like "Socialist Workers Party activist"  or "Republican troll" are perfectly intelligible and are in regular use, but are not terms regarded as unique terms, because they do not need to be, neither do "Social justice warrior" or "social justice internet warrior".  And despite some discussion of the term, in connection with  in connectionGamersGate  the sourcing is just not there to pass WP:NEO,  "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept..."   It could be a redirect to GamersGate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Terms in the Oxford dictionary are not neologisms, practically by definition . The WaPo and Oxford entry are specifically about the term which invalidates WP:NEO claims.  --DHeyward (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC).


 * Keep per Washington Post . Notable, mainstream term. --DHeyward (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's about as well-sourced as Manspreading was when it passed AfD last April. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of coverage beyond the sources already in the article: National Review "The Ferocious Religious Faith of the Campus Social-Justice Warrior", The Federalist "This Viral Video About Campus Social Justice Warriors Is Fantastic", The Crimson "The Social Justice Warrior", The American Conservative "The Tyranny of Social Justice Warriors", and Salon "5 reasons 2015 was the year of the social justice warrior (and why progressives should embrace the term)". These sources could be used to expand the article and give opposing views on its meaning and usage. The term is already in the Oxford Dictionary too. WP:NEO doesn't apply, as the term has been around for many years, and the coverage already in the article, as well as the new sources I've listed above, are about the term, rather than just using it in articles on other topics. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 19:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:NEO. The coverage is mostly just people using the term or referencing it relative to larger controversies, combined with a handful of editorials; it lacks significant coverage as a term in its own right.   --Aquillion (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)\
 * Passes WP:NEO. Terms in the Oxford dictionary are not neologisms, practically by definition   The WaPo and Oxford entry are specifically about the term which invalidates WP:NEO claims. --DHeyward (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC).
 * I think you're misreading WP:NEO. To me, it requires a certain quality of sources (it says 'such as books and papers'); obviously an entry in an online dictionary is not sufficient, since the whole point of the guideline covered on that page is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  One editorial and one entry in an online dictionary are not sufficient for us to write an article around that could pass WP:V. --Aquillion (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. The WaPo article is specifically about the term, not just using it.  It points out its mainstream acceptance by referencing the Oxford dictionary.  Two reputable sources discussing the term and its rise to common acceptance is exactly the opposite of WP:NEO.  Further it satisfies WP:WORDISSUBJECT criteria by exploring etymology of the term in WaPo.  The WaPo is a reliable source.  The Oxford dictionary is a reliable source.  --DHeyward (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI: The Oxford Dictionary is a tertiary source, and we should be aiming to use secondary sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are correct that the term has moved from secondary sources and now used in tertiary sources after extensive secondary source coverage. Its inclusion in a tertiary source invalidates WP:NEO as both WP and Oxford are tertiary sources.  If Oxford is ahead of Wikipedia in coverage, we should catch up as we can summarize secondary sources much better than a dictionry.  --DHeyward (talk) 05:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm referring entirely to your insistence that Oxford Dictionary was a reliable source. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We have a reliable secondary source (Washington Post) discussing the term and how it's now in a reliable tertiary source (Oxford dictionary). I'm missing how you don't see Oxford dictionary as a reliable source when the Washington Post seemed fit to write about it as a reliable tertiary source. --DHeyward (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, nominator should be sanctioned for this POV pushing. As a heavy editor of the Gamergate controversy article, firmly on the 'anti-Gamergate' side, they surely get called a Social Justice Warrior on a regular basis. It's clearly a notable term. On the first two pages of Google: The Washington Post, The Harvard Crimson, Breitbart, Salon.com, National Review, New York Post, The Federalist, The Daily Caller. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, but only if it can be kept from becoming a polemical WP:QUOTEFARM and avoids the BLP issues of labeling specific individuals as such, and it could do with expansion. The reason I'm on the fence is because of WP:NEO. GABHello! 22:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as passing WP:GNG with multiple, reliable, independent, in-depth sources, as those listed above. It is indeed a mainstream term at this point and even general media has given it attention. I wouldn't call it WP:NEO anymore as it is used in sources, especially with a dictionary entry linked above. Article quality is subpar (and quotes are a bit ridiculous, if only for AfD sakes), but there is content to expand. At worst, this should be merged, although I'm not sure social justice is the parent article (but if it's merged there then it should indeed be included, since that appears to be a point of contention). — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, but the article needs to go into more depth. The sources are available in the Talk Page. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a term in wide usage at this point. I agree that a broader array of sources would be nice. Mracidglee (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I'm a little concerned that the coverage is usage and not examination, as it needs to be for a neologism; but there is in fact a lot of it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's more a case of "a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject". Reliable sources are definitively talking about the term (see or, and all the others), which is what makes the difference between WP:NEO and WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Diego (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, primarily serves as a neologism with relatively minimal use within media; any argument of its notability seems dependent on the prevalence of its usage as opposed to depth of coverage. Inclusion in the OED is arguably not enough to merit an article; additions in recent years have tended to increasingly reflect discourse on the Internet, so inclusion is to be expected, but I don't believe that alone is a sufficient argument for notability. If kept, advise discretionary sanctions as an extension of Gamergate case; article in its existence has been subject to persistent POV-pushing by most editors. 108.2.58.56 (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge where? (was changed to delete) &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 02:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. The reason this article sucks is that there are so many POV pushers watching it who contest any changes they can and actively try to ensure that it continues to suck. I've never had such a frustrating experience trying to improve an article. This is ridiculous. Find a new source and add it, 10 minutes later somebody tags it as unreliable, then somebody else removes it. Add a new section, gets 2 flags added to it instantly then somebody else removes it. Why don't people put down their swords and try to help improve the article instead? We could probably write a pretty decent and neutral one. A lot better than what Urban Dictionary has, which is the top Google result right now. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * POV pushers? Have you looked in a mirror recently? Also, please read WP:No personal attacks -- as well as WP:Identifying reliable sources. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * How about you help me try to improve this article instead of trying to prevent me from improving it?Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is an article about a stupid internet term. You guys are treating it like the BLP of an important public figure. You don't need to contest every single edit that you think technically violates some random policy. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Revert to status quo, Delete, Merge -- This article was already merged, there has been no change in either article or sources since then. The article was restored out of process by someone who voted to Keep the article in the last AfD. This article is also under GamerGate sanctions, and per general sanctions and available sanctions, the 'editors' here that are primarily GG related accounts should be sanctioned. That should include SPI checks. Dave Dial (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As an aside, besides the out of process unmerging. This is obviously a neologism that has not changed since the last discussion. There is nothing significant to differentiate the term from the Social Justice article, besides the neologism. Except a content fork. Dave Dial (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "there has been no change in either article or sources since then" this is so clearly and obviously untrue it's difficult not to call it a blatant lie. there have been tons of sources added and a decent amount of content. it's in the process of being improved even further. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting, I think, that this content was only unmerged from Social Justice because editors there were trying to remove it. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That makes no difference here. That is a discussion for the social justice Talk page. This was most definitely an out of process unmerge, and it should be reverted immediately. Dave Dial (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to word a different way: discussion at Talk:Social justice led to the content which came from the merge close at the previous AfD to be removed. It was at that point that the article was recreated. Maybe a bit quick, but it's hard to say either was wholly [in or] "out of process". This seems like it might be similar to the recently concluded (hopefully) Involuntary celibacy saga, where the 2nd nomination closed as merge to celibacy, but an RfC on that page was closed as consensus not to include. It's not exactly the same here, but again there was an AfD closed as merge, and discussion on the merge target page led to it being unmerged. Given the sequence of events, the recreation and return to AfD seem all but a foregone conclusion., who closed the "Incel" RfC, articulated some thoughts about the relationship between AfD outcomes and article talk page consensus. It may be a tangent, but maybe he has some thoughts about this case. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 19:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This WaPo Article is about the term and references it to Oxford deictionary that now includes the term .  Both are recent and post-merge.  It's disingenuous to say there is nothing new when two prominent, reliable sources say differently.  Your argument should take place with the respective editors of those publicationa, not wikipedia as we merely reflect what they have already noted.  --DHeyward (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)--DHeyward (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I've got my granddaughter for the weekend, so I won't be making many more comments on this page. But let me clear a couple things up. First, the difference between the last version of the article before the last AfD(merge) here, and the one that Diego Moya restore here is practically none, except for the restoration being a worse 'article'. 100% out of process unmerging, it was not worked on, there was no advice sought on if it was allowable. Secondly, the 'new' sources are from the same Gamergate episodes. Citing a dictionary when one of the delete rationals by Delete editors(and the closing admin) was Wikipedia is not a dictionary, is not something 'new'. Lastly, once again this article is related to Gamergate and GG sanctions should be enforced. There are several editors here claiming they are 'new', but were probably topic banned by ARBGG, not to mention the 1,000 edit 1 year conditions. That is all. Dave Dial (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you're a veteran editor there should be no need to point out to you that deletion discussions are decided on the availability of reliable sources covering the topic, not their status of being included in the article. The article was never deleted; and the consensus to merge its content to Social Justice was clearly no longer upheld, given that the content had been removed repeatedly from that article.
 * As for the GG sanctions, most editors participating here are above the 1000 edits+1 year; though at least one editor who !voted Delete is an IP and therefore can't be checked whether they are above that limit. Diego (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. Now that I notice, the administrative sanctions listed at Talk:Gamergate_controversy are set at 500 edits and 30 days, not 1000+1 year. Have there been a change to the limits that I'm not aware of, or are those the number you meant to say? I think all editors (except the IP, Ghost and Mracidglee which have about 200 edits each) comply with this limit. Diego (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, but merge is the worst option. We should be very clear that when someone creates a term that is a neologism with a similar name it doesn't necessary get merged just because of tenuous assertions by the people trying to coin the phrase. The original outline was that this was a DICDEF / neologism, with an attempt to make it into a legitimate article by collating information from mixed sources. That was repeatedly reverted because of concerns of original research and synthesis. For some reason the argument to merge was considered strongest despite the fact that nothing about the "Social Justice Warrior" article actually had anything to do with Social Justice, and the weak content was no more than a fork of existing content at Gamergate (controversy), and most of the recently added sources (well, "additional reading") are arguments of assertion by Conservative feeds that there is a liberal conspiracy...which this AFD is now part of...none of which actually advance what the article actually is about - which is a cat-call. They are just evidence that the combination of "social" "justice" & "warrior" are tied to a culture war. Even the touted WaPo article above is little more than a re-tread of our own comments (it's interesting - but it doesn't add any weight other than to confirm it has a dictionary entry, which is again just a re-tread of the WP:NEO). Koncorde (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As pointed out, this is now attracting the attention of certain sources and being farmed on twitter. Koncorde (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep People have pointed out how it doesn't really fit into Social Justice on its talk. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

-Keep- I see the term enough in the news to justify its notability, plus South Park devoted a whole season to the term. I also believe that the term will gain new currency as the web becomes more ubiquitous in our daily lives.-RomeW (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep the extensive media coverage more than justifies an article. Juno (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has media coverage; content doesn't belong in Social justice. APerson (talk!) 02:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep; comments above indicate that the subject passes WP:GNG. ansh 666 11:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, as there are now enough sources like this to include information on the phrase beyond dictionary material, and it seems unlikely that there exists another article that would be a better fit for the content. Certainly Social justice is not the place for it. However, WP:TROUTs to for going about this in exactly the wrong way. He unilaterally created an article contrary to the standing consensus, without discussion, and managed to create an even worse article than existed before the merge. This whole AfD could have likely been avoided with a simple discussion about what to do.--Cúchullain t/ c  15:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Where exactly would have you proposed such discussion to take place, and who would have been involved in it? The people at Social Justice who wanted the content removed no matter what, and with an ongoing edit war? It seems to me that my WP:BOLD move to undo the blank and redirect (at a place which was no longer a merge, and therefore didn't correspond to the consensus achieved in the first discussion) has produced a good result. Given that I have not broken any rule, there even was no need to WP:IAR for this. Diego (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The logical place for the discussion would have been the page where the content was merged to. A simple discussion there about what you wanted to do would have avoided this more lengthy discussion, edit warring, and your problematic recreation of an article against the standing consensus.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, the term is in widespread use, there is extensive use of it in the media, and there is a dictionary entry. It is not just a 'cat call', it is in use by left and right. Salon published an article terming 2015 as the year of the social justice warrior and urged progressives to embrace the term. It is quite distinct from Social justice and should not be merged. Periander6 (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, If not kept, then merge but do not delete. The talk section of the article lists numerable citations on usage. As a word, it has entered widespread use in lexicon, and differs from the socioeconomic concept of 'social justice'. HOWEVER, it is not a field of study, but it is current widespread vocabulary. IF the article is appended to Social Justice, it should not substantially matter, as long as the new section explains its perjorative nature and how it is used to describe a substantial section of radical Social Justice promoters that are perceived to cause detriment to others in misguided efforts. Awolnetdiva (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep It's important to show the negative aspects of modern feminism, though it could be merged into Feminazi Hemi9 (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep noteworthy and well-documented, used in non-pejorative sense by some progressives. FChE (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's a term used exclusively by fringe anti-feminist groups. Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme or Urban Dictionary or anything like that.  And please, please, please, do not merge it with Social justice, as a philosophical topic older than Socrates does not need a section on a pejorative made up by Neo-Nazis/4chan within the last few years. -- KRAPENHOEFFER!   TALK  23:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So many arguments to delete can be summarized as: "i dislike this term and the people who use it". This is an encyclopedia. Your point of view is not relevant nor a valid reason to delete. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, on the contrary, having a full article on the encyclopedia devoted to a term used exclusively by fringe anti-feminist groups gives undue weight to to a bizarre viewpoint that is held by virtually nobody. If there is any coverage of this term on the encyclopedia it should be in a article about anti-feminism, or, to be frank, Gamergate. -- KRAPENHOEFFER!   TALK  18:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Used in official Paper by Seth Barrett Tillman National University of Ireland, Maynooth (NUI Maynooth) - Faculty of Law WhiteRabbit GER (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note, reading the arguments made over the last few days, persuade me that I was correct to iVote (delete) above, noting here that WP:NOTDIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would you put this here? Do you want there to be more lines that don't say keep? there is no reason to say "I still agree with myself" CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This is incredibly notable. The deletion discussion is simply an attempt to censor and delegitimize criticism of political correctness. It's worth noting that those voting to delete are all far-left politically. Look at Malik Shabazz, for instamce-he admires known terrorist Emma Goldman, as openly stated on his user page. Mean Mister Ketchup (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC) User has been blocked indefinitely for vandalism
 * NB: Mean Mister Ketchup has made no edits other than this one, some vandalism, and posting to Talk: Chelsea Manning. They appear to be here on this page to try and legitimate their own use of this term as a personal attack on me (see Talk). AlexTiefling (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * False, but nice try. Maybe lose the victim mentality?Mean Mister Ketchup (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep seems like this term has worked its way into the modern parlance and has significant coverage and use in third party media. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject is contentious, but this AFD is straightforward. The term has coverage in legitimate, mainstream sources, and should be a fairly easy call. The recommendations to delete above seem to have, at their core, a WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationale. That's simply not enough to overcome the coverage in reliable sources. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 23:10, 27 January 2016 (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.