Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regressive left

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. A huge portion of !votes were given considerably less weight in this discussion due to WP:ATA, particularly in the keep camp. Ultimately, many of the concerns brought up were editorial and WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Mkdw^talk 02:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Regressive left

Regressive left (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatantly obvious synthesis, and the sources that aren't being drawn in synthetically are poor. Bill Maher uses a phrase on his talk show, clearly it's a real thing that Wikipedia needs to document. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Nominator's comment: This has been linked from at least one Gamergate forum, which is the obvious reason it's getting a ton of non-arguments from SPAs or otherwise low-activity accounts. These users don't care about WP:N, WP:RS or WP:NOR; this is a political battle for them. I encourage the closing admin to weigh the arguments here, not vote-count "censorship!!!11!one!", "it should be kept because it definitely exists for real", "polemical talk shows are reliable sources", etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Dude !!! What are you thinking? I was the first person to indicate Keep. I do care about the pillars. And in my humble opinion the other Keep input has seemed to be able to tap into Wikipedia policy reasonably. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It's objectively true that most of the keep voters here fit that description, and they keep coming. Is there a reason you're so defensive about being associated with them? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Wrong again. I suggest to you that I am not being defensive. The association you mention is in fact precisely the same as for you and I: you and I are working on the article. Period. I appreciate, in the hypothetical, that there could be an effect from some link about which I know nothing. However, I suggest that it is not "objective" to characterize opposing input as "a ton of" irrational non-arguments, political, or manifesting lack of respect to the pillars. I tried to convey to you that perhaps you were using your brush too broadly. Rather than availing yourself of the opportunity to refine or tone down your contentions, your point stands in its original bright raw energy. The big paintbrush approach will be weighed on its merits and possible demerits by the closer. I would say to you that when I initially came to this article I could relate to the reason you undertook the AfD, but as you know from life, there is a distinction between holding to your principles and recalcitrance. Since this AfD doesn't need to get cluttered by a diversionary debate, I will stand down here. FeatherPluma (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, I would point out that the person who coined the term has been canvassing for support on Twitter, here. --

Aquillion (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, Twitter user Imperien Cypher (@imperien) has attempted to rally his supporters here. The French Rat (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• No more than a dozen or so people are actually sourced saying something even similar. It's really just a neologism, and too much of the article is a vehicle for polemics or partisan quotes that are only tangentially related. Plus, the material could just be reinserted elsewhere (?) GAB^Hello! 07:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep 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. FeatherPluma (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't usually come back and amplify myself at AfD discussions. But I do so here because perhaps it isn't clear that the essence is that this article is not just a quote farm. The various video media analyses are not randomly independent content that happen by chance to stumble on the term. Misframing these discussions as isolated opinionated polemics would be far off the mark, and would suggest these sources were possibly dismissed automatically rather than carefully reviewed. In what I have looked at since embarking on this, these sources are media analyses of the concept by prominent notable individuals. They are of an order closer in gravitas to e.g. Christopher Hitchens on video than to trite polemical sources. I judge that they do in fact represent modern secondary sources in that they reference the concept's origin, and then analyze its coherence and then use it as a springboard to analyze its deductive implications. Of course, this isn't the typical print sources like the New York Times that we would usually prefer. That needs to be said. Nor do they have the imprimatur of any editor, and that's a big issue, unless we argue that The Rubin Report is a firm RS, which we are not arguing at all. But then again the article isn't absent any print references. It's a matter of judgment whether the multiple existing print references in e.g. Washington Times and two Independent articles are "substantial" or not (and a quote in Newsweek). The WT article is all / only about "regressive left" etc. I would also say that someone wants to seriously challenge the video media references as mere polemic rants, I'd be happy to look at the respective media again and review what these various analyses say, "line by line" / "time stamp by time stamp" and discuss it comprehensively and collaboratively. By the way, I am not an advocate for the concept, as some off-AfD input suggests. On the contrary, I am dispassionate in considering the merits of this AfD and have put hours into diligently coming to my recommendation. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

But WP:NEO, which this falls under, requires coverage by secondary sources analyzing the term itself; all your sources are primary sources using the term. Nobody doubts that there are people who use the term, but we require secondary sources discussing it before it can be included on Wikipedia. --Aquillion (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Aquillion, for the input. In the article, after yesterday's updates (before your input), we cite (4 times) the relevant thematic analysis by James Bloodworth (28 June 2013). "Why is the left so blinkered to Islamic extremism?" The Independent. That source was in the article before, but with a lesser footprint. Bloodworth uses the (harsher sounding?) synonym "degenerated progressive". I suppose a reasonable case could be made to add this to the introductory sentence, but I didn't do so because as a source it gives a clearly expressed, detailed, analytic opinion (which, as it's politics, can be deemed right or wrong) on this article's topic but uses the synonymous wording once only. More broadly, we would contend that the article is not a dictionary entry about the specific form of words "regressive left", but is an encyclopedic handling of the cultural phenomenon that the words describe. When we started in on this AfD, the article was enough of a mess that the nomination was understandable. Despite undergoing some trimming of certain elements, it's overall 43% larger than at AfD initiation, reorganized, and has abundant video and print sourcing. And we also referenced the thematically relevant Bruckner, Pascal (2010). The Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism. Princeton University Press. ISBN 1400834317. We haven't explicitly reproduced in all its detail Bruckner's (revulsion)/opinion as to the "reversal of the burden of proof" because this article is for a general readership. FeatherPluma (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Keep pretty much for the same reasons FeatherPluma outlined. Even if the term is somewhat of a neologism, the phenomenon it describes is real and worthy of documentation. And I don't see much evidence of SYNTH in the article. Amateria1121 (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Response to nominator's comment: That kind of not-so-subtle implication typifies why articles such as this one become a political battleground for both sides: those who oppose such terminology and those who support it. My comment pointing out that SYNTH is not an advocacy tool, and the comments of others questioning the premise of the AFD, were drowned out by the clarion call referring to the malign influences of Gamergate, sockpuppets, and "low-activity accounts". The arguments against deletion may be rather evidence-free, but then again, so is the argument for deletion. Simply stating "delete because SYNTH and RS" without elaborating doesn't really do much in terms of justifying an AFD. In the case of SYNTH, it's difficult to prove the negative case, and no proof has been offered for the positive case. Although I agree with the nominator about RS, surely tagging the article with {{Unreliable sources}} or {{Partisan sources}} would suffice for now, instead of outright deleting the article. If those tags were left unaddressed for some length of time, then yes, perhaps AFD would be the next step. But to jump straight to AFD seems like an overreaction. Amateria1121 (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

"This neologism doesn't have reliable-source coverage, and spurious attempts to pull in other sources to claim notability are falling foul of NOR" is a pretty standard reason for deleting anything. I don't think tagging would help because it wouldn't be asking users to go out and find better sources, it'd be asking them to hang onto an article that doesn't meet WP's standards in the hopes that the term would one day be in common use so that sources might exist. That's bad policy and, frankly, advocacy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

That's probably true, hence why I argue the politicking goes both ways. I understand that there may be a rush, by some, to legitimize the term by writing up an article on it, and that under such conditions users would not necessarily follow OR and RS to an acceptable degree. But that does not necessarily invalidate the topic. See WP:WORDISSUBJECT; regardless of the current state of the article, the so-called "Regressive Left" describes a phenomenon as legitimately noteworthy as the so-called Homosexual agenda. You say that tagging the article is likely insufficient, and that in many cases is true. But for this article, I think it would be best served in the longer run by retooling it to focus more on the topic and less on the term (again, see WP:WORDISSUBJECT). That would open up a, perhaps not wealth, but at least some better sources for inclusion and citation. Leaving the article to focus on term would indeed make it ripe for the type of "speculative advocacy" you describe, but if the article's deficiencies can be edited out (as I believe they can), then deletion is not necessary. Amateria1121 (talk) 05:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that the "regressive left" exists or doesn't exist - what I'm saying is that even the neologism doesn't have enough currency in reliable sources to write about per WORDISSUBJECT. Ultimately, an article with either focus is still subject to WP:N, WP:RS and so on. (But if the sourcing isn't sufficient even to write about the neologism - which I don't think it is - how much further away it is from being able to write about it as a real phenomenon.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

We seem to have a bit of chicken-and-the-egg here. Does the term presuppose the phenomenon? It's a neologism, and yes, the neologism in and of itself is probably not worthy of documentation due to lack of RS, at least. But if the phenomenon itself is within the scope of WP, does a description of it necessitate using the term (and the related primary sources)? Or could such an article incorporate both reliable sources and use the term as a convenient label? I believe so, and that doing so doesn't necessitate the deletion of the article as it is now. I can see how a position with such future expectations could be seen as bad policy. But if the article is being actively worked on and improved (largely thanks to FeatherPluma at this point), I maintain that it's a reasonable position for now. Amateria1121 (talk) 05:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• SNOW Keep. There are plenty of sources. If the nominator has OR concerns they belong on the article's talk page. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. --Sammy1339 (talk) 08:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• When I wrote the above I was not aware of the canvassing concern so I'm retracting my SNOW suggestion. However I still find the WP:NEOLOGISM argument pretty weak. The term itself has received significant coverage by people other than Nawaz. It has in particular been notably discussed, in depth, by Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris. These are WP:BIASED sources and care should be taken accordingly. However, those who want to argue that the sources aren't "reliable" enough are not considering what reliable means. They reliably explain the concept as set forth by Nawaz, as well as endorse it. In turn, their views have been widely discussed in the public sphere, for example:[1],[2]. Yes, all the sources necessarily flirt with the line between fact and opinion, because this is an inherently polemical topic. That doesn't mean it isn't notable or shouldn't be covered. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

WOW, was I wrong. On close examination, there is really nothing to keep in this article. The whole "Origin" section belongs in Majid Nawaz, the connection to Islamo-Leftism is pure OR (and wrong), the next paragraph is based on a summary of a partisan report, and the remaining four paragraphs have mediocre sourcing and are not the basis for an article. I would say cut out the fluff and merge and redirect what's left over from the last few paragraphs to Criticism of multiculturalism#Multiculturalism and Islam. I have no objection to a real article on this subject being written, but this isn't one. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Sammy1339 I think, from what you have said, that you agree with the general concept that there, on occasion, exists a phenomena of "an inherent hesitation to challenge some of the bigotry that can occur within minority communities [...] for the sake of political correctness". This is an intensely important subject that, just in the UK, has resulted in social services and police failing to address problems. This NP front page speaks of "1,400 child sex victims in one town" with "Social workers too scared of being branded racist to act". There is a very legitimate and notable phenomena of which the main term applied to it is "regressive left".

https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/674477682277486594 and a [3] great deal of similar content just in connection to this one thinker. GregKaye 16:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@GregKaye: I don't think the topic is non-notable. It's clearly part of the current political conversation, and SV's video [4] from her comment below is very strong evidence of notability. I think it's almost certain that we will have academic sources very soon, but that's my WP:CRYSTAL. Currently, however, we have a situation where the only substantive parts of the article are entirely based on op-eds, talk shows, and primary sources. A stand-alone article should not be based solely on such sources, though they can be used to support an article. That's why I think the material should be merged. I'm opposed to deleting the history, and have no objection to having an article on this subject next week when better sources appear. I also can't rule out that there are more quality secondary RSes hiding among the massive number of GHITS. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Sammy1339 WP:UCRN has little to do with academic sources but to what readers will find to be a "commonly recognisable name. Also, though this is a valid topic worthy of article space, it is a neologism and a choice of name use, whether by a top professor or the barber chatting to you while cutting your hair, will be subjective. It will be somewhat a matter of art rather than analytical science. We use academic sources to clarify which worn track is more valid.

Also, as far as academia is concerned, I see little difference if an academic, like Richard Dawkins, consistently and persistently uses a term in a published paper or in published tweets. They are all reference material only that the tweets are more commonly used and with content with potential to be more commonly recognised.

If a different term comes into more common or approved use than "regressive left" then we can use WP:RM in the normal way. GregKaye 18:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The difference is peer-review, and anyway this is a little outside the expertise of evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. Again I think it's a notable topic but that the current sources are insufficient for a standalone article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

In the context of a vast amount of rape and violence, the topic is far too important not to have a stand alone article. No argument is offered here to say that the phenomena does not exist. All there is is a current quibble in regard to what the phenomena should be called but with this within the context of no second naming option being offered. GregKaye 03:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Though obviously not a term as fleshed out and with a history as, say, "liberal", there are a number of articles from well-respected sources that aren't known to discuss non-real ideas. It does come a bit closer to synthesis than many articles, but is far from "blatantly obvious" in my opinion. Joshua Garner (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with Sammy1339's reasoning. AFD is not the place to wage a politically motivated wikiwar. Sources are strong and numerous, if you feel excessively strongly about the subject perhaps you have a COI and should step back from the article. 86.170.32.148 (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep The term has risen into popular usage and suppressing the origins and definition based on "blatantly obvious synthesis" is quite a stretch. I see little to no OR in the entry. - CompliantDrone (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep There are far more obscure political movements and terms which have a page and deciding which merit a page and which doesn't is inherently biased; why do you think you should be able to decide that the "regressive left" page should be deleted, but the "anarcho-syndicalist" page should not? This article is wholly justified and has an increasing abundance of sources and cultural relevancy to assure it is now a permanent page. Thesqueegeeman (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep The page should be kept because while 'regressive left' may to some be an obscure political term, the deletion of this page may bring in to question the existence of a multitude of other, potentially even more obscure terms. The page, to my knowledge appears to be about a relevant topic and is well cited. There is no reason to delete it. Asm20 (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• KEEP Short and sweet, the only people who want to delete this article are those who are best describe by it!CubBC (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep It is evident from analysis of the edit logs that the page has come under concerted attack by certain people who have a vested interest in the removal of the page. Of the 11 official reasons[5] for deletion that serve as code for deletion, the only one that appears to have been mentioned is that this article fails to meet the notability guidelines. This criticism clearly carries little weight considering the term in question has been mentioned several times by notable public figures and intellectuals. The fact that this term is new and is its meaning is evolving and slowly entering the more mainstream lexicon is a reason for, not against, its existence. The guidelines for notability are met: there is significant coverage, it is reliable and cites from many respectable external sources. Thus, it is manifestly clear the article shoudld remain. Given the problem this article has clearly had with malign edits from those on either side who are not independent of the subject[6], a better course of action would be to bestow semi-protection upon the article. Mrkingpenguin (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• KEEP The regressive left want to delete an article on the regressive left. Quelle surprise.=== Jez === (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Nothing much to add to what the other "keep"s have said already. As for the bit about linking on a forum, I suggest OP reads Streisand effect. I also enjoy how OP labeled his opponents SPAs preemptively. I wish OP well in life. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 00:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• KEEP Though the term is new, it is being adopted by those who aren't on either side - Youtube news shows such as David Packman Show and Secular Talk have both covered this term. The phenomenon of taking away platforms from ex-Muslims and reformers who want to criticize Islam is, at the very least, observable. Arshad Manji, who considers herself a reformist Muslim, has talked about political correctness getting in the way of a useful discussion about Islam. One recent example of this would be Warwick University's (England) LGBTQ+ Society and Goldsmiths Feminist Group both showing solidarity with Muslim students who heckled and disrupted the event where Maryam Namazie was speaking about Islam . In this case the LGBTQ+ society and the Goldsmiths Feminist Group would fit the label of regressive left. Anaverageguy (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep I see a referenced article, it seems to me that this passes GNG. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• 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 WP:OR. Also, while it's true GamerGate is one of the catalysts for its recent usage as mentioned above, it is merely one of many. Ryan Norton 02:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep The article, despite its pitfalls in relying on quotes rather than paraphrasing, is far from the warrant of deletion. It is undeniably notable. Cognissonance (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep The nominator cited synthesis in her nomination. If there are indeed synthetic conclusions within the article, they can be solved by cautious editing—not deletion. fds^Talk 04:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep The page is properly sourced and the term itself is seeing growth in usage. The Phool (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. The article has enough citations from articles, features, columns and talk shows. It is a real term, used to describe a real phenomenon. The fact that the nominator feels threatened by the very existence of this page only serves to prove the point of this term. Objections should be on the content, not the page itself. --Fasi100 (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. For me, this is in principle WP:WORDISSUBJECT. WP:N is established from my POV. I don't see any WP:OR in the article. The only valid argument is WP:RS, However, insisting on WP:RS 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. --Thomascorner (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a phenomenon that exist. There are people who hold these views who obviously do not want it appear on wiki. But these are harmful ideas and if they are not interested in appearance of such term in wiki they had to stop making excuses for bigotry and intolerance in minority communities rather than censuring internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.57.127 (talk • contribs) 06:12, January 2, 2016‎
• Keep Descriptive of an emerging phenomenon. Clearly this article is useful as long as it remains balanced and well-sourced. Mythiran (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - 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. Peregrine981 (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep we have all sorts of notable terms including "Santorum" and other terms that are far more defamatory and less well-sourced as this. As long as we have this open standard, these terms are kept. --DHeyward (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep while some users of this term are primarily comedians like Maher, it originated for Nawaz who is very much a serious and noted pundit. He is also a classical liberal, so this can't be written off as an anti-left epithet coined by someone like Limbaugh. I can remember the massive AfD debate here on the right-wing equivalent (one who betrays the traditional standpoints of the ideology) "cuckservative" '''tAD''' (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is not a valid argument. — Red XIV ^(talk) 22:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - I don't see why we should delete this article. Seems to be well sourced and is an interesting subject. GamerPro64 20:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - This is well sourced and the fact that 5 people notable enough for Wikipedia articles on themselves have talked about this at length & there's 50 MILLION Google hits indicates this meets the notability requirement and has various secondary sources to warrant its inclusion. TheTruthiness (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Really? Looks like 47,700 Google hits to me. By my math, that's quite a bit less than 50 million. And the fact that notable people use the term does not make the term itself notable. — Red XIV ^(talk) 22:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Well either you aren't good with numbers or something's messed up with your Google: About 49,400,000 results (0.29 seconds). Notable people saying "War on Terror" made it notable, notable people saying phrases are kinda how phrases become notable. --TheTruthiness (talk) 08:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Even when searching without enclosing "regressive left" in quotes (which inflates the results by including every pages that simply include both "regressive" and "left" separately), I get: About 3,830,000 results (0.42 seconds). That's a far cry from the 50 million you're claiming. — Red XIV ^(talk) 17:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I would accept the premise that USE by notable people does not inherently make it notable. But... the premise frays when they (look up who they are) ANALYZE it, discussing its implications at length, and when that gets coverage in the Washington Times and The Independent. Not an irrelevant distinction, so I appreciate listening carefully to this input and becoming aware that things had not been made properly clear previously. FeatherPluma (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable neologism. — Red XIV ^(talk) 22:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - Per Red XIV; it's a non-notable neologism. --Jorm (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - Why is this even being debated? This is a term that was first used by Nawaz in 2010 and clearly it has gained cultural currency to the extent that many notable public intellectuals across race, creed, and gender are using it in public debate, and it has sparked passionate debate in social media (e.g. multiple uses daily on Twitter). Rather than spuriously questioning its notability, it would be more accurate to debate whether it emerged as the political term of 2015. Let's be honest here: That it was flagged at all seems politically motivated, and in fact, one could argue the act of flagging this entry itself seems to illustrate the type of speech-killing tactics that those who have popularized the term observe as being a common tactic used by those they identify as Regressive Leftists. Let's hope a valuable resource such as Wikipedia does not give in to political censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myrocket88 (talk • contribs)
  • I would argue that the support for the article is what's political in nature. The term is an oxymoron that Nawaz and Sam Harris are trying to force into common usage through sheer repetition. — Red XIV ^(talk) 01:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Polite flag to closer: sorry I keep popping up. Article now has additional print media sources. I found material in Sunday Express and noticed that one of The Independent. articles had some "deep think analysis" along the lines of the confirmation bias of the "degenerated progressive". FeatherPluma (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Redxiv, you can argue support for anything on this site is "political." Regardless, this is a political phenomenon that has been widely identified in the popular debate, not (as falsely argued by some comments) only by Nawaz or Harris or Maher. Also interesting that the entry for the neologism New Atheism, arguably a spurious term, doesn't get flagged by the same people who seem to object to the entry for Regressive Left. - myrocket88
• KEEP - The term describes a phenomenon that many leftists face in the west, should they be a minority and choose to speak about or try to bring change to certain *regressive* aspects of their "native" culture/religion/etc; the regressive left allies with reactionaries and attempts to silence or attack them. One blatant example of this is a white atheist commentator suggesting Maajid Nawaz is not a real muslim, but there are many other examples of this, especially in the UK (where feminist & LGBT university societies condemned ex-muslims after they were harassed by regressive muslims). There are many examples of leftists that have noted this phenomenon beyond Nawaz and Dawkins, such as Nick Cohen, and use this term to quantify a schism in the left. Wikipedia likely has hundreds of articles that describe elements of mainstream political camps, so I don't see why this one should be excluded, at the expense of minority leftists that the Regressive Left(tm) treats as inconvenient exceptions & "native informants", "traitors" to the cultures they apparently view as homogeneous blobs incapable of change or reform. Atomicdryad (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

One additional note; rightwingers are starting to appropriate the term to describe opposition to *their* regressive views as "the regressive left". There *is* a difference. This makes an article that accurately defines it all the more important. Atomicdryad (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Strong delete; trivially fails WP:NEO 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, here. Wikipedia, though, is not the place to document every new political buzzword. --Aquillion (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - I just expanded the lede some to define the term better. This term describes a lot of people. It is accurate to describe this as the Tea Party of the Democrats. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - This is just the usual suspects, trying to deny free speech to anyone who disagrees with them. Nothing to do with 'Wikipedia rules', which they apply with blatant double standards. They are acting rather like, well, regressive leftists. They don't want the contradiction between their support of Islamism and their pretended concern for women and gay people to be disclosed, because then people may see that they are actually all about virtue-signalling, and in some cases criticising and ultimately destroying Western civilisation (cultural Marxism: another page they've censored). See also whinging on this very page that "the majority are against my PoV, but most of them should be disregarded because I think they're Bad People". Pathetic. I suppose all the 'Keep' posters are 'racist' as well? We are having a well-overdue rebound in the cultural wars, and regressive leftists need to get used to that. You can't hide the truth forever, no matter how much of a narcissistic bullying scold you are. BeenAroundTheWorldAndIII (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC) — BeenAroundTheWorldAndIII (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Comment on content, not contributers, please. clpo13_(talk) 16:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

If, as is stated at the top of this page, "consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes", then what does it matter whether a contributor has "made few or no other edits outside this topic"? Does that in any way affect the merit or otherwise of their argument? This playing of the man and not of the ball is the kind of tactic that I have come to expect from, dare I say it, regressive leftists. FWIW I read Wikipedia more than the average person I'm sure, but this page (which I came to from within the encyclopaedia) is the first time I have felt sufficiently strongly about an issue to say anything. I didn't realise there would be an insinuation that I had come here as a result of 'canvassing' or whatever, and that therefore what I said somehow carried less weight. How very welcoming. We all have to start posting somewhere. BeenAroundTheWorldAndIII (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• Merge with Islamo-Leftism. I decided to see if I could find RS for "regressive left" that did not originate with MN, ending up with this, and this, and this. It doesn't have as much currency as I would like for a keep statement, but most sources use it to describe the same concept. (I found a non-RS minority that tried to extend it beyond Nawaz's meaning, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.) Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Those two concepts seem very at odds with each other. At best Islamo-leftism is a subset of the regressive left. The Islamo-left align with Islamism because they have a mutual interest in destroying western cultural institutions. The regressives appreciate islamic culture, but they don't have any interest in it pervading their culture. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Even with the discovery that the ORA.tv counts as RS below, it's hard to find RS extending it beyond that concept. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 03:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Islamo-leftism is unequivocally unrelated. That term describes an unlikely marriage of Marxist and Islamist ideology in parts of the Muslim world, which plainly has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic. A better merge target is Criticism of multiculturalism. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a comment: when I was writing that, I was more or less thinking of the article's lede, which describes Pascal Bruckner's position, which sounded like what MN was talking about when I was reading it. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 03:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Keep, has become a commonly used term to describe a position, 5,000+ google news hits. Also ironic that it accurately describes the POV editing of the user that nominated the page for deletion.--Loomspicker (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I find that a large portion of GN hits pick up sidebar links to an article on one source, showing several unrelated articles in the search, disqus comments on Deutsche Welle. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. Here is a video of Nick Cohen talking about the regressive left with Dave Rubin. Rubin uses the term at the start, and they discuss it more from c. 5:00 mins. Cohen says he wishes he had thought of it. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't doubt that the term gets used, but there seem to be no reliable sources about the term's use in general or evolution from Nawaz's 2012 coinage to its current usage as a generic snarl word roughly equivalent to "SJW." Instead this article is synthesized from primary sources. Notably, the "Analysis" section draws heavily from pieces that aren't even about the term. There may be an article to write about this concept, but this one isn't even close to being it. Winter's Tulpa (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me as though "snarl word" is the only snarl term being used here. "SJW" is proudly used by many SJWs themselves, and "regressive left", whether you like the term or not, has a widely understood definition: those elements of the left who excuse and embrace Islamism, despite its implacable opposition to gay rights, women's rights, free speech, freedom of religion, and other causes that the left claim to stand for. These people contradict themselves in such a fundamental, absurd and obvious way that some phrase was bound to be coined to describe them. You cannot expect us all to pretend the phenomenon doesn't exist just to spare your feelings. If you think the article needs improving, and you can do so fairly and within the rules, then no-one is stopping you, and there is no need for silly deletions. It's probable that in this big old world of ours, "regressive leftist" is sometimes used as a generic snarl term, but are you really going to say that the same doesn't apply to "right-wing", "far right", "bigoted", "racist", "fascist", "xenophobic", "homophobic", "hate speech", "Islamophobic", "troll", "denier", etc? Should we delete articles on those terms as well? BeenAroundTheWorldAndIII (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The point here is not whether or not the term is useful. The point is not about sparing people's feelings. Nor is it about whether the term is sometimes used as a "snarl word." The point here is whether or not there are enough secondary reliable sources discussing this term. Those would be needed to improve the article and make it a balanced, useful, encyclopedic entry. We're all ready for you to produce the sources. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Not to go too "other stuff exists," but right-wing, far right, bigoted, racist, fascist, xenophobic, homophobic, and Islamophobic are all redirects, largely because we don't have articles on those as terms. An article on leftist attitudes towards Islam would be a perfectly fine place to redirect this towards. Winter's Tulpa (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Winter's Tulpa: Racist redirects to racism, xenophobic redirects to xenophobia, right-wing redirects to right-wing politics.... "Snarl word" is not the right argument. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@BeenAroundTheWorldAndIII "SJW" is the definition of a buzzword. It's internet slang with no standardized definition, and can mean different things depending on who says it. Nobody actually self-identifies as one outside of being ironic to make fun of the people who use it as some kind of insult. "regressive left" in it's current usage is a similar kind of snarl word, and has no actual agreed upon definition because it's a slang commonly used by people looking to attack rather than have discourse. CitrusTachibana (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Keep 500+ sources that pass WP:RS, not really sure why it's being considered for deletion anyway. Phatwa (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Phatwa How does number of google hits make any difference? We are urged specifically not to use this as a criteria for inclusion on its own. How many of those RS are secondary discussions OF the term, and not simple mentions of the term? I'd be eager for you to include these great sources in the article itself. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Keep for reasons presented in my 16:04, 4 January 2016 edit above. Phatwa perhaps, in some cases, for the motivations that helped develop the regressive left influence in the first place. GregKaye 16:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep – 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 WP:GNG. sst✈ 16:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep I understand this is a heavily polemic topic, however it's an article that is well sourced and easily meets WP:GNG. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Holy smokes. Delete. NN, NEO, socks and SPAs galore. It's like the mid-00's all over again!  RasputinAXP  00:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
• Strong delete Strong use of synthesis. Well below the standards of Wikipedia articles. As others has mentioned this completely fails WP:NEO. This is a non-notable neologism, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also a large portion of hits pick up sidebar links to an article on one source. I also want to point out that this talk page has been linked on /pol/, and one of the neo-reactionary subreddits which is where the majority of these votes are coming from. CitrusTachibana(talk) 05:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC) — CitrusTachibana (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete We do not need articles for every possible adjective and noun combination. TFD (talk) 07:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

CitrusTachibana You mention "non-notable ..." but, as far as the topic is concerned, a large number of attacks and rapes have occurred in context of evidence suggestive that the officials concerned were intimidated by potentials of accusations of prejudice. Many people suffer because of racial and other abuse and there is an issue here with the potential to prevent these issues being addressed. The contention that is made in the article is that the issue has long existed, even in connection to a variety of faith or cultural topics, but it is only just been highlighted. In this case I think that cases of obvious name changes are relevant. I'm not in anyway implying that the article is of the same prominence but in the context that Jorge Mario Bergoglio was ordained as Pope Francis it was instantly clear that this should be the article title. The issue is real and the neologism term used to describe the phenomenon has gained significant traction. If it fades out, which I don't think it will, the article can be deleted in a couple of years. Ping: RasputinAXP TFD GregKaye 12:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The idea that people are conspiring not to prosecute crime for fears of accusations of prejudice is a blatantly false partisan spin designed to fear monger toward minority groups. It is also not relevant to this discussion, nor are our opinions. What is relevant is that this lacks reliable secondary sources, features heavy synthesis, and completely fails WP:NEO. This is a non-notable recent neologism, and has never been cited as being said by more than 5 people. WP is not a dictionary for every variation of slang and/or adjective-noun that is ever used. As someone else mentioned, for similar reasons to the logic mentioned here, right-wing, far right, bigoted, racist, xenophobic, homophobic and so on are all redirects. CitrusTachibana(talk) 23:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I've just been going through the various !votes here and found myself surprised that I recognize an unusually small number of names. Sure enough, there's a huge number of SPAs and accounts with a few more edits than an SPA who haven't otherwise made any edits recently (I think these have been called "zombie" accounts). I mention this because otherwise it looks like an overwhelming keep outcome. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I would be someone with one of those low activity accounts so may be I should address your concerns. I contribute to articles that I find interesting and relevant to my own life. There are periods when I find making contributions easy and then there are periods where it's impossible. But I try to fix things whenever I can. I should also point out that my account is not an SPA by any means. My vote to keep this article was influenced by constant defense of Islam by liberals because their interpretation of it happens to be benign. But it goes further than defending Islam. Ex-Muslims and reformists are frequently disinvited and maligned by universities due to pressure from their campuse's Islamic groups. This has happened to Ayan Hirsi Ali (giving her and then taking away an honorary degree), and Maryam Namazi (she was disinvited to speak, also was heckled at a different talk by Muslim students - the campus's feminist and LGBTQ+ groups sided with the Muslims). I can make a much longer list if you don't find these few events compelling enough to validate the term in discussion. I probably shouldn't be using anecdotal arguments here but as an ex-Muslim, I want to hear people representing me in public and so far, we have been constantly told to shut up because our views on Islam don't align with the mainstream perception of it. I hope that clarifies that even if the keep vote is coming from a low activity account, the argument made in the vote should matter more than the logs of the person making the argument. - Anaverageguy (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Anaverageguy That's all very interesting, but with due respect the situation of ex-muslims on campuses is not relevant to this discussion. The discussion here is about the number of secondary sources available to discuss this topic. Do you know of some secondary sources that would be relevant? That is what would sway my vote, and what is important to establishing if we should maintain an article, not the importance we as individuals place on the topic. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The only reason why I mentioned my personal motivations was because there are too many people pleading to dismiss keep votes from low activity accounts. I don't see why votes from low activity accounts should be dismissed given that they contributed sometime in the past and plan on contributing in the future. As for secondary sources, it's a term that's more commonly found on youtube shows and twitter discussions rather than a scholarly magazine. However, even before this term was coined by Majid Nawaz, there was discussion within reformist community about the silence of the liberals in regards to Islam. The words "regressive left" never popped up but the attitude was discussed. I will research for more resources and put them in the talk page. Anaverageguy (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Although the article still needs some work, no one has made a strong positive case for deletion. Enlightened editor (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment, leaning to delete. 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. N-HH talk/edits 19:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, insofar as there is a coherent underlying topic, it already seems to be covered to some extent under Left-wing fascism and Islamo-Leftism. The existence of these pages highlights the "dictionary" problem: WP is taking multiple, related phrases and explaining how each of them are used, in their own entries, rather than focusing on a single topic or genuine category. N-HH talk/edits 12:11, 6 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.