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. This closure encompasses the parallel AfDs for the articles Alternative Right and AltRight.com, which are both about the same website. Consensus is that we need only one article about it, which I take to be Alternative Right as the more developed version of the article. It is not clear as to whether there is also consensus that the website is notable, or whether the article about it could be merged to the article about its creator Richard B. Spencer. This can continue to be discussed separately. Sandstein 13:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Right[edit]

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

Not notable enough. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Not notable enough" is a very vague argument. Can you explain more precisely why this topic should be deleted? Pburka (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very slim coverage by reliable sources. It's primarily mentioned as a hate website by leftwing sites or by organizations that seek out to identify hate groups (SPLC). If there is wide coverage by numerous reliable sources, it's far far from apparent by reading the Wikipedia article. As it stands, the purpose of the Wikipedia page seems to be to give attention to website and make it seem more notable than it is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SPLC, Daily Kos, Notable enough. Riley Cohen (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This account "RileyCohen" has made edits to exactly 3 article pages in its entire history: Memetic engineering, Neil Gorsuch, and Avery Sandberg. He's made a total of 23 edits of any substance and disappears for long stretches in-between fits of activity, yet is well-versed in Wikipedia procedures. If this isn't a sockpuppet, I'm Mickey Mouse. Rockypedia (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) indicates the criteria for notability are: mainly: “If a periodical meets any one of the following conditions, as evidenced by citing reliable sources which write significant commentary about the periodical in relation to the specific criteria, it is likely to be notable.” The additional criteria used as a supplementary basis are: 1) The periodical has made significant impact in its field or other area, such as higher education 2) The periodical has received a notable award or honor at a national or international level. 3) The periodical is or was the proceedings of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society). 4) The periodical has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works. Other than the left making short jabs at the periodical, there is no significant commentary and the periodical fails to meet all 4 criteria above. In addition, the person behind the journal, Herbert Spencer, is not a prominent figure in the alt-right movement and has a very small following. For example. nobody is arguing the Herbert Spencer played a significant role in getting Trump elected. He is a joke figure who makes a convenient foil for leftists.desmay (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If WP:IDONTLIKEIT was a valid argument for deletion, I'd vote delete. But the fact is that this website has the coverage to justify a short article. Some of the sources may need to be removed (Anyone know if just anyone is allowed to post a blog comment on Daily Kos? If so, that source should be removed) There are additional sources that support notability, including this [www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/04/24/berkeley_republicans_sue_over_ann_coulter_event.html] at Slate, left-wing, POV publication, but a notable on e and one where the "blogs" are signed by paid staff. If kept, this needs to me Renamed ((Alternative Right (website)]] to avoid the inevitable confusion of mistaking this for an article on Alt-right, for which many more readers will be looking. In fact, I'll make my Keep iVote contingent on Redirecting this title to Alternative right, and leaving a hatnote there pointing readers to this website.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any mention of the website in that Slate article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Kos diaries that aren't written or explicitly endorsed by their editorial staff should not be considered a source of notability. Comments should never give notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with AltRight.com, probably keep AltRight.com as the article's name and add a "Background" or "History" section containing info on the Alternative Right website. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as a political movement, the "Alt Right" is definitely notable, and their use of online forums is definitely a notable part of that movement. I'm not sure that either Alternative Right or AltRight.com are notable on their own (are they the same thing?), perhaps they could be merged into a new section on Alt-right. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree 100% with desmay (above) on this one. No significant stand-alone coverage. There's already info about this site on Spencer's bio page, that's all that's warranted. Rockypedia (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should be kept and AltRight.com should be merged with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.215.113.195 (talk) 09:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above, this article should be kept and merged with AltRight.com Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deathlibrarian Just to be clear, this is not 'Alternative Right' (the concept) but 'Alternative Right' (the website). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok thanks very much Snooganssnoogans I was confused. I'll modify my comment Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to AltRight.com per the above. The information is best presented together. bd2412 T 14:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Merge or redirect to Richard B. Spencer. Artw (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to AltRight.com per above. Neutrality^talk 07:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.