Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 06:25, 26 March 2023

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 Merge to Social justice. There are strong arguments on all sides of this debate. On the one hand, there are reliable sources (although many of the sources brought up during this debate do not rise above blogposts, some of them are more substantial). On the other hand, this does indeed look like a dicdef. Given the sourcing, it appears that the people arguing for a merge into Social justice have the strongest case. Randykitty (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Social Justice Warrior

Social Justice Warrior (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)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Pejorative term invented by opponents of an ideology; there don't appear to be significant reliable sources discussing it, unlike Rush Limbaugh's feminazi. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Strong keep term is in very frequent use, and has received sufficient coverage in RSs. The topic will be controversial and possibly should be locked until Gamergate dies down a little but should definitely stay. Juno (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Please note that the article now has 9 more sources than it did when it was nominated for deletion and was viewed 3,000 times in the last week. Juno (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Weak keep: Direct coverage in many outlets (1 2 3 4 5, just off the top of google) and reference by name in many others. Deadbeef 22:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Adjusting magnitude of my support per the valid arguments listed below. I still stand at keep based solely on GNG but concede it is decidedly less black-and-white. Deadbeef 19:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Strong delete The reliable sources that are even on the page barely mention the term, and only as a fringe pejorative. What is Misplaced Pages, knowyourmeme.com now? Dave Dial (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Tentative keep. This could get messy, we should watch out for off-site canvassing and there'll be plenty of WP:SPA involvement too I shouldn't wonder. That aside, a brief search gives these sources, though I've gotta say, they took some finding; most references to it are in blogs and other unreliable sources. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - Appears to meet GNG and likely WP:NEO. Whether or not the sources are currently cited doesn't matter for AfD purposes, and there appear to be a whole lot of them. Mostly related to GamerGate of course (193 hits for the term in quotes at google news), but also related to men's rights and more generally. --— Rhododendrites \\ 23:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - Appears notable. Google news search reveals multiple on topic hits --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Strongest possible delete – We are not a dictionary. We don't provide definitions for every fad turn-of-phrase. Take this over to Wiktionary. I've never even heard of it, whatever it is. RGloucester — ☎ 03:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't follow this one. It's clearly not a dicdef, and strongest possible delete seems awfully charged for a dicdef even if it were. Also, although many articles about neologisms are deleted, we do also keep a lot. It just matters if there's sufficient coverage about the term (rather than just use of the term). --— Rhododendrites \\ 04:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It clearly is, since it has no notability as determined by reliable sources, and is a product of recentism and WP:SOAP. Once I see it in the OED, or some similar book of words and phrases, then maybe it warrants an article. It certainly does not now. It is a WP:FRINGE term. I'm not defending any of the OTHERSTUFF that ought be deleted too. RGloucester — ☎ 13:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages documents fringe topics, so that would not be a reason for deletion. Diego (talk) 12:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages documents fringe topics if they have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable third party sources. While flung in great quantity, the reliable sources about the subject are certainly not "significant", mostly simply a dic def. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

"Significant and reliable" as a whole academic paper about the concept, you mean? The "dic def" argument doesn't support itself when you read the sources and see that they provide a lot of context for how an by whom the term is used in addition to what it means. Diego (talk) 09:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

a single source that talks about the term applying it to Gandhi and MLK does not actually address the lack of reliable sources about the term. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Merge - into Social justice. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - This is a prime example of WP:RECENT doing a poor job to allege notability. See new opinion in bold below. To quote, "Recentism is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view ." Search results yield urban dictionary and primarily blogs. Citations are far from ideal to say the least (opinion pieces and blogs and heavy partisan bias) and largely just mention the term and are not articles dedicated to it. Note: I just cited every source from the article as highly suspect and arguably not worth inclusion; That this article relies on those as primary sources speaks volumes. When evaluated with source intent, recentism, and Misplaced Pages's wider objectives of likely historical context, the result is clear that WP:NEO or WP:WORDISSUBJECT do not apply. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 05:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that WP:RECENT is an essay which may be in the minority view of users and should be garnered no weight for a policy based deletion rationale. WP:NEO does not apply because it's received ample coverage and WP:WORDISSUBJECT because there is encyclopedic information to be harvested from sources which just have not been reincarnated as a result. Tutelary (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Someone with your experience level should know that essays with such large precedent behind them are perfectly valid AfD talking points. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 06:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

They should take second place when confronted with actual policy like the WP:GNG, though, as policy has gained community-wide consensus, and essays have not. Diego (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Also per RGloucester on WP:DICTIONARY. We aren't here to host buzzwords or memes. Moreover, just because a term is used in the media doesn't automatically grant notability. I'd also support Isaidnoway's idea to merge and let them handle the matter of inclusion over there if there is no consensus here. The regulars over there would handle it better than a largely-bureaucratic AfD. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 05:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Merge with Social Justice. If there's one thing we seem to have something close to consensus on it's that there's probably some content somewhere in here that might have some value even amongst people with delete !votes. A better discussion can be had over what's notable or not out of this over at the broader article. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 21:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Purely keeping to the sources, there has been ample coverage and discussion of the term in itself, and as such, warrant notability. The commentators seeking to devoid or delete this page based on WP:NOTDICTIONARY are missing the point. It's not so much an example of the term that that's the issue, it's entries that don't devolve onto it further than that that the policy is intending to eliminate. Feminazi is an example of such. An ample page describing the cultural aspect of the term, to who it is applied, and the like certainly doesn't run afoul of it. Even keeping past that, easily meets WP:GNG in all aspects. Tutelary (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Obvious delete per WP:RECENT, the OP, and lack of notability except SPS-type stuff surrounding petty internet conflicts. Misplaced Pages isn't Urban Dictionary. Hustlecat 05:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you perhaps use an actual policy rather than an essay? Tutelary (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure. WP:GNG. Was also going to add to my original reason, that the page can/will probably be created once more has been written on it in various places. But definitely no reason to exist now. Got a good eyeroll outta me though. Hustlecat 05:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Even if the arguments at RECENT gained consensus, they would make sense for a merge and redirect rather than a delete and salt that is being proposed. Article titles should guide to relevant content instead of blanked pages, and the references show widespread use of the term, so it's a likely search term. This AfD should be decided with the interest of readers in mind rather than those of editors defending this or that cause; and readers need to know what is it that is being referred to with this name by such fringe sources like The Washington Post or The Irish Times, either at this page or at some other containing the same material. All the arguments based on "this is too important" or "this is too unimportant" should be essentially ignored. Diego (talk) 12:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:DICTIONARY. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per Dylanfromthenorth. The sources are there. The article does need to be watched for the usual POV warriors. --Two kinds of pork_Bacon 06:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete I originally edited this page to fix obvious POV issues and some (although admittedly not all) of the unreliable/discredited sources, and I'm pleased to see it's been restructured and improved since (despite the edit warring). Nonetheless I don't think this subject is worthy of a standalone article. I think it's worth considering added its content into the Gamergate article as a dedicated section though. Randomwellwisher (talk) 11:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete and salt The term is fringe at best and this exact article was already deleted a month or so ago. The article itself is badly sourced and utterly redundant in terms of academic value. We already have a lengthy article on Social Justice and don't need one for this weird pejorative --109.148.127.93 (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The article also gives undue weight to a games journalist called Erik Kain. There is no evidence why this man should define the topic and he doesn't seem to have written any books or such on the subject of social justice. In fact the articles sourcing in general is weak and the definition doesn't fit how the term is used --5.81.52.82 (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Merge or redirect to Social justice. The subject of a "Social Justice Warrior" is simply trivial, and relates exclusively to the greater subject of social justice, which already has an article. - 64.235.72.185 (talk) 11:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Removed SPA on the grounds that I am an active contributor, but due to the sensitive nature of the topic at hand, I would prefer to not involve myself and bring attention to my main account. - 64.235.72.185 (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Still not an SPA. WP:AGF - 208.107.110.144 (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I am fairly uncomfortable with the idea that you are both an established user AND editing with an IP. It sounds like you may be evading a COI. Juno (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Further note Does anybody have the previous AfD where it was successfully deleted? It should be linked at the top --109.148.127.93 (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It was as an expired proposed deletion on the 5th October . (Apologies if I didn't do that link right; it's to a search of the deletion logs, should work though). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

There was an AfD for it, I believe, although it may have been deleted before that. Is there no record of the deletion? Some people made compelling arguments for its deletion and it was thankfully successful, it should be listed here now that somebody felt the need to recreate so soon after the deletion of the first one, or this will keep happening --109.148.127.93 (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Further note - Initial version of the article is very similar to the article that of the same name was deleted less than a month ago: . I'm unsurprised how POV it is in tone, it is likely the article itself was written to prove a WP:POINT --5.81.52.82 (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Would it be possible for an admin to compare the initial created version to the one that was deleted? --5.81.52.82 (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

an expired PROD deletion doesnt matter for anything. it just means that at one time a version has minimal to no sourcing - it was flagged - no one provided better sourcing or objected before a week had passed it was deleted. only in the case of a community consensus through an AfD would a previous version matter. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Delete WP:Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. Try Wiktionary. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Weak keep The most relevant category for this term is Category:Political metaphors referring to people. See other articles in there for a reference. I think this word has been covered in quite a lot of media recently, such as being explained several times in the Guardian for example. On the other hand, it's not as notable as angry white male for example as that one is even found in dictionaries, so I'll mark this as weak keep --Pudeo' 12:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Social justice. Not notable enough to warrant a separate article per WP:IMPORTANCE. gbrading (ταlκ) 13:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 17:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Redirect or transwiki: per above. Never mind recentism, this is a dicdef at best. Nha Trang 22:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Keep This is a relavant term but it is probably going to cause headaches. Also the filing party submitted it as WP:IDONTLIKEIT Retartist (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• delete i dont see any reliable sources about the subject that are not merely WP:DICDEF. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • if Pejorative were better built out, it might be a possible merge target. Would there be another place to send it? either merge or redirect? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep, was easily able to find secondary sources discussion among multiple references. — Cirt (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

You should post them here, I haven't seen the term used in serious news coverage or academic texts on social justice but if you can find good sources then we should keep it --109.148.127.93 (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Merge because no one ever says that and because it would be easy enough to create a section on the social justice article for online social justice movements where this term can be noted.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • except that it is not ever actually about "social justice", its primarily "anti feminist" and more generally "anti-something-that- we -think/claim- is-feminist- but- there- is- never- any- actual- examples- of"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - We're not a dictionary, and there's no indication in sources that the pejorative itself is notable. News articles that mention the term do so to define the epithet for the reader, when they quote some gamergater who uses it. That's not an establisher of notability. Tarc (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete NN pejorative. Take it to Wiktionary or Urban Dictionary --Guerillero | My Talk 21:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment without !voting at this time. The frequent use of SJW in Gamergate controversy is incomprehensible without an acronym link. The acronym should be included somehow. Robert McClenon (talk)

This exists: --5.81.52.82 (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That's one article, an iffy article at that. Also, the acronym "SJW" is referred to once in the article, the full description two other times. At the very most, a section can be added on the Social justice article. But that is not my !vote. Dave Dial (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• keep : this term is now often used. --Vspaceg (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)|

There aren't really many good sources for this being notable. The first google results are Urban Dictionary, a Tumblr blog and Roosh V's personal blog --5.81.52.82 (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Question: This phrase is an obvious Neologism. How many articles does WP have on neologisms? Cla68 (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • • Yes, we do: "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, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy. " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. The few sources actually about this term - rather than just discussing or mentioning it while covering another topic - do not rise above the spirit of DICDEF enough to justify a stand-alone article.--Cúchullain /c 14:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Redirect or merge to social justice. I see numerous hits on Google News, but I don't think that this could be expanded much beyond a dictionary definition. I don't think this subject is as of yet independently notable beyond the concept of social justice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Strong keep Anyone who even infrequently uses social media should have come across the term. I will agree that the article in it's current form definitely is not brilliant, but there should be something on the topic. —Frosty ☃ 07:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that there are very few sources and as such it is difficult to cover the topic properly, that is if it deserves an article on the project at all --5.81.52.82 (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Merge, though I'm not sure of the best target. It is a WP:NEO, and in light of being a negative-connotation word, should not be used in isolation without being able to fully give it context. As such it should be at the part of a larger article. I don't think that's social justice because while loosely related to the concept, it's not really connected. It seems the best current location is Gamergate controversy where the term got more light, though I'm aware there's other non-VG areas picking this up; however, other suggestions are possible. Deletion (or at least deletion without redirection) is inappropriate as the term is a valid search term and WP is not censored. --MASEM (t)
• Obvious keep per the numerous sources listed above. No idea whatsoever why this would be nominated. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a vote --5.81.52.82 (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• • @Thargor Orlando: please identify which of the sources are not merely uses of the term or go beyond WP:DICDEF and are actually about the phrase itself? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• I'd suggest merging it along with feminazi and any others into an article about something along the lines of pejoratives associated with radical feminism. HalfHat 15:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• The problem here is that the largely ill-informed "keep because it's used a lot" votes confuse usage of the term with coverage of the term itself, as a pejorative word. Feminazi has received significant coverage in sources on the nature of the word itself, which is why an article there is justified. Tarc (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

We are still even lacking in a basic definition of the term. The current one gives WP:UNDUE weight to a games journalist called Erik Kain --5.81.52.82 (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

That's odd considering we got one for the GamerGate article. HalfHat 20:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Why are you talking about GamerGate? --5.81.52.82 (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Because that has or at least had a definition of the term. HalfHat 20:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

"We had to scramble to the dregs of potentially usable sources because there we no actually reliable sources" speaks volumes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? HalfHat 21:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I am talking about the fact that for us to even have a "definition" for this article we need to stoop to a blogger, from a finance magazine none the less, because no actual reliable linguistic-based sources have covered the term - ie the "source" in the GG article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The term has also been used in academic contexts outside of the GamerGate, by the American Society for Public Administration where it refers to "new warriors of our times" that "fight with words instead of weapons and wage war within our society instead of on other shores", and by The Stringer here, where it's applied to someone fighting an unjust legal system. Diego (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

That does not seem to be about the pejorative "SJW" but rather about people who are actually known for working for social justice - it cites Ghandi and King as examples. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

So? It shows notability for the concept of social justice warrior in general. Diego (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

that there is no sourcing about "the concept of social justice warrior in general" connecting Social justice warrior (slur) and Social justice warrior (activist) means that we cannot lump them together either. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

What makes you think Social justice warrior (slur) and Social justice warrior (activist) are separate things? To me they pretty much look like both have the same meaning. I have seen no reliable source in linguistics establishing Social justice warrior (slur) as a separate concept, unrelated to the idea of an activist fighting for social justice; in fact that's the very thing that is being critizised or ridiculed. The usage as slur is not about a separate concept, all references cover the same topic. Articles in Misplaced Pages are defined by what reliable sources say about a topic, so that distinction you make is OR unless a RS makes it. Diego (talk) 08:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

P.S. And if you read the academic reference I provided, it does establish criticism of SJWs by the general public as part of their defining characteristics, so yes we have a RS connecting both ideas. Diego (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide a quotation of this please? I can't find anything in the article that connects the two ideas --5.81.52.82 (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to this sentence, right in the introduction: "In advocating for unwelcome changes, these warriors are often accused of violating the social contract and being “Un-American”". It would have been nice if you asked without labeling my claims as possibly false. Diego (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

So from the "un-American" we can presume that this is an americentric term? At least in that singular recorded usage of it --5.81.52.82 (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

If we are talking about a mere synonym for social justice advocacy, there is no basis for a separate article. If we are talking about the slur, there is insufficient evidence to establish notability. Which is the topic being proposed for this article?--Trystan (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

"A person who engages in social justice advocacy, and is critizised because of it" (which is how the academic paper describes the concept). This is not about the abstract idea of "social justice", but about the people who pursue it, and what media are saying about them; i.e. a WP:SPINOUT of social justice as a related subtopic. Academic sources and presence in the media don't establish notability in your book? Diego (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

You used the plural for "academic sources", what we have is one academic source and some blog entries, we have to be careful of WP:FRINGE --5.81.52.82 (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Delete, per Cúchullain. It's not enough to have sources that merely use or define the term; we need reliable sources that are about the term itself. The current state of the article is simply a definition followed by a tangent regarding one instance of its use, and I see no evidence that a reliably-sourced article is possible on this topic at this time.--Trystan (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of articles is not decided on the current state of articles, but on the existence of significant coverage of the topic at the reliable sources that describe it. We have plenty of reliable sources giving common characteristics of what a social justice warrior is. Diego (talk) 08:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Most of those sources are blog posts. I'm not saying that there are none at all but saying "plenty of reliable sources" is exaggerating the amount of and quality of material that we do have access to --5.81.52.82 (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Either keep per WP:GNG or merge as a section at social justice per WP:PAGEDECIDE. In-depth coverage of the concept at an academic source and multiple high-profile news media establish this as a worthy topic, although placing it in context of the larger SJ article may provide a better structure. Also, irrespective of the policies that would justify this result or the other, definitely those readers wanting to learn what "SJW" refers to should be given access to these high quality compiled references that talk about it, rather than a deleted page. Diego (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Here's a bunch more of references that define, use and provide context for the concept: (in both cases used as a synonim of "civil rights champion"), , , , , . Those saying that sources don't exist beyond a dictionary definition may want to revisit their arguments. Diego (talk) 10:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

you are actually putting forth ACLU blog as a source we can and should use? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

If you feel it is most appropriate to merge then I would say that is the way to go. This isn't notable enough by itself and if is can be tied to the real concept of social justice (rather than as a byword for anti-homophobia/anti-racism/anti-sexism as I generally see it used) then it should go there and be appropriately written and sourced --5.81.52.82 (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't care either way. There's clear usage of the term in multiple sources with the meaning of someone who fights for social causes (which is seen as a good or bad thing depending on who you ask), it has been defined as such in an academic paper, and reliable newspapers are documenting how the Internet is using that meaning as a pejorative against people involved in the GamerGate. To me that qualifies as a topic, but if people think that information fits better at social justice, I'm fine with it. Diego (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The first two of your sources use the phrase only once, in the headline. That's not the sort of source that is relevant for establishing notability. Other that, I see a handful of blog posts that don't for me collectively meet the test set out in WP:N in terms of quality or depth of coverage.--Trystan (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

See WP:JUSTABLOG and WP:RSOPINION: "otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format." The links above are by ACLU, The Stringer, Boing Boing, Spectator.co.uk or The Nation, and there are plenty more where these came from; the whole space of online media are writing about SJWs, and many of them devote whole articles to the topic. (And BTW, how does it matter that the words "social justice warrior" are only uttered once? The whole ACLU and Stringer articles are about persons fitting the concept and defined by the writers with those words). Diego (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

and neither forbes nor kain (nor the vast majority of footnotes used) are linguistics sources - reliable opinions for business, sure, but the topic is not business related. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Therefore, being non-linguistic, they can't establish Social justice warrior (slur) as an independent topic. They're acceptable sources to establish notability about online social phenomena though. Diego (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - I was just getting ready to nominate this for deletion myself and saw it was already up. (1) Not an encyclopedic topic, simple pejorative. (2) Non-notable neologism — recent creation which fails GNG. That the Gamergaters have made this a sort of slogan is neither here nor there — merge a line or two into that piece if necessary. Carrite (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:DICTIONARY, User:Trystan, and User:Carrite. Furthermore, the definition supplied here applies exclusively to its use by RSs surrounding the Gamergate controversy. Outside of that, last I checked, its only use by non-extremist sites has been to refer to someone who co-opts social justice concepts and uses them as an excuse to harass others and/or justify their own bigotry (though I could be wrong). So, failing a delete, merge with Social justice if a significant number of RSs discuss the term outside the context of Gamergate, or Gamergate controversy otherwise. Random the Scrambled 22:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• Merge as section at social justice, there are a variety of sources that do talk about it, but I think it is be notable in the context of social justice. --Obsidi (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2014 (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.