Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer


 * 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. Opinions are sharply divided. The "keep" side points to the coverage received by this ... whatever it is; whereas the "delete" side advances attack/slander/libel concerns, and/or considers this to be an ephemeral news topic. These are all valid arguments, but the "delete" opinions are not so compelling as to mandate deletion absent consensus.

While we delete attack pages, we do cover notable attacks, and to distinguish the one from the other is a matter of editorial consensus - as is the question of whether sources reflect routine coverage or are substantial enough to be the basis of an article. Until a possible later discussion reaches consensus on this, perhaps after this whole election thing, the article is kept by default.

There are widely voiced concerns that the title is problematic, but that can be changed editorially and does not need deletion.  Sandstein  17:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete per WP:NEOLOGMEME, WP:NOt your meme, and WP:Memes of living persons. But really, I think this should have at most a mention somewhere. Yea sure it was talked about on some news sites, but it's usage will probably drop out now that Ted Cruz has dropped out. It was a "current event joke" made during the rise of his campaign. Could we apply the principles of WP:NEOLOGISM to this? Wickypedoia (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notability is not temporary, and this article is the subject of multiple independent reliable sources. We have comparable articles on subjects such as Pepe the Frog with similar sourcing that have arguably died down over time, but this is not a reason to remove them from Wikipedia. —0xF8E8 (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Pepe has been around for alot longer. This was made as a joke during his campaign. If it is truly notable, why not mention it over at Ted Cruz, United States presidential election, 2016, or even Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016? Hence "WP:NEOLOGMEME". Just one of many jokes/memes, whatever you want to call it, made during this election. "Jeb is low energy", "Hilary is corrupt", "Trump is racist", "Trump is Islamophobic", "Trump is a sexist"... these all got their fair share of coverage, should we have articles on those too? Oh looky here, anybody want to start "Bernie Sanders is a communist"? Wickypedoia (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The major difference between this and other insults thrown at politicians across the election season is the fact that those don't qualify as Internet memes. The examples you suggest are all very general feelings or insults about candidates that are not comparable to this kind of Internet meme; better examples would be along the lines of the pejorative "Little Marco", but even that's not really a good analogue. "Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer" is not just a random insult hurled at a politican; it's a somewhat bizarre in-joke on the Internet which has been covered well enough in reliable sources to warrant an article. Many have brought concerns about libel, of course, so if that's a concern we could rename the article. But it's important to draw a line between things like this and whatever Donald Trump says on Twitter. —0xF8E8 (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What about Marcobot ("Marco Rubio is a robot") or "Trump is Hitler"? This has a page on Know Your Meme so I'll just say it's a meme but not all will agree. Whether or not it is a "true meme" isn't the main reason why it should get deleted. Many political-related meme-jokes will become popular for short periods of time and may even get coverage in news sites. I just think something like that should have coverage that is much more significant. Like if a historian finds that "This particular meme helped caused the downfall of Ted Cruz's political career and guaranteed a Trump/Clinton/Sanders/3rd party presidency" or something and has a detailed analysis, for example. Wickypedoia (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My point of contention is not whether this is a "true meme" or not. It is true that non-notable subjects get routine coverage for brief periods in the media, but merely looking at the selection of sources on the page demonstrates coverage has hardly been routine, with articles in February, April and May. It bears reiterating that notability is not temporary, and as easy as it is to dismiss this as a meaningless transient political insult, it's not quite that simple. You bring up Rubot (which is a closer example, though it doesn't have the sustained coverage to warrant an article), and "Trump is Hitler", to which I redirect you to my previous comment. It's important to distinguish the hyperbole that comes with general feelings from the phenomenon of "Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer". One is an in-joke, and the other is not, which is arguably what's contributed to its coverage in reliable sources. If someone were to poll Florida voters and find 20% thought Trump had ancestry in the Hitler family, and Internet groups popularized the action, then it would be reasonable to compare. But once again, that's not really what I'm arguing—the matter up for debate is whether this subject has been the subject of significant, non-routine coverage in reliable sources. Whether historians are going to be conducting in-depth analyses twenty years from now, while not entirely irrelevant, is not the main issue here. That's why we have articles like All your base are belong to us, and the Leeroy Jenkins; we may consider these subjects trivial matters of the past, but they have received non-routine coverage in reliable sources. —0xF8E8 (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It is important to retain explanations and contexts of memes so that later readers may glean its importance in the context of the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.243.13.96 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep: Well written and sourced article covering a genuinely notable internet meme Elzbenz (talk) 04:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - As obnoxious as vandalism related to the meme is, the meme itself is well-covered by RS and appears to have lasting notability. Not just a flash-in-the-pan.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 06:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as libelous. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Considering how even things of less impact than this have been allowed to stay on here – see 2016 Bernie Sanders Facebook groups suspension for a good example – it's strange to not cover this too. It may be a meme, but it is a truly notable meme in comparison to most others. It is hardly libel. Stamboliyski (talk) 10:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Then they could face an AfD and deleted even if this one does not. Wickypedoia (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - trivial and libelous. This isn't even really an internet meme, in that (as far as I know) it never spawned any variations or took on a life of its own; it's just a humorous thing said (mostly on the internet) by people who don't like Ted Cruz. In that, it may be comparable to, say, Tricky Dick or His Accidency - but neither of those have an article, despite having at least 1,000 times the notability of this one. As it is, this article, consisting of nothing but examples of people who have used the phrase, ends up giving a soapbox for the irrelevant political opinions of (at the moment) a pro-choice activist/T-shirt seller, a bar owner, and a "Twitter user". Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep It's not libel, I don't see how someone would think that. It is notable, although the vandalism is annoying, as User:EvergreenFir said. The libel accusations are probably from Cruz supporters. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Can we please not make political insinuations here? Your !vote or mine shouldn't be taken as evidence of political persuasions. GABHello! 20:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: libel would be to call Cruz the Zodiac Killer without explaining that this is a joke that nobody takes seriously. Do we delete the articles on the Obama birth and religion conspiracy theories - that people honestly believe - because they are false? &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I should have said "potentially libelous", not "libelous". But the reason I think this might cross over into libel is the name of the article specifically - intentionally or not, it carries the direct accusation. If the article were named something like "Ted Cruz Zodiac Killer allegation" instead, it would be a different story. And by the way, accusing someone of lying about their birth country is different from accusing someone of being a serial killer. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If this is truly a concern, we can move it to Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer (meme).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 18:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That particular name wouldn't work because it would violate the naming rules (unnecessary disambiguation). But I do think a rename would be an improvement. Though again, deletion is still my first preference. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Still shouldn't be on Template:Zodiac killer no matter what we call it. Imagine there being an article called "Bernie Sanders is a communist" on Template:Communism... Wickypedoia (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't think this is defamatory, but if we didn't have room for an article about the much longer lived and more widely disseminated faux-insult Short-Fingered Vulgarian that's been comically applied to Trump for thirty years, how could we keep an article about this more evanescent one recently applied to Cruz? --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as not amusing or solid for its own article. SwisterTwister   talk  21:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - not encyclopedic, a slanderous joke but not a meme, low-energy. It isn't a meme (as commonly known on the internet), because it's not a template photo for text to be added at the top & bottom, per Image macro and Internet meme.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 04:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete It is not even an Internet meme, it is libelous, and it does not belong here at all. (Yes, I'm aware of WP:BELONG.)  Peter  Sam   Fan  14:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep only deletionist vandals want to get rid of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delétionist's high (talk • contribs) 14:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The person above is an obvious vandal, and he has created an inappropriate page.  Peter  Sam   Fan  15:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * — Delétionist's high (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep - I'm seeing a good deal of coverage here: . However, I think it's best to move to a more neutral title, such as Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer (meme). GABHello! 20:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * KEEP -- Better than 50/50 chance this is true - psd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.170.53 (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * comment formatted correctly, but this is not a viable reason to keep the article. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:GNG. If the article title is offensive, it could be moved, but that's a different discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep It is well sourced and also notable. It is not libel as it is a joke, simply an internet meme, I don't think the majority of people believe he is the so called "Zodiac Killer" (or maybe he is?). The article of the title should however reflect that this is a meme perhaps adding (meme) at the end of the articles title.  Jay  Jay What did I do? 00:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This is idiotic. People are desperate to keep their epic may may alive long past its expiration date. It was a current affairs-bound thing, people. It's not funny anymore and it doesn't need to be on here. Enough. Scrotebustin (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * (MOVED FROM ARTICLE TALK PAGE) This is not notable enough to have its own article. It should be mentioned in the relevant sections under Ted Cruz's article or the article about his campaign. I don't know the exact policy but I imagine Wikipedia wasn't designed to catalogue every second-rate meme that pops up. We have an article on O RLY, for example, and one on Rick Rolling, but those were genuine phenomenons that endured for over a decade. This was a sort-of popular joke that ran for a few months and then lost all relevancy when Cruz dropped out. Scrotebustin (talk) 02:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This user is blocked, don't know if to strike vote or not... --Laber□T 20:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not Memebase or something. This definitely fails WP:GNG, and makes the whole project look like a joke. If this page would be newly created now, it would surely be deleted as vandalism. --Laber□T 07:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This article is obviously well done, but is it really necessary for this short-lived internet meme to have its very own Wikipedia article? Seriously? Give me a break. This meme only deserves a one-paragraph mention on Cruz's own article, not its very own, separate article. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia does indeed have articles about goofy topics, particularly silly jokes and internet memes. Those topics are almost always, I think, ones that have lasting significance and notable coverage for months upon months, going into years. Pepe the Frog? Widespread thing around for years. Rick rolling? Same story. This joke about Cruz has gotten plenty of attention, I understand, but I still find little to no reason to see this as anything other than a flash-in-the-pan phenomenon. Most of the coverage are from trendy-type publications and blogs that may be notable, yes, but aren't treating this as like actual news. It's not libel in the strict sense, I know, as it's not alleged seriously by basically anyone. That still doesn't make it encyclopedic. I'd also like to point out that redirects and articles for Rubiobot, Little Marco, Short-Fingered Vulgarian, et cetera seem to form a pretty clear precedent. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – As per first keep vote. KnowledgeBattle | TalkPage | GodlessInfidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 07:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme. This is not any more notable than any other short-lived Internet fad, and WP:ROUTINE coverage does not confer it notability. In addition, this does verge dangerously close to WP:LIBEL and WP:SOAPBOX. At most, it should be merged with the Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016, as it only ever had a semblance of notability within the context of Cruz's campaign. WPancake (talk) 07:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Sick and tired of these bullshit articles related to the US election. How can anyone this this bizarre internet meme meets the standards of encylopedic notability? This is libellous, it fails WP:GNG and it belongs on Urban Dictionary or a joke site. This is an embarrassment. AusLondonder (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand the desire to get rid of the rampant political cruft that sprouts up during the election season, but the arguments for deletion here largely overlook important aspects of the subject's coverage. When you say "this fails WP:GNG", it would help to be a little more specific. It's not just some flash-in-the-pan meme; the subject has been the subject of articles in NPR, The Daily Dot, The Verge, been mentioned at the White House Correspondents Dinner, and characterized in The Guardian as and example of how "community-generated memes have grown to play a significant role in political discourse", just to give a few examples. Regarding libel, I can only see the title being a concern; we can certainly move, if necessary. But there's a reason we have articles on say, the court case over GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990; it's not libel to report people mockingly claimed something, and that the joke gained significant traction in the political sphere. Libel would involve either declaring in Wikipedia's voice, or giving undue weight to the idea that Cruz was the Zodiac Killer. —0xF8E8 (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Eminently notable, with its abundant press and mainstream references. Might be better called "Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer meme" rather than "Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer" or ""Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer (meme)" as suggested above. JesseRafe (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Satellizer el Bridget  (Talk)  10:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Satellizer el Bridget  (Talk)  10:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WPancake's comment above. It's mostly pretty WP:ROUTINE coverage for a political joke and there's nothing to suggest there's long-term notability. Wikipedia is not a tabloid.  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  10:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

*delete An egregious example of problem: WP:RECENTISM. If ever there was an article "created on flimsy, transient merits." This is about a joke, not a movement, an idea or or thing - or a meme. Just a joke that spread online. A joke would have to have some pretty extensive sourcing, something beyond a few weeks worth of people telling jokes about this joke to be notable. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC) rethinkingE.M.Gregory (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. A much briefer acknowledgement of this in the relevant and appropriate articles (i.e. Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016) would be fine — but by the same token whereby we don't and rightly shouldn't maintain a separate article about every individual pejorative nickname that one candidate coins to attack another one with, this isn't a thing that should have a full-on article in its own right as a standalone topic. Our role on Wikipedia is not to obsessively document every last bit of cultural flotsam that happens to float into view for a week or two — it's to apply some semblance of the will people still care about this in ten years? test, and I don't see how this passes that. For a comparable example, Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet once had a standalone article too — but as our notability standards tightened up, it eventually (and correctly) got cut down and converted into a redirect to, and much shorter subsection of, the article about the election campaign to which it was relevant, on the grounds that even if it was newsy at the time it happened, it wasn't a suitable topic for a permanent standalone article as a separate topic. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:0xF8E8 given notability conveyed via reliable third-party sources.--DrWho42 (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * keep Satisfies WP:GNG. A well-written monument to the idiocy of American mass culture. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I have to agree with the second sentence. --Laber□T 18:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:RECENTISM and notability arguments above. Kdowns1453 (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - this could be included in the main page on Ted Cruz's campaign - or not. The topic is quasi-defamatory (some usernames related to this have been suppressed, for example), and while it may meet GNG, the RECENTISM argument seems meritorious to me. This is somewhat related to the AfD for Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash, though that has a much wider base in pop culture and extends beyond one topic which has happened to gain some notoriety in the media due to shock value. Ajraddatz (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I also do think that the page should be renamed if kept, to something that makes it clear that the page is about a meme. Ajraddatz (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete and Salt per WP:CSD G10 the article is an attack page plain and simple. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't you understand the difference between a page whose purpose is to attack someone (CSD G10), and a page whose purpose is to document an attack? – Smyth\talk 17:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep It is not G10, since it [the article!] is 'true'. We might not like e.g school shootings, but they are notable and covered by news etc. This is also covered by media enough, therefore notable and not an attack in itself. The event or topic might be, but the article isn't. (t)  Josve05a  (c) 16:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete for now. Once the election cycle is over and meme keeps reappearing in notable media then an article might be appropriate. But for now it doesn't look like something of encyclopedic relevance, not every nonsense shortly hyped on the internet is a notable meme for an encyclopedia.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Well-known meme that appeared frequently in mainstream news sites (especially snarky ones) throughout the 2016 election season. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Extremely strong keep as per reasons above. Tessaract2 (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep changing my iVote as I take a closer look at the impact of internet memes on this campaign.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 2 articles that offer more than mere mentions - or jokes - in The Guardian, .  Also, I could use some help writing with Social media in the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per Libel. If it is notable after the US Presidential elections, than we can revisit it. CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 14:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As noted above, notability is not temporary, so this seems like an unnecessary stipulation. Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 17:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NTEMP. CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 18:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - I may be wrong, but it looks like there's absolute consensus without objection that the article's title should be changed, regardless of whether the article ends up being kept or not. That level of agreement points to it being a no-brainier sort of situation. Can we have an admin (or multiple admins) chime in on that? Something like "Ted Cruz is the Zodiac (meme)" has been proposed, but I'm not sure if that wording, precisely, is right. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * At least, move the article into something such as "Ted Cruz Zodiac Killer rumor", "...meme", or the like because, when I have seen "Ted Cruz is [not] the Zodiac Killer" as an autofill suggestion on Wikipedia, I was seriously shocked that the page might have been an attack page, and I do not like how the theme of the article, especially in the lead, seems to make the rumor impossibly actually true, so I think that the first sentence also must start with "The Ted Cruz Zodiac Killer rumor is..." or the like. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 01:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Possible suggestions for article title, on a scale of vague/cautious to direct/blunt: Ted Cruz–Zodiac meme, Ted Cruz as the Zodiac Killer (in popular culture?), Cruz-Zodiac conspiracy theory (meme). Merely appending (meme) to the end of the article as it is unnecessarily disambiguates it, and "Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer meme" without parentheses is ambiguous; it might be parsed as Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer meme, as opposed to the intended Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer meme. My concern with phrasings like "rumor" or "allegation" is that it falsely implies to the reader these are serious suggestions. Regarding your concerns about the article's theme, I added a statement in the lede which hopefully addresses your concerns; it now states directly that Cruz is not the Zodiac Killer (which of course, no one is really contesting, just to be clear). —0xF8E8 (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Title is misleading if not outright libelous, however, the cultural phenomenon is notable enough that perhaps it deserves mentioning on either the Ted Cruz page or the Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016 page. Unlike other memes that people have mentioned as notable, this one should not be read independently of the context in which it occurred, and merely having this separate page lends credibility to the claim, even though it is a joke and was never intended to be a serious accusation. --Nquinn91 (talk) 15:43, 20 May 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.