Deletion of Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer

Comment: per WPancake's comment above. It's mostly pretty  coverage for a political joke and there's nothing to suggest there's long-term notability. Wikipedia is not a tabloid
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE)

Comment: It is not even an Internet meme, it is libelous, and it does not belong here at all. (Yes, I'm aware of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:BELONG)

Comment: 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  and it belongs on Urban Dictionary or a joke site. This is an embarrassment
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Wikipedia is not Memebase or something. This definitely fails , and makes the whole project look like a joke. If this page would be newly created now, it would surely be deleted as vandalism
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme. This is not any more notable than any other short-lived Internet fad, and  coverage does not confer it notability. In addition, this does verge dangerously close to  and . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE||WP:LIBEL||WP:SOAPBOX)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:10YT||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: meets . If the article title is offensive, it could be moved, but that's a different discussion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (:WP:GNG)

Comment: per  and notability arguments above
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: and Salt per  G10 the article is an attack page plain and simple
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD)