MAGA Communism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable Twitter fad. Remsense ‥ 论 20:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Remsense ‥ 论 20:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell me why this article is scheduled for deletion? LaparohMesa (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LaparohMesa, the nom said it’s a “Non-notable Twitter fad”. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 21:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that it isn't "Non-notable". I think it is important to note people of the misinformation these fascists spread. LaparohMesa (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don’t usually just right great wrongs. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 00:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think that the article has some notability and can be improved. Theofunny (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and agree with the "Twitter fad" comment from OP. The article is based on sources that are not particularly reliable or notable: a Substack, some Youtube videos from a channel that barely cracks 30k views per video on a good day, and a couple of websites that look more like blogs. It doesn't deserves its own article. Could also be redirected to Jackson Hinkle who, from my understanding, it's their main "representative". Paprikaiser (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Jackson Hinkle - aside from the article currently being in a questionable state, it itself already seems to acknowledge at multiple points in the span of merely five paragraphs that "MAGA Communism" has a near-zero number of serious supporters and no real presence outside of the internet (seriously, about a third of the article is currently dedicated to explaining how unpopular its subject is), and the sources, as already stated by another editor, don't seem to be particularly excellent for proving the subject's notability. I fail to see how this is notable, or any reason to not redirect this page to Jackson Hinkle, which was already the case when it was created.

FiveInParticular (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep: Some coverage [1], [2]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There's also a few hits in a thesis and some communist newspapers in Gscholar, click on the link above. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect back to Jackson Hinkle. Weak coverage by unreliable sources outside of Twitter does not indicate notability. The recreated article has the same citation issues as a previous rejected draft from 2023, i.e., lack of in-depth coverage by reliable sources. Yue🌙 00:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is kept, then the appropriate title should be MAGA communism without the unnecessary capitalisation. Yue🌙 18:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect back to Jackson Hinkle. Mostly covered by unreliable sources that are improperly cited in this article. Generally unnotable outside of Twitter similar to "Dark MAGA", which redirects to the Madison Cawthorn page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.77.166.230 (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; I believe we should keep this article but protect it, as I believe its educational. Valorrr (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep to Keep; MAGA Communism has been covered by notable sources (though much of the ideology's notability is directly linked to coverage of Jackson Hinkle). If the article is kept it will need much work, perhaps from editors of WikiProject Socialism. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Oaktree. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the argument for deletion was that it was non-notable. But notability can be established. As per Oaktree, there is coverage on it from El País and The Guardian, and it is notable enough to be noted in some dissertations. I also saw some coverage elsewhere, like in Compact and UnHerd. It was given a mention by MSNBC too. Thus it appears to be notable enough. Brat Forelli🦊 11:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Most people agree to weak keep/keep it, so it's official, it'll be kept. Could we close the discussion now? LaparohMesa (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If you want to. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 16:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I will close it. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Remove the notice 78.87.23.12 (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This discussion has only been active for a little over four days. There's no need to be an eager beaver and close it earlier than the standard seven days, especially when the responses are mixed. AfD decisions aren't based on the number of votes, and speedily closing per something like WP:SNOW isn't applicable here because the discussion is not universal in agreement (mostly weak support for keeping the article at best).

  Regardless, whoever closes this discussion needs to do it properly; this discussion was still open when the tag at the top of the article was removed. Yue🌙 02:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notability has been established, enough sources have been added to verify that. Frijfuhs (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep the subject seems semi-notable, but the article needs a lot of clean-up.

Mikeycdiamond (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This discussion was incorrectly closed as a Speedy Keep but it was never withdrawn. It was not eligible for a Speedy Keep as there is a Deletion argument. AFD discussions also should never be closed by an involved editor.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect back to Jackson Hinkle (or simply delete). The only high-quality source that more than mentions this is the Guardian piece, which paints a rather different picture than what we get in the article. So, at least at present, I would say it flunks notability (unless maybe if the Spanish sources are especially strong?). Also, there's a possible NPOV issue with treating what is elsewhere presented as mostly a social media provocation as if were a serious social movement or emerging political coalition. Patrick (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now, review for re-creation in 6 months I almost wrote "keep for now and AFD it again in 6 months" but was afraid that would be counted as simply as "keep". If this is a passing meme that quickly disappears, we should not have an article on it. If not, we should have one. Probably the best wiki basis for my bolded stance is wp:notnews and also that it doesn't have really in-depth RS coverage. North8000 (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hm, 6 months might not make a difference however - the sources for this article range from 2022 to 2025. Being for almost 3 years seems to show that it passed the end of time, unless you need it to be almost 3,5 years instead to be sure. Brat Forelli🦊 15:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Jackson Hinkle. If this had something like the sourcing that exists for a subject like National Bolshevism, I could see this being retained, but the sourcing is overwhelmingly about a single person, not a movement, alliance or faction. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Oaktree and Brat Forelli. It has coverage in a multitude of sources. Although it's linked to Hinkle, the coverage of it as a separate phenomenon is enough to merit an article here. Second preference is to redirect to Hinkle's article if my view is wrong and there's a consensus it doesn't pass GNG. Flip^andFlopped ツ 01:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it's notable enough. A section about the American Communist Party could also be written here, if it doesn't get its own article.

Polish kurd (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"* Keep, sources seem to be fine, and the phenomenon itself is notable. It does need some cleaning up, though. PhoenixCaelestis · Talk · Contributions 12:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]