Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goyslop

Goyslop

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 Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia 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|sock username|sockmaster username}}.

Goyslop (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)

This article fails the WP:GNG, or at the very least is the barest pass imaginable (there are exactly 2 sources that contribute to GNG), and would be better off merged to Goy#In antisemitism, where it would be properly discussed in context. (A reminder - per RfC we do merges at AfD now, so this is not the wrong forum). Edit: Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, "Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic)", especially when subjects are only barely notable.

Of the seven sources in this article:

• One is user generated, Know Your Meme, and is not reliable .
• One does not mention the subject (cited for background information) , does not contribute to notability
• One is a non-RS group blog, not reliable , does not contribute to notability
• Another source mentions it in passing for a single sentence , not significant and so does not contribute to notability

There are then two pieces from one author from the Forward (the second article only mentions it in passing), and one piece from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Pieces by the same outlet and the same author do not count as separate pieces of coverage, and the second source Fox wrote only mentions this term in passing, so we have 2 sources.

2 reliable, significant, independent sources is not enough to have an entire article on a neologism; what is enough for GNG may vary but this is not enough, especially for what is effectively a slur. I would support merging it into Goy#In antisemitism, which the sources pretty much exclusively discuss it in the context of. In that article it would be much better contextualized; as is, this article is stretching some very thin sourcing to its limits. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and Judaism. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep. The nomination significantly understates the sourcing, The notability case rests on four independent reliable sources that directly cover the term.

The Forward published direct coverage explaining "goyslop" as an antisemitic meme term, including its conspiratorial framing around Jewish elites and processed food. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency published a full article centered on James Fishback's use of the term at campaign events, the ADL's response, and its roots in far-right internet culture. Vanity Fair referenced the term directly in a March 2026 profile of Fishback, describing it as "an antisemitic slang term for junk food".^[1] Haaretz published a February 2026 article/piece directly tracing the mainstreaming of "goyslop", explaining its meaning and how it spread from alt-right forums into broader social media, including a Tiktok video in which a user explicitly defines it as food "designed to make you lazy, weak, and infertile" and "what the Jews feed the gentiles to ensure their subservience."^[2]

This nomination argues that two Forward pieces by the same author collapse into one source, This is fair, and I will not rely on the second piece. It also dismisses Reform Judaism as a non-RS blog, The Union for Reform Judaism is an established religious institution, but I will not rest the notability case on it either. Even setting both aside, four independent reliable sources with direct, substantive coverage of the term is well beyond what WP:GNG requires.

Know Your Meme is cited only for internet-history details and contributes nothing to the notability argument. The presence of weaker sources in the article is a cleanup issue, not a deletion rationale, WP:NEXIST is clear that notability depends on whether suitable sources exist, not on the current state of the article's citations Keep and improve. 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 01:39, 19 May 2026 (UTC) 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 01:39, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@2x2x2x2x2 Know Your Meme is never a reliable source per WP:KYM. The Haaretz article mentions the term once in passing. The Vanity Fair piece mentions it once in passing. Also, neither of those sources were ever in the article, so how does the notability rest on them?

Could you point out the sigcov in either of these pieces?

Note: this is the page creator. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I've updated the article to add sourcing not previously in it. The significant coverage argument rests primarily on The Forward and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, both of which dedicated full articles to explaining the term, its meaning, and its antisemitic framing, not passing mentions. I acknowledge that Haaretz and Vanity Fair are corroborating rather than primary notability sources, The Forward alone constitutes significant coverage of a neologism under wp:GNG; combined with JTA it exceeds the threshold2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

As I said, the 2 not especially comprehensive articles for a neologism and slur is not enough to pass the GNG, especially when both articles discuss it in the context of Goy used in an antisemitic context - we should merge it to our section on goy used in an antisemitic way. Almost all of this article is redundant to that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

GIGA, a german technology site provides secondary coverage of “goyslop” as an insulting meme term used for mass media/entertainment, cheap content, fast food, AI-generated content, and “mainstream” consumer culture, So I'd think it helps show that 'goyslop' has coverage outside meme databases. https://www.giga.de/tech/neuer-trend-im-netz-bei-diesem-provokanten-begriff-solltet-ihr-aufpassen--01KS08B60VB18WF5931BYCH3ZW 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 04:35, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Can someone please tell me what is happening? Now the nominator (PARA) is deleting comments on the Keep side because of WP:PIA?? Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2026/05#c-2x2x2x2x2-20260519010700-Goyslop, If you see here I applied for 30/500 right after this article passed AfC, and it got rejected for page protection for arbitration enforcement…(WP:CT/AI)

Meanwhile still the nominator is keeping up merging votes that are on their side, but by PARA’s logic, they should be deleted too as it is a temp account… This is a mess

Can an uninvolved administrator step in?? 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@2x2x2x2x2 What merging votes did I keep? I only count 2 other comments, both from ECR editors... If anyone not ECR has commented, that should go. The rhetoric around this term, especially its recent coverage, is pretty directly tied to Israel. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@2x2x2x2x2 Oh, I didn't even see that, because it was crunched awkwardly in the middle of the thread. Feel free to remove that, or if you feel strongly the other should be restored, keep both, I guess? I do feel like this is a PIA topic if you look at the coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@2x2x2x2x2 I restored it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, my question is not that big , this is being enforced based on a disputed claim that this AfD falls under WP:PIA. I see that RFPP declining protection does not automatically settle CTOP, however this article was already substantially in this same form when I requested 30/500 there, and no page-level restriction was applied.

So before comments keep getting removed, can an uninvolved administrator clarify whether CT/A-I actually applies to this AfD? If it does, it should apply equally to all non-ECR comments, including keep, merge, or delete 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Weak keep - It seems to just barely meet WP:GNG, but I can see this word receiving more coverage in the future. New editing editor (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Weak keep, and place under extended confirmed protection - so far we have two sources, just barely scraping into notability so far, but I feel like there are likely to be more sources out there in the future. If this article is kept, it should be ECP'd given the nature of it, as we have seen with this AfD discussion and all the TAs. GarethBaloney (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep For transparency, I was the AfC reviewer who accepted this article. The term "Goyslop" also received coverage from the Sun Sentinel and Vision Mag . That would make it 4 reliable, significant, and independent sources covering the topic. The article is also too long for a redirect to make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EaglesFan37 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

User:EaglesFan37 The second piece is an opinion article, not reliable per WP:RSOPINION, and the first is just the JTA piece again. We still only have 2, and most of the sourcing is unreliable or not about the subject anyway. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA Taking a look, the Sun Sentinel piece was slightly different at the beginning (can't see more due to paywall, could have just been that JTA article was updated), and the Vision Mag piece wouldn't be considered WP:RS as an opinion piece (not sure if it could still count towards WP:GNG or not. EaglesFan37 (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@EaglesFan37 They are the same article. The Sun Sentinel piece is credited to Andrew Lapin of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency article is by Andrew Lapin.

The Sun Sentinel piece begins:

At a recent campus campaign stop, Florida GOP gubernatorial candidate James Fishback dropped some unusual verbiage while inveighing against junk food in school cafeterias.

The JTA piece begins

At a campus campaign stop last week, Florida GOP gubernatorial candidate James Fishback dropped some unusual verbiage while inveighing against junk food in school cafeterias.

The date was changed.... because the Sun Sentinel republished it six days later. This does not make it a different article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA The leads were slightly different "recent campus campaign stop" vs. "at a campus campaign stop last week". Your interpretation of that source was correct, I was just explaining my initial misunderstanding. EaglesFan37 (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

So, we still have only two notability proving sources, on a topic that overlaps heavily with an article we already have. Hence, my argument for merging. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:40, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA Even so, the rest of the article is long enough that a merge wouldn't make much sense. Not enough of the content is repeated information (except for the etymology section on goy). EaglesFan37 (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@EaglesFan37 It is long enough because it is saying the exact same thing multiple times and extrapolating from sources about the antisemitic use of the word "goy" to "goyslop" even when the articles say nothing about goyslop - for example, the whole origins section is about "goy" or "goyim", not "goyslop". If you condensed the actually useful information here it would be like, a paragraph. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I think WP:WORDISSUBJECT is important here. This is not being kept merely as a dictionary definition of a slang term. The sources discuss the term as a distinct antisemitic internet neologism, including its food-related conspiracy meaning, its political use, and its spread in online discourse, That is encyclopedic context beyond definition, pronunciation, or etymology.

I also agree that weaker sources should not be used to establish notability. But that is a cleanup issue. Under WP:ATD-E, if editing can address the problem, improvement is preferred to deletion. The article can be tightened around the strongest sources, with weaker material removed or downgraded.

A merge to Goy#In antisemitism would also lose the specific context of this compound term. The topic is related to antisemitic uses of "goy", but the coverage treats "goyslop" as a specific online term with its own food-related conspiracy framing. For that reason, I still support Keep and improve. 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@2x2x2x2x2 The food meaning is discussed in a single source; it can be discussed in a single sentence in the Goy article. As is, we have an entire section cited entirely to one source, which is problematic.

There are two sources here, both rather weak ones, that can possibly be considered as contributing to notability. That is not enough for an article. To "tighten it" to that would be to reduce it to nothing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

If an entire section is overbuilt on one source, I agree that it should be trimmed or rewritten, I'm not arguing that every current section must remain in its present form.

But that is different from saying the topic should be merged away. The term is not only a generic use of "goy"; it is a distinct compound term discussed by sources as an antisemitic internet neologism, with a specific food-related conspiracy framing and political/media usage. Under WP:WORDISSUBJECT, that kind of coverage can support a standalone article when the article is about the term as a subject, not merely its dictionary-definition

So I think the proper remedy is to tighten the article around the strongest sourcing, remove or reduce weakly sourced material, and avoid overextending one-source content. That fits WP:ATD-E better than merging the term into a broader section where its specific context would likely be lost.. 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA The prose would still be around 1700 words. EaglesFan37 (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@EaglesFan37 Because the article constantly repeats itself and cites unreliable sources (blogs), and devotes several hundred words to "background" that doesn't belong, is redundant to the goy article, or is cited to sources that don't mention the term (the entire slop section). E.g. there are two entirely different sections about why media call the term antisemitic, citing the same sources both times. We have two reliable significant sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA That is enough for WP:GNG. Neither of us are going to convince the other otherwise. Let's wait for other editors to weigh in. EaglesFan37 (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep I am weighing in here as an outside third party. The nomination is completely ignoring the reality of the sourcing. We have two full articles dedicated entirely to this exact term from The Forward and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Along with the direct coverage in Vanity Fair and Haaretz, this easily passes basic notability. You only need a couple of strong, dedicated sources to prove a topic is notable.

Merging this into the main Goy article is a terrible idea. That page is about a historical word with centuries of history. Goyslop is a very specific modern internet conspiracy theory about processed food and political control. Jamming them together ruins the context of both.

We currently have standalone Wikipedia articles for internet slang like gyatt and rizz. Deleting a political conspiracy term that is actually being used in real political campaigns makes zero sense when we keep standard Gen Z TikTok slang. Goyslop is arguably much more culturally and politically important to document.

Frankly, PARAKANYAA has done this before. This nomination is just an attempt to censor Wikipedia and remove topics based on their own political opinions. We are here to document notable cultural and political terms exactly as they exist in the real world. Deleting well sourced pages under the guise of cleanup is basically ideological censorship. Keep the article and let editors fix whatever minor background issues exist. Professional historian493 (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2026 (UTC) User blocked as a sock, WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Worth looking at their history for background context! PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Support merging with Goy. Most of the article is redundant and a paragraph about goyslop can be dedicated in the "min" article bout the term goy. ~2026-25862-31 (talk) 09:11, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Speedy Keep Obvious bad faith on the part of the nominator to have this deleted. Sources check out and I've seen in the wild myself. It looks like they've pulled unjustifiable AfDs in the past so I think PARAKANYAA should actually be sanctioned this time for wasting the community's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-17440-20 (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

It is antisemitic to criticize the sources of an article which relies nearly solely on Israeli sources. The deletion of this would be antisemitic. To ban words the ADL is trying to speak out against is quiet antisemitism. It is to pretend that no one ever even used the word, mocking the ADL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-30367-42 (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't respond to this, but given my conduct is supposedly at issue. That the term exists does not mean it is WP:N; the comment back there was from an editor blocked for meatpuppeting and for violating WP:NOHATE. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep Goyslop is a cultural phenomenon and warrants its own article without justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-30318-67 (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment closing administrators should take into consideration that there is a 4chan thread dedicated to canvassing for a keep vote, entitled "DO NOT LET WIKIPEDIA DELETE THIS KEK" perhaps explaining some of the keep votes above (excluding the page creator and eagles). I would ask this be taken into account when considering a close/relist, thanks! PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  You gotta be kidding me 😭😭😭😭😭 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  Bro all I do is try to keep my article up and now we have groypers Meatpuppeting me 🤣🤣🤣

  I will go straight to admin noticeboard after this: 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 04:08, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  @2x2x2x2x2 You're not meatpuppeting, don't worry, very clearly this was not something you asked for. Not a conduct issue for you at all. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:10, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  Proves this article and talk page need ECP stat for CT/AP 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  @2x2x2x2x2 It doesn't need ECP. Just a general protection would suffice. EaglesFan37 (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment for if kept As a term like this is all too likely to get people pissed, this needs a blue lock. Tankishguy 05:23, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge with Goy#In antisemitism, where it can be added to the other examples of "goy" words. As other editors have noted, the cited RS largely repeat themes in that article. Llll5032 (talk) 05:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Adding: The PAGs about neologisms, WP:NOTNEO and MOS:NEO (respectively, within the cautionary "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" and "Words to watch" articles) suggest strong caution about usage. MOS:NEO advises neologisms "should generally be avoided". Even more caution is needed, in my opinion, if a neologism is a conspiracy theory (per WP:NFRINGE) or slur (noting the "Slur" essay). For such a neologism covered adequately by two RS, I believe the right approach is a proportionate merge and redirect into an article that already provides context.

Editors have suggested at least two more approaches for merging, along with PARAKANYAA's original suggestion, since I first commented, and I agree with any of them. For example, Bohemian Baltimore's approach could provide a way to stay proportionate to coverage of goyslop over time, should it increase, while keeping the neologism in context. Llll5032 (talk) 07:31, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete "Goy" is a anti-semetic term, also, what is goyslop? I don't realy think this has any notability other than its usage among right wing to far-right influencers.

This article itself is slop and most of the sourced stuff are passing mentions, in order for this page to achieve notability it needs

1. Significant coverage
2. Verifiable information
3. Independent and reliable sources.

This article does not meet those three guidelines, we shouldn't have a page on wikipedia about a page that has no shown or accepted notability. This term is also a cesspool for soyjaks, 4chan users, and people trying to proclaim the truth that they made up or fully believe in.

Also, to prevent recreation by said soyjaks, 4chan users and soapbox screamers, I would suggest to SALT and ECP. shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:46, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

This !vote doesnt really analyse the sourcing, The standard at Articles for deletion is not about if the term is offensive, associated with bad online communities, or unpleasant to cover. (see WP:NOTCENSORED) The question is whether the subject has significant coverage in reliable, independent sources under WP:GNG. Several sources discussed above and below (and in the article) directly cover the term, so I don’t think this can be dismissed as mere usage or passing mention. I also cant see a policy basis for SALT without repeated recreation after deletion 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• KeepUndecided I'm seeing citations here from Haaretz, a couple of Jewish advocacy groups and from US media regarding the James Fishback campaign's use of the language, all of which seem to make this obvious for WP:GNG. Obviously we should ensure the article is neutral and carefully explains this is a term popular among antisemites, but I can't see a strong deletion rationale here. Simonm223 (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  A merge per @Llll5032 would also be a reasonable outcome. Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  WP:PAGEDECIDE allows merger, but it doesnt require it.

  However the term has enough independent coverage and has distinct meaning, usage, origin, and antisemitic framing beyond the word “goy” itself, a standalone article can be reasonable

  A short section at Goy#In antisemitism would likely flatten this into a definition of “goy,” when the sources are discussing ‘goyslop’ as a separate internet slang term and meme 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  We have two notability proving sources. The absolute minimum technically possible to prove notability, and it heavily overlaps with other pages; the article is just repeating itself a bunch. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  Ok, If we now then agree there are two sources that prove notability, then the deletion rationale is much weaker. Ive already stated above why I oppose merger under WP:PAGEDECIDE, so I won’t repeat that here. However my point is just that this seems to have moved from

  • keep vs delete issue

  to a

  • keep vs merge

  structure issue. 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm personally on the fence between keep and merge. I'd agree deletion is inappropriate but I'm unconvinced that it couldn't be merged into the Goy article effectively. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  Again, this is a merge discussion, this was always a merge discussion. I never advocated anything else. As I said in the nom, per RFC all merges are done through AfD now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep The nominator largely bases their desire to delete the article and merge some content on their claim that only two sources contribute to notability, conceding that there are two solid sources. The problem with that argument is that there is no policy or guideline or widely accepted community consensus that says that just two sources is inadequate. Yes, many editors quite reasonably prefer three or more sources, but an editor's personal preference is not policy. After reading the article, I conclude that the encyclopedia is better off with this article than without it. Of course, the closing administrator should ignore comments that are ill-informef and not in good faith, and obvious disruptive trolling should be removed. Cullen328 (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  There is also no policy or guideline that says two is adequate. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  The relevant policies and guidelines use plural nouns. For example, the WP:GNG says A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Two is a plural number, and therefore two high quality sources complies with the guideline as written. Just one source clearly does not qualify. Cullen328 (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage". The ones here are not especially in depth. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  Since I wasn't aware deletion wasn't entirely on the table to begin with for this AfD I've updated my !vote. Apologies. Simonm223 (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  And I put this comment in the wrong place. Just trout me to death already. LOL Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  Wait wait wait, If they're two sources being conceded as notability-proving, then the question is no longer whether the topic can exist on Wikipedia. The question is whether it should remain a standalone article or be merged under WP:PAGEDECIDE. But merger also changes the status quo and needs a clear reason why readers are better served by covering this only inside Goy#In antisemitism. So I dont think “There is also no policy or guideline that says two is adequate” answers the merge question by itself 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep - WP:NOTDICT states: “In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject” I believe this may be one those cases. There’s enough coverage for its origins and use in the modern day, including in politics, to warrant an article at the point. OrbitalVoid49 (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, to summarize for the closer: Vanity Fair is a passing mention, Haaretz is a passing mention, Reform Judaism is a blog, WUFT (NPR) is a passing mention, KnowYourMeme is UGC, one article in The Forward provides significant coverage, giga.de is SEO slop, and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency provides brief, but not necessarily passing coverage. Not a very strong case for keep here. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 22:43, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• No no no, This summary is too dismissive. I agree some sources are weak or only useful for context, however WP:GNG is about whether there is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, not whether every citation in the article independently proves notability. The Forward clearly provides significant coverage, JTA gives direct coverage beyond a mere passing mention, and the academic sources now show the term’s treatment as antisemitic/extremist online terminology. That is enough for at least a concise article, even if the weaker citations are trimmed. Sorry but I have to correct you here... The nominator conceded that there are two solid sources for WP:GNG so that is not really the center of discussion [1] [2] and if you didn't know, KYM has been deleted from the article a while ago... The closer can see if they read this from top to bottom, that this is actually a merge vs keep discussion under WP:PAGEDECIDE.
  

  Now im not saying the connection between “goy” and “goyslop” is automatically improper synthesis, the term literally has “goy” in it; However WP:NOR still cautions against using sources to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by them. The sources here cover “goyslop” as a distinct compound internet slang term/meme, not merely as another item in a list of “goy” words. So merge people still need to show why readers are better served by covering this sourced term only inside Goy#In antisemitism rather than in a concise standalone article. 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  For a source to contribute to notability, it has to be all three of significant, independent, and reliable. You cannot assemble an article out of sentence long mentions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree with you saying that this is just assembled from sentence-long mentions. The Forward is significant coverage, and JTA is direct coverage beyond a bare ‘name drop’ see this.

  FYI, The academic sources are support, not the main GNG case.

  So if you still hold to this message, this discussion is about WP:PAGEDECIDE. Merge supporters still need to show why readers are better served by covering this only at Goy#In antisemitism. 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep This article meets the WP:GNG. Is a good idea to add category to improve this article. --VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 03:24, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Weak keep or merge with antisemitic trope. It's a close call on the adequacy of the sourcing, and goodness knows its one of those cases that has me questioning where it all stops when we start to chase niche meme nomenclature from the most rancid bowels of internet subcultures, but at the end of the day, I am seeing what looks like a narrow pass on WP:GNG. I do think, however, that there is a legitimate WP:ONUS question here with respect to a stand-alone article and the need for such detailed coverage, so fitting it into the survey of similar puerile conspiracy theories at antisemitic trope would be a reasonable solution as well, I think. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:59, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  I see why antisemitic trope is being suggested, however I'm not convinced it is the better target. That article is about broad recurring antisemitic canards. The sources here discuss “goyslop” as a specific contemporary internet slang term/meme, with its own usage and framing. If the concern is over-detail, I think trimming the article to what the sources directly support is cleaner than moving a term-specific article into a broad trope article 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  So the question is whether there is enough material here to warrant a separate article rather than it being included in a larger article that will likely get greater readership than a stub on a single piece of semi-obscure Nazi slang. Simonm223 (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Just so, and I think there is a very good argument to be made that we need only a fraction of the information provided here in order to appropriately describe, frame, and contextualize the place of this obscure piece of hate speech from the fringes of the internet. Thirty-two's point that the article I propose is about well-trodden canards is not without merit and is something that I contemplated when suggesting it. But reviewing the article's content and scope, I only became more convinced it is probably the best place among the options: while 'goyslop' itself is a niche neologism, the idea that term serves as label to--that is to say, the stupendously bizarre notion of a global Jewish conspiracy to poison and weaken non-Jewish peoples through industry-scale manipulation of their dietary and lifestyle choices, is nowhere near novel. It is part and parcel with conspiracy theories that have been around for decades, and have precursors going back even further.

  So, if, at the end of the day, 'goyslop' is nothing more than a new millennial-era neo-nazi slang to express this idea--oar at best a description of a marginal evolution on the old formula of the "Jews are trying to poison us" trope--and from reviewing the goyslop article and the sources it is based upon, that is seems to be exactly what it is--then I think there are several spots in antisemitic trope where a brief description would slot right in quite comfortably. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:08, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  Mind you, I'm also not massively opposed to the merger with Goy#In antisemitism, since that section already exists. I just question if that is the best choice among the options in terms of placing this content where it terms of placing it where it is likely to be seen by readers looking for information of this sort, and where such a conspiracy theory is best contextualized. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  Well I am going to attempt to respond to both of you; The merge arguments are thoughtful, but I think they prove too much. SnowRise is right that the underlying conspiracy idea is not novel, it fits into older antisemitic poisoning/weakening tropes. The sources document a specific contemporary internet term with its own wording, usage, and political spread, not the underlying trope in the abstract. A brief mention inside Antisemitic trope would not convey the term's specific contemporary usage or why reliable sources treated it as a distinct subject worth dedicated coverage.

  On Simonm223’s point about whether there is enough material for a separate article, I think the answer to over-length is editing, not merger. The article has already been trimmed, and it can be kept concise. About your point on readership, WP:MERGE doesn't recommend merging simply because a target article gets more traffic. The question is whether the content warrants its own treatment, and here the sources covered this term directly and specifically. Merging into Antisemitic trope or Goy#In antisemitism would reduce term-specific sourced content to an example inside a much broader article, rather than explaining the term as the sources cover it 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with the lion's share of what you say there, but I'm not 100% won over on the ultimate WP:PAGEDECIDE argument. I think it's reasonable to ask in this situation just how much we want to validate and bootstrap niche internet hategroup subculture vernacular. Cases such as this, where we really just barely have enough sourcing to pass a marginal WP:GNG call, are precisely why we have a NOPAGE test in the first place--and I'd say there's a lot in that section of policy verbiage covering when to eschew an independent article--regardless of the notability test technically being passed--that would appear to apply to the instant case. And when we find ourselves just barely on the right side of the WP:INDISCRIMINATE wall, I think we might rightly ask "how much do we want to say about this?".

  At the end of the day, I think I gravitate towards the question: what more do we want to say about this topic other than to point out that, as extension of a much longer series of canards about Jews supposedly trying to weaken other races, a bunch of goofy nits on 4chan came up with an internet meme slop term meant to suggest that fast food is a Jewish conspiracy--because, to their misfiring frontal lobes, that makes more sense than it being the result of massive commercial forces and the gustatory experience that is fried food. Though arguably a little more neutrally worded than that.

  Even when somewhat more prominent far right figures begin to platform the term, I question how much we want to get into the minutia of this nonsense. If influencers or would-be politicians use the term, that can always be discussed in their articles, where it says much more about them than it does the terminology itself (and any relevance to anyone outside the small internet hate subcultures it arose within), which is really a quite straightforward topic and can probably be covered in 3-6 sentences. I don't know that cataloguing every one of the handful of times this nonsense gets some kind of incidental coverage (because a right wing political/social media personality is trying to provoke some controversy that week) goes very far towards justifying a stand-alone article, really. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:34, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  Hmm. To be clear, Im not arguing for an expansive article or for treating this term as more culturally significant than the sourcing actually warrants. The catalogue-of incidents problem is real, and the answer to it is editorial discipline, not merge

  Where I still part with you on the WP:NOPAGE conclusion is this, a tightly bounded standalone article can say precisely what needs to be said about the term's meaning, its roots in older antisemitic framing, and its contemporary circulation, without ballooning into a running tally of every fringe figure who used it that week. Scope creep of that kind is an editorial problem, and the remedy is editing! :)

  However, the other options, such as folding it into Antisemitic trope or Goy#In antisemitism, doesn't actually reduce the risk of overcoverage, it just moves it into a broader article where term-specific content either gets lost or distorts the parent article's scope, a short standalone article keeps the content proportionate and findable 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  Would redirects to a proportionate paragraph or section within antisemitic trope or Goy#In antisemitism not keep the content equally findable? Llll5032 (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, Redirects would help with findability, My concern is more with fit. A paragraph in antisemitic trope or Goy#In antisemitism could define the term, but it would be reduced to one example among many. Since the sources specifically cover “goyslop” as a contemporary internet slang term/meme, I think a concise standalone article is still the cleaner structure 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I previously created an article about the antisemitic phrase "The Goyim Know", which was merged into Goy#In antisemitism. Perhaps there would by enough material for an article like Goy in antisemitism or Goy in antisemitic rhetoric. For now, I say Merge to Goy#In antisemitism. There are only a handful of news articles using this specific "goyslop" neologism. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  I see the comparison to “The Goyim Know”, but I don't think that prior merge decides this case. The sourcing here appears stronger: The Forward gives significant coverage, JTA gives direct coverage beyond a bare name-drop, and other media/academic sources support the term’s usage and antisemitic framing.

  On the “handful of news articles” thing, WP:GNG does not require a large number of sources. The question is whether there is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. If that threshold is met, then the remaining issue is WP:PAGEDECIDE, and I still think that a concise standalone article is clearer than folding this term into Goy#In antisemitism as one more example of it. 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. The article in The Forward counts as 1, but I'm not seeing evidence in the piece that this is a topic garnering multiple examples of focused coverage, ergo, fails GNG. If there were another source or two like The Forward... Carrite (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  The nominator conceded the WP:GNG point, here, and has pointed out multiple times, this is not a deletion discussion... The Wikipedia is not a dictionary concern is fair in the abstract, however WP:WORDISSUBJECT is clear that a term can support a standalone article when reliable sources treat it as a subject in its own right rather than merely defining it, which is what The Forward and JTA do here. See this 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - I'm gonna reverse myself. THIS piece from the Times of Israel counts as 2. And THIS from Jewish News of Northern California counts as 3. And THIS from ReformJudaism.org counts as 4. GNG is met. Now the only question is whether this is a DICTDEF or whether it is a topic about which there is significant published coverage. I'd argue the latter. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Carrite The ToI piec is the JTA piece again. The Jewish News piece is the same as the Forward piece. Reform is a blog and not RS. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  The nominator says Reform Judaism is not WP:RS because it is a blog. Sadly the JTA article and The times of Israel article are published by the same person, and are effectively the same. 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2026 (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.