Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuck her right in the pussy (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to Internet phenomena. Uggg nasty.... But i have to go by the consensus of the discussion which is that we dont have this page rather than personal preference. Im not quite seeing a delete outcome so redirect it is. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck her right in the pussy

Fuck her right in the pussy (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)

This was brought to AfD before with a decision to delete. Apparently, the article has been recreated and I want to see if the sentiment is the same as it was a year ago on this article about "internet bloopers" and its appropriateness as an article on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per condition #3: The deletion request appears to be erronous, as it provides no rationale for deletion besides the fact that it had been deleted before in a different form. The nominator does not appear to have actually judged the article in its current form. It is clearly a notable subject, with heavy coverage in reliable sources in response to the Toronto FC/CityNews and Calgary/CBC incidents, which sparked media attention and was a conduit for this article's re-creation and rewrite, which I presume made the article completely different in comparison to the deleted version. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Internet phenomena and protect (although I consider deleting a viable option as well) perhaps as my searches found some links but nothing better than the usually expected coverage for these controversies. Notifying past AfD commenters for better comments, Cirt, Tryptofish, Milowent, Edison, Arxiloxos, MrX, Dirtlawyer1, DGG, Alexsautographs, Wikidemon, Supernerd11 and Bogger. SwisterTwister talk 22:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly notable and WP:NOT#CENSORED. Last time around my !vote was just that whatever you do with it, don't dump the content on List of Internet Phenomena as it is not a universal dumping ground for weak or offensive content, or for all Internet memes anyway, there are thousands of notable ones and that would be an unbounded list. This time, perhaps it has demonstrated some more notability through continued coverage, which is why a comparison would be useful. Nevertheless, the subject is so offensively stupid that I really don't feel like reading or otherwise dealing with it. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is a poor excuse for humor seeking a justification to exist as an article. What is absolutely pathetic is the circular nature of this game -- someone attempts to create a silly internet "meme" on Youtube for attention; someone else in need of attention by any means attempts to get it by repeating the "meme" out in public. Someone else in need of attention creates an article regarding same. Stop the cycle of silliness. This is not a cultural phenomenon worthy of a two-sentence paragraph on Wikipedia, let alone this 13,000-byte attempt to justify an article. Find something worthy of your time and Wikipedia's servers on which to spend your free time. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This comment is an invocation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I don't like it, but I think you rather missed the point of my comment in your zeal to defend your re-creation of this article from deletion. My point is rather more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. When the Wikipedia article becomes the primary source for this content on the internet, and the subject is of obviously dubious notability, then the existence of the Wikipedia article becomes the circular reason for perpetuating this silliness by others -- which wasn't worth a Wikipedia article per WP:GNG in this first instance. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning Delete. I came here from the ping. My gut reaction is rather like what Dirtlawyer1 just said. I just ran a search engine search for the page name, and I would prefer never to do it again, and (aside from the WP page being the first result returned), all the hits that I found in the first several pages of search results were website mentions on sites that discuss memes or discuss "oh look at that!", and so forth. For WP:GNG purposes, I would want to also see some mentions in something like mainstream news stories or commentary in something that might be vaguely scholarly, and I didn't find it. Maybe another editor will, but I don't think that a bunch of web postings really establish ongoing independent interest. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect instead. I've changed my mind because of the ongoing coverage by the CBC and others. (In my heart, I'd like to vote IDONTLIKEIT, but that's not how things work.) I can no longer argue that deletion is required on the basis of GNG. However, that does not mean that there must be a standalone page either. We can use editorial judgment about that. And it seems appropriate to include it as a listing within a broader page, but not as a standalone page, with protection against recreating the standalone page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm just coming back to reaffirm after the subsequent discussion that my position continues to be to Redirect. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It falls short of an true internet phenomenon and is little more than trivia. The phrase was created as part of a self-promoting viral marketing campaign. The phrase itself is notable enough, but since we're not the news, we don't need an article that documents every indiscriminate use of this inane phrase as if we were a Twitter feed. - MrX 00:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. or possibly redirect. It's different from the original: it's considerably worse, with the added material producing many more BLP problems. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I would like it removed, because I do not think that it is good humor. It is just an internet troll that started in 2014 and is demoralising to women. Seriously, we are just wasting time making this article that is absolutely degrading to women. This falls under, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTCENSORED. So therefore it should be deleted. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 04:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:N. Obviously. Edison (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Either I've lost my sense of humour or this crap's seriously unfunny- Clip's old, Joke's old, No one cares, Anywho fails NOTNEWS & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 05:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neither notable nor encyclopedic as memes go. No opinion on a redirect. Viriditas (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak KeepDelete, just because the articles contents are no longer "hip" does not mean that it was/is not notable. Lets go through the general criteria of WP:NN. Does it have significant coverage? Y, Are there reliable sources? Y Are there independent sources? Y. it is important to note WP:ARTN. Also, I think a number of editors here are forgetting WP:NTEMP. Abbott and Costello's "who's on first" is still notable, yet I am certain that a number of people have no idea what that skit was about. I see NO wikipedia guidelines that indicate this article should be deleted. Is the title atrocious? Y Does it seem a bit ridiculous? Y, yet none of those restrict the creation/existence of this article. We are an open encyclopedia, not a reserve of which topics we think are interesting or contemporary. That said, I would support moving it to where the title is fixed appropriately with the correct capitalization. Jab843 (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC) I still stand by I think our emotions about the subject are overruling our innate objectivity, that said, it does fail a number of guidelines. Jab843 (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Please review Wikipedia:Speedy keep; there is no applicable "speedy keep" criterion here. Most of the "delete" comments above specifically cite the lack of significant coverage of the meme itself per WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS, which are perfectly valid reasons for deletion under our notability and suitability guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- reviewed policy, you are correct on the speedy part, I though it merely meant strongly. That said, if you go through WP:GNG, it does meet some of the guidelines prescribed there. It does have a great deal of coverage. If the the article referred to something positive and non-controversial, we would probably not be siting here discussing it, given the excess of 3rd party information on the subject. Is it for us to decide? Jab843 (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC) Ok, seems to fail WP:NOTNEWS, taking me a bit to get back into the swing of things. Updated vote. Jab843 (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources cited in the article to substantiate this topic's notability. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went and looked at the cited sources. The most substantial of them (such as the New York Times article) are about the football player who got suspended, rather than about the phrase. It's true that there is a small spate of Canadian news media mentions, mostly but not entirely in the CBC, and I'm not sure what to make of those. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish, what are your reservations about the CBC stories? The April 24, 2015 story and the November 13, 2014 story, for example, are about the phrase itself. The meme has also received coverage in Esquire and the Huffington Post. The Esquire and Huffington Post articles are not cited in the Wikipedia article, but I will add them soon. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really mean it as reservations. More like I just am not sure yet what I think. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Toronto Star is a major newspaper in Canada's largest city, and had actually interviewed the "creator" of this unfortunate "forced meme". The Globe and Mail is also one of Canada's newspapers of record. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and protect while this does have some claims for notability, the subject matter makes it difficult for me to support. Also this notability may well be nebulous, depending on how much notability is ascribed to internet memes. I don't believe it to be news as the meme has survived since January 2014. It is also listed at List of Internet phenomena, and a single line is all that may be needed. All things considered redirecting and protecting seems the best option. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notecardforfree has it correct. I vigorously defended this article in the first AfD to no avail (but also see the sources and comments I made there), but my points still stand, and more recent things like the CBC articles show its a continuing trend. If this wasn't such a vile trend, no one would dream this should be deleted.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agreed. I would like to request that the closing admin be sure that they not factor opinions surrounding the subject matter into the decision. Yes, the meme is annoying. But it's clearly had at least 5 more minutes of fame then it should have had. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Internet phenomena and protect I could care less about the title, and remind some here that WP:NOTCENSORED is there for a reason. The key factor that in my view will determine this one is WP:NOTABILITY, it has some but not enough for a stand alone article at this time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I think the phrase is truly awful and misogynistic, and that the people who say it are immature jerks. I don't at all want to understate that. Therefore it's very difficult for me to support keeping the article but personal taste is not a reason for deletion. The article has plenty of reputable sources and is written well. – Hshook (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Tryptofish, Mrjulesd, and Knowledgekid87. Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme. De Guerre (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I come to Wikipedia as an authoritative source about things that I cannot make head or tail of elsewhere. Of course it is unfunny, misogynistic and disreputable, but we do not have to approve of everything which is described on Wiki. The Holocaust is worse than FHRITP, but that does not mean we remove the article. Wikipedia needs to guard its independence as a source of reliable and helpful information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothy Nathan (talk • contribs) 16:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Dictionary and Know Your Meme tend to be far more informative than Wikipedia on non-encyclopedic topics like this. De Guerre (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I was surprised to see this listed only on the Internet discussions page -- I've since added more project tags. This is far beyond a mere Internet meme at this point. In Canada, it has become a notable broadcast media problem and controversy. The activity is repellent to me as a male with a brain, but it's notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Temporary notability.The Avengers (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if that were so, Wikipedia:NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY. If it has been notable at any time, it remains so, for our purposes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep only if Renamed otherwise delete. My initial reaction was to delete, but I realized that "Fuck her right in the pussy" is not what this purported notable phenomenon is about. Almost none of the cited sources actually use the phrase "Fuck her right in the pussy". Instead, they talk about "FHRITP meme". So, I suggest renaming the article as FHRITP meme and explain the meaning of FHRITP in the first sentence of the lede. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: WP:NOTCENSORED. They are censored, Wikipedia is not. In fact, you'll notice that the article itself only uses the full phrase about 3 times, with the rest using the acronym or generically using "the phrase" only. The phrase is the meme. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I couldn't have said it better. Daily papers can't use the whole meme, which is why they do that. Are we going start using asterisks in article names that have dirty words? What the f***? To base retaining a notable article on it being censored is completely contrary to policy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  It occurred to me to check that the abbreviation is, nonetheless, a redirect to the full meme, and it already is. However, I see that FHRP is something entirely different, and I shudder at the thought of a disambiguation page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: WP:NOTCENSORED is not relevant to my position because I'm not making a censorship argument. The article is not about the phrase "Fuck her right in the pussy" but about the origin and spread of a meme. How are we to name this meme? We have to use the name used in the sources. It happens to be that the meme is referred to as "FHRITP", so like it or not WP:COMMONNAME dictates that we should use FHRITP meme as the article name. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Clarity and being recognizable are also factors in choosing an article title. We use the full name because the uttering of the phrase is the meme. It's like More cowbell. ViperSnake151  Talk  06:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  The fundamental problem with the article name as it stands is that the article is not about Fuck her right in the pussy but rather about a meme. Now, most of the reliable source don't refer to this meme as "Fuck her right in the pussy" but rather as "RHRITP", which is recognizable and how it is commonly referred to in reliable sources. So, the first choice in a new name is RHRITP meme. The current title could be improved by renaming it to Fuck her right in the pussy (meme) but that would be on somewhat uncertain ground because the meme is referred to in reliable sources as RHRITP meme. However, I could accept latter name change. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's not so much an internet meme as an excuse for public displays of misogyny. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nevertheless, it has still received significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Referring to WP:NOTCENSORED, this article should remain, whether misogynistic or not. It is properly sourced and was significant enough to become a minor social phenomenon, and its popularity remains on social networks such as YouTube and Facebook. This article uses completely reliable sources, and the fact that imitation of the meme subsequently made it onto various news stations is also notable. --BrayLockBoy (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless there is a serious attempt to flesh out the sentence in the lead concerning the fact that it "spurred discussion over whether use the phrase constituted sexual harassment and public humiliation of women." It's just a collection of news stories cobbled together, WP:OR ultimately. Semitransgenic _talk. 17:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's continuing international coverage in mainstream media such as The Independent and so the topic is clearly notable. There are also obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger with videobombing which could use more content. Andrew D. (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.