Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuck her right in the pussy

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 delete. Despite Milowent sources to the contrary, the delete rationales mentioned those sources are rather trivial in mention and fails WP:GNG. The WP:CRYSTAL concerns are valid here, as we can't tell if the phrase will affect a football player career. Also I'm surprised WP:NOT#NEWS is not mentioned in this debate, as this clearly fails it. Secret ^account 04:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)

It was suggested at merge discussion Talk:List_of_Internet_phenomena#Proposed_merge_with_Fuck_her_right_in_the_pussy that this be brought to WP:AFD. Additionally, that merge discussion has devolved into a quasi-deletion discussion with users commenting keep/delete instead of support/oppose merge somewhere. Therefore, bringing here to assess consensus from the community as to what should be done with the page. — Cirt (talk) 02:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I linked to this AfD at Talk:Jameis Winston. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and oppose merge: I have added several sources to the article that I hope demonstrates enough notability for a standalone article. Only the other day, live coverage of the Keene Pumpkin Fest Riot was interrupted when a rioter shouted the phrase during WHDH TV's live coverage.[1] Eddymason (talk) 06:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to clarify my opposition to a merge. This is not just an Internet meme, it is more like an IRL meme, in that local old media coverage of something or other is "photobombed"/videobombed(?) by someone uttering the phrase. The phrase caused the interruption of at least three live broadcasts, and it is these videos, along with the original three, that have gone viral. "List of internet phenomena", is wrong because of an IRL repercussion for a sports figure who used the term. Viral video seems like a more appropriate merge target, if the wind blows that way, but I support a stand-alone article. Eddymason (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The evidence provided so far in support of notability is not sufficient. Sources repeating just that "Someone said it on TV" are insufficient. Edison (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Partly, this is because of WP:NOT#DICT, point 3. We don't have pages about every phrase that gets some attention. Per WP:CRYSTAL, perhaps this meme will gain more prominence in the future, so deletion now is no obstacle to recreating the page again later. But, right now, we have just a few anecdotal reports of some people shouting it, with most of those people otherwise non-notable. As such, it seems to me that the page also fails WP:GNG. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and oppose merge SEVEN independent news sources say this thing is an internet meme. Bogger (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  There are nine sources currently cited on the page. The first is from the "Know Your Meme" website, and the sixth is from "Gawker". Those two sources say that it is a meme, but they are borderline as RS, and don't really establish passage of WP:GNG. The remaining seven cited sources are reports of incidents in which the phrase was shouted in public. There was one instance when the shouter, a college football player, is a notable person, but none of the other shouters are. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is going to be covered (ETA: in Wikipedia) somewhere. Its been a subject of continuing coverage for some months now, with coverage in Gawker, Mediaite, The Daily Beast, etc. We can come back in 2-5 years to decide whether there is an appropriate merge subject that makes sense. From a long term context, the coverage of this is similar to that of 2 Girls 1 Cup seven years ago and goatse.cx fourteen years ago.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe in the future it will be covered somewhere. But, for now, WP:CRYSTAL applies. The other memes are WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying it is already covered in the press; I mean it is going to therefore be covered somewhere on wikipedia. Especially when you realize you can't just search the term as is to find sources, many euphemisms get used to avoid putting "fuck her right in the pussy" in print.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but let's find those hypothetical sources and determine whether or not they satisfy GNG. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Yes, it might have lots of sources, but this appears to be cruft here. Borderline miscellaneous information as well. Aerospeed (Talk) 03:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge but don't delete. This particular meme belongs in Wikipedia somewhere, as Milowent says above: it's not every meme that potentially alters the career of a Heisman Trophy winner. I don't know that a separate article will be needed in the long run, but I don't think deletion should be on the table. And I am just thrilled that this article title will now inhabit my watchlist. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, WP:CRYSTAL. It may "potentially alter" his career, but we do not yet know whether it has altered it in any meaningful way. So far, it just got him suspended for one game. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the extent of the coverage, I think that's enough to justify its inclusion on the list, at least.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since what we are discussing in this AfD is the standalone page, it sounds to me like you might not entirely object to deleting the page, so long as the meme continues to be listed on the List of Internet phenomena page. Nothing in this discussion has any effect on the list page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is relevant, because the edit history of this article merits keeping. WP:PRESERVE and all that. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Explanatory note, in case any editors are unfamiliar with AfD. The discussion here is only about the Fuck her right in the pussy page. The listing of the phrase at List of Internet phenomena is not affected by the discussion here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Noting that it could also or instead be covered at Viral video, a delete consensus here would also have no effect on the Viral video page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merge a summarized version to List of Internet phenomena. There are sources, but they merely report about when the phrase has been blurted out publicly. If I were king of the world, I would like to see it deleted altogether, not because it's obscene, but because it was created as part of a self-promoting viral marketing campaign. The phrase itself is notable enough, but since were not the news, we don't need an article that documents every indiscriminate use of the phrase as if we were a Twitter feed.- MrX 18:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to delete based on comment from Wikidemon.- MrX 00:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete using policy WP:IGNORE. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tryptofish's well-stated rationale above. Until I see evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources regarding this "meme," and not just random internet mentions of it, my !vote will remain a solid "delete." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete miscellaneous minor incidents do nto make a meme. This is not so notably vu;gar as to be appropriate for noticing in an encyclopedia. We cover the fdigusting oartts of the world, to be sure, but wee dont't make a special effort to seek them out. The rule is NOT TABLOID.. DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: OK. I fear that the delete folks are simply not aware of how widespread and covered this has become -- literally hundreds of broadcasts have already been interrupted this year by people yelling "fuck her right in the pussy" in the shot. It is an epidemic. Articles from reputable news sources about the meme and its origin include (but are not limited to): Mediaite (May 19, 2014); Gawker (May 19, 2014); Deadspin (June 29, 2014), Daily Dot (July 8, 2014); ABC Tampa, FL (July 3, 2014); Buzzfeed (July 2, 2014). And of course there has been the extensive coverage of Jameis Winston,[2][3][4][5] one of the most famous current American college football players, and he only did it last month because it is now a commonplace thing to shout among young males. Compilations of the events abound (a few of these clips are staged, but almost all are not): [6][7][8][9][10][11]. I do believe the subject passes WP:GNG as detestable as it may be, and more notable than past memes like 2 Girls 1 Cup.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I can understand how frustrating AfD discussions can sometimes be, but I do not think that either distaste for the phrase or lack of awareness of the source material plays a significant role in the delete arguments. There is little argument that Winston is a notable person and that there is reliable sourcing for a single event when he said it – and it has a brief section on his bio page. But WP:GNG requires reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and you are not providing any in your comment here. (I'd say maybe that one ABC source comes close, but that's about it.) Nothing you linked to here is a secondary source, and you've given us a long list of YouTube uploads. GNG requires more than just the existence of a lot of stuff that people have posted online. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• AFD is inherently arbitrary for closer cases, I mean, this got kept with one puff piece blogger entry: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Cilladi. Of course whether someone likes a subject can have some effect on an AfD outcome; we don't worry about BLPs on vanilla people with some sourcing, but even Belle Knox got some delete votes in her 2nd AfD. So it goes. I didn't just give you youtube uploads (which is a questionable phrasing, youtube is simply hosting 100s of clips of TV broadcasts being interrupted; I didn't argue those show notability, just to get people to wrap their minds around the scope of this thing). I gave a sampling of reliable sources independent of the subject, e.g., Mediaite, Gawker, etc.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because it's awesome. Alex (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ILIKEIT basically says to back up your argument with some sort of reasoning about the article itself. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 22:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus H. Christ do Wikipedia editors know what fun is? Alex (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do: Alexsautographs, I think you are awesome! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and add it in the List of Internet phenomena. Since it has listed some famous memes as well. It is only logical that we include this because Wikipedia is an online Encyclopedia for global users. -Fowl_vet
• Note — I's not a good merger candidate. The list of Internet phenomena is a list article, intended as a comprehensive catalog. The primary criteria for inclusion in that list are that the subject is notable, and that it is indeed an Internet phenomenon / meme / viral video, etc. If the subject is notable it's probably worth its own article, and we shouldn't stuff the content somewhere else as a holding pen. If the result here is keep, then subject to editorial discretion over there, it may be suitable to add a brief description and link to this article. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete: It's definitely prevalent, but there's not enough reliable sourcing to warrant keeping this. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 22:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this meme just isn't quite notable enough for a stand alone article. --Rotten regard 22:02, 30 October 2014 (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.