. No prejudice to AfD, although the discussion suggests that several editors would be opposed to deletion at AfD. signed, Rosguill talk 17:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- {{no redirect|1 = Fuck her right in the pussy }} → :List of viral videos (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fuck_her_right_in_the_pussy&action=history history] · [https://iw.toolforge.org/pageviews?start=2020-12-14&end=2021-01-12&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Fuck_her_right_in_the_pussy stats]) [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Fuck her right in the pussy|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Fuck her right in the pussy closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Fuck her right in the pussy|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Fuck her right in the pussy closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Fuck her right in the pussy|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Fuck her right in the pussy closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
- {{no redirect|1 = FHRITP }} → :List of Internet phenomena (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FHRITP&action=history history] · [https://iw.toolforge.org/pageviews?start=2020-12-15&end=2021-01-13&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=FHRITP stats]) [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:FHRITP|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#FHRITP closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:FHRITP|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#FHRITP closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:FHRITP|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#FHRITP closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
{{oldrfdlist|Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_29#Fuck_her_right_in_the_pussy|Snow keep|Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_26#Merged_to_List_of_Internet_phenomena_but_no_longer_mentioned_there|Keep}}
Since 809946854, Fuck her right in the pussy is not mentioned in the target article any more, so this redirect can be deleted. – Rummskartoffel (talk • contribs) 15:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete because we have nowhere to send readers seeking any information about this topic. The AfD concluded this topic should not have its own article, while the mention at the current target was removed three years ago and hasn't been contested (rightly so, since the target only lists videos with their own articles). 61.239.39.90 (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Could maybe add a mention at List of Internet phenomena and Retarget there. -Vote changed to Restore article content with new sourcing per below.- This was a fairly big deal back in the day and I think should be mentioned somewhere, and we shouldn't let technical criteria for a particular list page take it out of the encyclopedia. BlackholeWA (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)- Retarget - Retarget to List of Internet phenomena. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to List of Internet phenomena.86.23.109.101 (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete This page has been deleted four times already. Internet memes come and go and I don't think a 2014 meme is particularly notable or newsworthy any longer in 2021. Liz Read! Talk! 00:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Notability is not temporary. If it was notable in 2014 it is still notable in 2021. Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete A redirect to a page containing no information about the redirect text is of no use to the reader. -- Hux (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- This has gotten a [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Fuck+her+right+in+the+pussy%22&rlz=1C1GCEA_enCA839CA840&biw=1920&bih=947&sxsrf=ALeKk00GecZtLcB0bwcfQsvj01Dn2ZZAbA%3A1610606319130&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3ANovember+2_2+2014%2Ccd_max%3A&tbm=nws bunch of news coverage] from reliable sources sine the last AFD in November 2014, and that's probably enough to a mention a mention somewhere. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Restore article
content. I think my link shows that there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources for the content to be restored at the original page., or moved to the internet phenomena page, since the trend it inspired isn't necessarily because of the virality of the original video. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC) Adjusted !vote given more thorough source analysis by Ivanvector below. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
:::I would also support a restore. BlackholeWA (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Restore. I reviewed the DYK for the article back in 2015 and I was impressed with the sourcing at the time. The subject is definitely notable and I maintain that the AfD got it wrong. -- Tavix (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note I've added {{noredirect|FHRITP}} to this discussion as it doesn't make sense for one to be deleted and not the other or for them to lead to different content if not deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Restore - I agree with Tavix that the AfD (the second one, at least) was closed incorrectly; there was demonstrably not clear consensus to delete. On the issue of notability: there have been numerous widely-covered criminal incidents involving someone shouting the phrase at women, including the 2014 suspension of Jameis Winston ([https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/sep/20/jameis-winston-fsu-ban-comments-football], [https://www.latintimes.com/florida-st-seminoles-breaking-news-jameis-wintson-suspended-entire-game-over-meme-videos-263044]), the 2015 firing of a Canadian public service worker ([https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/05/12/fhritp-could-be-a-crime-say-toronto-police.html], [https://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/hydro-one-employee-fired-after-fhritp-heckling-of-citynews-reporter-shauna-hunt-1.3070948]) and extensive coverage of his eventual rehiring ([https://web.archive.org/web/20151206191122/https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/02/shawn-simoes-hydro-one_n_8453012.html], [https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/hydro-one-employee-fired-over-sexual-harassment-of-a-reporter-has-been-rehired]), and here are a series of news hits about ongoing incidents and other coverage from [https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canadian-reporter-fhritp-harassment-needs-to-stop May 2020], [https://www.ledevoir.com/opinion/libre-opinion/583367/l-intimidation-des-reporters-doit-cesser July 2020], [https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2020/10/24/babysitter-une-comedie-feministe-signee-monia-chokri October 2020], and [https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canadian-reporter-fhritp-harassment-needs-to-stop two days ago]. The French articles both don't discuss specific incidents but address the broader issue of the phrase being used as harassment, and one discusses significant art projects addressing the trend. There's easily enough for a full article. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- In light of how much news coverage this is apparently still receiving, I'm changing to restore as well (and retarget FHRITP, of course). When I nominated it, this redirect just looked like a leftover from a long-dead, non-notable meme, but a phenomenon that has spurred controversy multiple times over the course of a few years definitely feels like it deserves mention in Wikipedia. – Rummskartoffel (talk • contribs) 10:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Previous RfD closing admin here, thanks User:Thryduulf for the notification. I haven't been following this debate since I closed its precursor five years ago, and from my cursory reading of this discussion, circumstances have almost certainly changed, so there is no need to treat my closure from five years ago as a binding precedent. Deryck C. 10:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget Per comments. --StaleGuy22 (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete or restore. With no coverage of the topic on the project now, keep and retarget are non-starters (ok, one use at Jameis Winston, but I don't see any reasonable case for retargeting there). I'm comfortable saying delete because I think all the sources being cited are us chasing so many shiny objects. The subject of those articles is much less this phrase as opposed to events in which someone says it. And the phrase is outrageous enough in public life that we can expect some sort of reporting any time a public figure uses it. I realize these arguments may seem better fitted to an AfD, hence being ok with restoring. But having the content removed for 3+ years is also a way of the community deciding. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}Relisting comment: One more try for a firmer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - I think restore is getting at least a loose consensus since the new sources were reported, if there are no further arguments on the matter BlackholeWA (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Restore per prior. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Restore is the obvious answer here (and I'm even one who leans deletionist when it comes to meme claptrap, since WP is not Urban Dictionary or Know Your Meme). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Can someone link me to where it says RfD is an acceptable replacement for DRV? Delete as the target no longer mentions the subject. If the AfD was closed incorrectly, DRV is that way. If someone thinks circumstances have changed and it's now notable, permission for recreation doesn't require RfD either. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Eh. Consensus can form anywhere, really, and sometimes discussions about page futures can come from venues like RfD, I think. I don't think we have to subject this to rediscussion on a technicality; WP:NOTBURO and all that. Also, seeing as it was not clear that RESTORE would be an option when this discussion started, I don't think it's wrong to allow this discussion to formally conclude before recreating either. BlackholeWA (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I certainly might be wrong about RfD -- I'm not around these parts much. Frankly I don't remember why this meme redirect is even on my watchlist! But while I didn't participate in these AfDs, I do participate in a lot of AfDs and find it unsettling that the time I spend researching for an AfD could just be undone in a corner of the project that isn't actually supposed to be undoing AfDs (except insofar as the redirect is concerned, of course).
Meh. In this case, it's been long enough that it's kind of pointless to make a stink. Whoever wanted to recreate the article with new sources could've just done that, after all. Then, if anything, we'd just head back to AfD and the case would be made there.
It is worth noting, however, that the sources linked above which just show usage, at times without any connection to the meme apart from the collection of words, don't actually add anything (NOTDICT and whatnot).
Given that this is entirely a meme about videobombing, it seems to me that that best location for it, and thus better target for the redirect would be a new section of the videobombing article (sans 100 sources that just say "X person said this"). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Restore the article. Also retarget FHRITP to the article. The article is well sourced and explains its subject in a clear and neutral manner.--Auric talk 12:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Restore the article. As creator of the original article, I do believe that a redirect without sufficient context is not exactly useful, and given that this discussion has turned into a de facto DRV, the fact there were incidents and media coverage relating to this meme does give it notability. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}Relisting comment: Some would like the article restored, but challenging the outcome of an AfD requires
deletion review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aasim (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Aasim, then why are we relisting it here? This discussion has a clear consensus and shouldn't be relisted to change that for technical reasons. And why must we subject the article to another formal process when opinions have already been heard out here? BlackholeWA (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- :Yes, relisting was exactly the wrong thing to do here. If it needs a deletion review the discussion here needs to be closed and a deletion review opened. If it doesn't need a deletion review (and imo one would be pointless bureaucracy given the extensive discussion already held here) then the clear consensus here is sufficient to restore the article and so the discussion doesn't need relisting again. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- :{{re|Awesome Aasim}} Your relist makes no sense in this context. For one, you are flat out incorrect that restoring requires a DRV. Should a consensus develop to restore the article (which I believe one exists), then it would be a waste of time to require yet another discussion to affirm the consensus that has developed. Second, because such a consensus exists, the discussion simply needs to be closed as such, not delayed due to a pointless relisting. -- Tavix (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2021 (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.
