Deletion of Fuck her right in the pussy (2nd nomination)

Comment: 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,  ultimately
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: 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 . Does it have significant coverage? {{tick}}, Are there reliable sources? {{tick}} Are there independent sources? {{tick}}. it is important to note . Also, I think a number of editors here are forgetting . 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? {{tick}} Does it seem a bit ridiculous? {{tick}}, 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NN||WP:ARTN||WP:NTEMP)

Comment: 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,  and . So therefore it should be deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTCENSORED)

Comment: Fails . Obviously
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I could care less about the title, and remind some here that  is there for a reason. The key factor that in my view will determine this one is , it has some but not enough for a stand alone article at this time
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCENSORED||WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: Referring to , 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCENSORED)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: There's continuing international coverage in mainstream media such as ''http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/canada-fhritp-videobombing-incident-sparks-backlash-against-vulgar-videobombers-10419043.html 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)