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 no consensus. Or rather, consensus to not delete, but disagreement about whether or not to merge with Egyptian presidential election, 2014.  Sandstein  07:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for pimp (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)

The article is made of non-notable event doesn't deserve an article in addition to consisting of a very offensive insult in Arabic + the article is made up from social networks links and other third-party websites. Amr Tarek^{Say Hello!}, 18:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion, dear Amr Tarek, The topic has been reported by reputable sources like BBC and Aljazeera. Moreover it is an ongoing trend in the Egyptian community worldwide. Please refer to replies to your argument on the talk page Talk:Vote for pimp--M. Hassan talk here 18:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Abdel Fattah el-Sisi or delete - However, i object any decision taken on the pretext that the word is "offensive", because it is backed by sources. I wouldn't be surprised if there were hashtags describing Morsi as a "pimp" too, and Egyptians widely use "sheep" (Khirfan in Arabic) to describe supporters/followers of the Muslim Brotherhood, but we never created articles about those. There were also some viral pro-Sisi hashtags dominating the internet in the past few months "I will vote for Sisi" or "Complete your good deed" but no one created articles about that either. If this is about a hashtag, then it's certainly not the kind that deserves its own article, and if it's about "vote for the pimp" in general, then it's a POVish article using some peacock terms that rely on Twitter mostly. With all due respect to the editors involved, the article makes it appear as if it's something immense and of high notability among Egyptians in the streets, but unfortunately it's nowhere near that. In addition, Al Jazeera is not the kind of source that should be frequently used to document current Egypt-related events on Wikipedia along with Al Arabiya, since both strongly support a different side of the conflict respectively. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not see the topic dependency on Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, as it is an event that happened and continues to gain momentum. Please do watch this video report to understand the topic further http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c-UtZDIGyI It is about a political trend on social media and on the streets. --M. Hassan talk here 14:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there has been substantive coverage (not passing mentions) in reliable sources of this particular hashtag then it is a valid topic for an article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with a new article called Derogatory terminology in Egypt that would possibly include all similar terms (political and non-political). Or simply merge with Egyptian presidential election, 2014. I was pretty swayed by some entries arguing that the article is backed by some reputable sources, so it would be (in a way) wrong to eliminate its content from Wikipedia just like that. But there is already a fair mention of the subject in Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and the 2014 presidential election article. We should also note that it is a POV-driven article created (after previous deletion) by a sock credited with extensive POV-pushing. Also, per Origamite below, a social media phenomenon that is temporary is not notable to have an article of its own and it is certainly not encyclopedic. I hope this non-OR proposal satisfies both sides. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. The hashtag has garnered cult like following the like of Gangnam style and Harlem Shake with very large interested population and pervasive adoption. It is sufficiently noteworthy as a phenomenon that it was reported on by the BBC, Aljazeera, Huffington Post, etc. Part of why it represents a noteworthy phenomenon is that rarely ever does a country-specific, politics specific, and non-English speaking market hashtag become one of the top 5 used/trending hashtags on Twitter. I realize that the hashtag uses vulgar language, but Wikipedia has entries for many English vulgar terms and expressions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.208.197.156 (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC) — 37.208.197.156 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Oppose deletion, and Oppose Merge, The hashtag is not pointing to El-Sisi, people (specially supporter of coup and Sisi) started to implicitly interpret the hashtag as an insult to the coup leader. Opposing also the merge, as the phrase is not related only to El-Sisi, the reader should know the roots of the word "Pimp" in Egyptian culture. Andri Kuawko (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Blocked sock of Hans Franssen‎ Darkness Shines (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge with Egyptian presidential election, 2014: Content is well sourced and the hashtag is sweeping social media websites like Facebook and Twitter in Egypt. (Yes, I am Egyptian.) --Meno25 (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:ATTACKPAGE The Fact that the article was created by a POV pushing sockpuppet should also be taken into account here. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion or Merge: @Darkness, although you are right but the content and references are still valid. the user could be blocked but the article should remain as it describes a fact. I agree with the logic of @mohamedhp and @Andri Kuawko. they are completely correct and right. Solomon Bedren (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Obvious sock is obvious, already at SPI Darkness Shines (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It seems temporary. It is a hashtag. Notability is not temporary, and like I said, this is. Origamite^{Please complain here} 21:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Egyptian presidential election, 2014: Content is well-sourced, but the biggest claim to fame seems to be the hashtag and hence the temporary fame. Coderzombie (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Please do check YouTube search query for the term, it is no longer just a hashtag it is an event in the Egyptian history. Again please review the article sources and edits and how it is being reported.--M. Hassan talk here 15:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness Shines Thanks for the note about the double vote. I changed it to Comment.--M. Hassan talk here 15:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Egyptian presidential election, 2014: Doesn't appear to have enough notability to stand on its own. It's only an event in Egyptian history due to its relation to the election. Greedo8 18:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep The article is becoming a slogan of corrupted people that are trying to reach the presidency. The freedom of speech in Egypt is more and more decreasing after the coup. I believe the article should remain as is.Obvious sock is obvious Darkness Shines (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:ATTACKPAGE.--Faris El-Gwely (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly notable given the interest it has been warranting alone. Criticism is a fact of politics and should not be censored.--عبد المؤمن (talk) 17:11, 11 April 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.