Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santorum (neologism) (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 hopeless, hopeless lack of consensus. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 05:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Santorum (sexual slang) (2nd nomination)

Santorum (sexual slang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(1st AFD) The information in the first five sentences of this article is already in Santorum Controversy. The "References in the media" section is original research unless it can be shown that sources independent of, say, the Economist took note of its reference of "santorum." Everything else in the article is unsourced and unsourceable by reliable sources that are independent of Dan Savage or those working to popularize this neologism. "Santorum" itself fails WP:NEO, which requires reliable sources about the neologism. I didn't wade through all the Google hits, but a cursory look shows lots of unreliable, POV sources like blogs, and I found zero sources in a Lexis-Nexis search (even in local Pennsylvania sources) that discuss "santorum" beyond a dicdef or verify the material in the article beyond the first five sentences. The ADS award,[1] of which so much was made in the first AFD, is trivial, and the ADS source provides only a dictionary definition, nothing we can build a Wikipedia article on.

I'm puzzled why the first AFD resulted in keep. The closer said there was "substantial support among established commenters that this word has now reached encyclopedic notability." But, assuming "encyclopedic notability" refers to the primary notability criterion, I think the closer's conclusion is untenable, given that the first AFD produced, and the article right now provides, no non-trivial, reliable, external sources of which "santorum" is the subject, which we could use to write a verifiable article. Many keep voters in the first AFD cited "widespread use," but again, at Wikipedia we need reliable sources about the term, not sources that use the term, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

I suspect that many people who will come to participate in this AFD are shocked that anyone could think this term is not notable. To them I would emphasize that notability has an objective meaning on Wikipedia: if someone can find multiple non-trivial reliable external sources about "santorum," then that would establish notability. Otherwise, not.

In conclusion, delete for failing WP:N and WP:NEO. There is no sign that there is enough source material to re-write or reference this article in a way that conforms with WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT. Pan Dan 00:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Pan Dan (not to mention thats disgusting) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment; Thank god your personal opinion isn't a valid reason for deletion, otherwise we'd have a Fisher-Price version of Wikipedia -- wtfunkymonkey 02:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ (тąιк|соήтяївѕ) 00:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article, and merge the description and story of the term's coining into Dan Savage I see now it is already there in Savage Love so that's not needed. This is not notable enough by WP:N for its own article. Perhaps add to List of Internet phenomena also. StoptheDatabaseState 00:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Delete into Dan Savage. SkierRMH 00:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article meets all content policy and criteria. The article itself includes references to independent non-trivial coverage in the media and elsewhere - I don't need to repeat them as they're there for the reading. It's a bit tenuous to say that there must be multiple references then dismiss out of hand the multiple references. Just because one says they are "trivial" does not make them so. The term has been around long enough that the "neologism" label is starting to wear thin. I fail to see how it fails WP:OR when secondary sources are cited. There is also no evidence to show it fails WP:NPOV, etc. It appears the strongest reasoning against the article is that it's not "notable", relying on disputed disputed policy that is still under discussion. It strikes me that the other key reason this is up for nomination is because it is "disgusting" or offends someone's political point of view; however, Wikipedia is not censored. The term has clearly taken on a life of its own and is certainly more "notable" (if relying on that alone) than many of the other pop-culture terms or memes that have articles. Nothing has changed to alter the reasoning for "keep" from the prior AfD. Agent 86 00:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "references to independent non-trivial coverage" -- If you mean the story in The Philadelphia Inquirer, that story is about Santorum the man. There's exactly one sentence in there about "santorum" the term. The ADS reference is no more than a dicdef. All the other references are unreliable. WP:N does have a disputed tag on it, but WP:NEO does not, and this fails WP:NEO. Pan Dan 00:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (further comment) Even if you think the neologism label has started to wear thin (even though "santorum" is still not in any reputable dictionaries as far as I know), then it's a word not a neologism, and WP:NOT a dictionary applies. Whether it's a word or a neologism, it doesn't belong here. Pan Dan 01:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was the proposer of the original AfD. I became convinced that the political act by Dan Savage was notable, but it seems clear to me that the term itself is not a successful neologism. There are no citations in durable media by independent sources. Savage's use of the term as a political stunt (not intended as a pejorative term) was very successful, and that act needs to be recorded in WP somewhere. I would be happy to see the article changed to "santorum (sexual slang activism)" or something that ceased to imply it was a successful neologism. I'd also be fine with deleting it, so long as the information is mostly retained in Savage Love. Mike Christie (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this thing per nom -- it fails WP:N due to lack of sufficient non-trivial coverage, and especially WP:NEO, so WP:NUKE it per problem-article deletion criterion number two. Also, it's disgusting like Malevious said, but I doubt that is a sufficient criterion for deletion. WP:N and especially WP:NEO violation however is, since the latter is mentioned in our nuking policy. Glad to see that people aren't just saying "NN, D" here and actually citing real policies and guidelines! :) 74.38.33.15 01:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum: It might pass WP:N/WP:NEO, however if it does a merge might be a better option than straight keep or delete. 74.38.33.15 01:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--RWR8189 01:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delere Per WP:NOT wikipedi is NOT A DICTIONARY. If source material can be found, transwiki to wiktionary. In any event, it doesn't belong as an encyclopedia article. --Jayron32 01:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per last afd. Just H 01:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure what the agenda is here but the subject is clearly notable. The use of a politician's name as being synonymous with so extreme a term is extremely unusual if not unique. As to independent sources to confirm notability:
  1. At its annual meeting in January 2005, the American Dialect Society selected "santorum" as the Most Outrageous Word of the Year 2004
  2. The Economist referenced santorum in a January 5, 2006 blurb about Sen. Santorum.
  3. The Daily Show referenced the term in its July 12, 2006 and December 11, 2006 episodes.
That seems a lot of international attention for a new sexual slang term- which is hardly going to be the mainstay of the usual news media sources. As pointed out in the previous AfD, the word may well outlast the senator...WJBscribe (WJB talk) 02:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As became apparent in the last AfD, there are certainly people who dislike the senator who nevertheless voted Keep, so I don't think we can assume an agenda beyond what's in the nom. With regard to the American Dialect Society: the nomination of a word for one of its categories requires no documentation at all; the words voted on are (per an ADS member) typically "stunt words". I think the nomination is evidence of the notability of the political act but it is not evidence of the spread of the neologism. Mike Christie (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replies (to WJBscribe)
  1. Per Mike Christie and per my nom (did you read it?) the ADS award is trivial and the content of the ADS source is no more than a dicdef, nothing to build a Wikipedia article on
  2. Per my nom (again), WP:NEO requires sources about a term, not sources that use a term, because that's what a dictionary is for. Gathering a list of sources that use the term is original research (again, this was also explained in my nom).
  3. Ditto. Pan Dan 02:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to WJBScribe's "clearly notable" and "the word may well outlast the senator" -- That you think this, is a sign of your social and political circles. As I stated in my nom, I expected some people to be shocked that this term could be non-notable. I then reminded folks that notability has an objective meaning on Wikipedia. Pan Dan 02:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually I did read your comments. Frankly I'm confused by your call for sources about the term rather than those that use it. Those are what are provided. Neither the Daily Show nor the Economist were describing fecal matter and happened to use the word 'Santorum' in that context. But were concerned by the fact that the word Santorum was coined in notable circumstances and is now in use. The Daily Show is admittedly a satirical programme, but one with a considerable world-wide viewership. The Economist however is a totally serious economic and political journal dating back to 1843. That the term has become notable enough for it to be mentioned by that paper in an article about the Senator shows that it is notable not only in the US but also in the UK. Such coverage seems to me to satisfy Wikipedia's objective notability criteria. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 02:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason the coverage does not show notability of the term is that it's not coverage of the term, as required by WP:NEO, which explicitly requires reliable sources "about the term -- not [sources] that use the term." In this case, the term is being "used" in the midst of coverage of the Santorum controversy -- exactly what WP:NEO disqualifies -- and everything in this Wikipedia article that is reliably verifiable is already in Santorum controversy. (The reference in the Economist is anyway claimed in the Wikipedia article to be only a "blurb" -- I can't even find it on Lexis-Nexis, I guess it just appeared in the online edition(?)) Finally, I want to apologize for suggesting above that you didn't read my nom, and have struck through that. Pan Dan 03:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I found the reference in The Economist via Lexis-Nexis -- it is utterly trivial; an aside: "Meanwhile, gay activists use [Santorum's] name to denote something indescribable in a family newspaper." That's it. Pan Dan 03:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki dicdef to Wiktionary and Merge the rest to Santorum_controversy -- wtfunkymonkey 02:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure about this, but I think Wiktionary rejected it; I guess it's not considered a word (at least not yet). As for merging, I'm not sure that there is any material that's reliably verifiable that we can merge, that's not already in Santorum controversy. Pan Dan 02:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per everything. Even the National Review mentioned the word when discussing why the Senator lost the 2006 election. SchmuckyTheCat 03:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is easy to write an article that reports the words usage by major media as examples of how it has penetrated into mainstream awareness. That is not synthesis, it is basic reporting. SchmuckyTheCat 07:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Call it synthesis or reporting, it's still OR. Pan Dan 09:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per the last RFA AFD. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Are we kidding??? I bet this entry gets more hits than Kendall West, Florida, Baussenque Wars and National Roads in South Africa combined!! (Three articles I got by clicking on "random page.") (1) Errr, no one uses wikitionary, please be honest and (2) it's not the most PC word, but the usefulness of it being in Wikipedia (as opposed to being banished to Wikitionary) trumps all. User:jg325
    • Comment, people do use Wiktionary, please don't simply say that. It's just not as well known as enwiki. Terence Ong 04:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I never knew there was a policy that said since Wikitionary is "useless" WP:NOT#DICTIONARY can be ignored.--RWR8189 04:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per last AFD. This is a very well used slang in US, there are a lot of sources to cite for this one. Terence Ong 04:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Do you mean sources for notability or for meeting the criteria for WP:NEO? If the latter, could you cite some? The conclusion on the talk page at Wiktionary when they deleted it seemed to be that all the cites purporting to show actual usage were non-durable and not independent of Savage. I've not seen a single source that supports independent usage in print form, as opposed to reference to the political act and/or controversy. Mike Christie (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trash - Wikipedia doesn't need an article on it every time someone makes a joke or every time two people string the same two words together. I think lima beans are disgusting. My brother thinks lima beans are disgusting. We don't need Lima beans (disgusting food). --BigDT 04:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That something is "trash" does not necessarily mean it's not worth an article - and I'm not totally clear on the Lima Beans analogy...--Dmz5 04:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would argue, as WJBScribe does above, that the sources are "about" the term. We are not searching for sources that simply use the word as a synonym for fecal matter; in all cases, the source specifically points up the fact that the Senator's name has been coopted in this manner. I'm not sure what else you want - is this not WP worthy until the New Yorker publishes a cover story detailing the emergence and history of the term? --Dmz5 04:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that Santorum's name has been co-opted has been noted in Santorum controversy. There is not much more that can be said about this, that is reliably verified, than what is already in Santorum controversy. Pan Dan 09:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I wouldn't say Santorum's name "has been co-opted" -- that suggests Savage's definition has more currency than the reference to Santorum the man, and there is no evidence that that is the case. It may be the case in the minds of folks who hang around political blogs a tad too much :-) Pan Dan 10:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets all Wikipedia criteria for notability. The Senator will live on like the Earl of Sandwich, Judge Charles Lynch, Charles Boycott, or Henry Shrapnel, long after his particular contributions to 20th and 21st century American politics are forgotten. Keep in all frothiness. Edison 05:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds like argument by assertion to me. Do you have any evidence that this meets our criteria for notability, or that this term will live on? Allow me to make the same diagnosis here as I made with WJBScribe: If you think that the term can't possibly be non-notable despite fruitless searches for reliable sources, that may be a symptom of the social and political circles you travel in. Forgive me if I am being overly presumptuous. Pan Dan 09:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • CommentOK, per Agent and WJBscribe arguments above. The article presents multiple independent verifiable and reliable sources to show the notability of the term. Your efforts to debate each Keep vote and to have the last word notwithstanding. Please do not use strawman arguments in which you ascribe to others arguments they did not make so you can shout them down. Please do not make persona.l attacks on those who express views other than yours such as your comments about "a symptom of the social and political circles you travel in." That is a violation of WP:NPAEdison 16:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • (This is not a substantive comment so I'm not violating my promise below to comment no more :-)) Re: "social and political circles" -- It was my intent for my phrasing to be merely descriptive, not pejorative, but reading it through, it does sound pejorative. Plus, you're absolutely right I had no business making that "diagnosis," pejorative or not. I'm not a doctor and I don't even play one on TV. I apologize to you and WJB, and have struckthrough it. Pan Dan 16:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete It's an article on something some comedian made up. It seems like fancruft, the article states that there is a concerted effort by fans to turn this into a neologism (making this article fail WP:NEO and possibly WP:COI too). Non-notable neologism and fancruft. It will soon be forgotten. Just the fact that the term needs its own website to get people to notice it is a clear indicator that it isn't notable. --Sable232 05:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a) Dan Savage is a “comedian”? I’ll bet he’d be shocked to discover this. Have you told him? Can you name some comedy clubs where he’ll be performing? Interesting! b) Per “cruft”; that’s an essay, not a policy. c) WP:COI? Really? Would your love of cars be a conflict of interest in your editing articles about cars, thus preventing your ability to be NPOV? I see no evidence of that in your contributions. Are you failing to assume good faith? I hope not. -- weirdoactor t|c 16:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with BigDT and Sable232. Mets 05:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepIntrinsically trivial, but the American Dialect Society nominzation makes it notable.DGG 05:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have substantially revised the article (treating it as an article about a word and its cultural/political repercussions, rather than a dicdef+origin), and added citations to major & print media, some of which directly support claims of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 08:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still reviewing your revision, but what I see so far looks like more of what there was before: OR, primary sources, and unreliable POV sources. The one exception seems to be the Slate source, which is no more than a paragraph about "santorum" and the ADS award. Pan Dan 09:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have used primary sources to demonstrate the timeline of creation (which was vague and incorrect before), not for notability. I have tried to make every thing I added a cited assertion, and several of those citations are print media. I'm sorry they are not to your liking, but there is no prohibition against what you call a "POV source" (since all sources have POV). Wikipedia policy requires us to cite POV assertions, but does not prevent their use in articles. I didn't have anything in particular I could do about the website section right now, so that's still unreferenced. --Dhartung | Talk 09:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry for coming off so harsh before. Your revision is exceptionally well-written and well-organized, I'll give you that, but still problematic, I think. First, as to POV sources, when the only sources on a topic are POV, it's impossible to write an NPOV article. (I also think that when the only sources taking note of a topic are on the same page politically, the topic's notability should be questionable, but that's open for discussion.) Now let's go over the article. The lead and background are already in Santorum controversy. The "Contest" section, as you acknowledge, is only verified in a primary source, so the propriety of having that material in Wikipedia is questionable. The first paragraph of the "Popularity" section uses one sentence in one source to establish a tenous (at best) connection between "santorum" and Santorum's iconic status as a social conservative. The "Web activism" section, as you acknowledge is unsourced and, I think, is likely sourceable only by primary sources. Now we come to the only material in the article that I think may be appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia -- the Slate reference. The POV problem remains however. Slate is a reputable source, but its bias is well known, and in the absence of other sources covering the ADS award, I don't think inclusion is appropriate in the final analysis. In any case, this source yields only 4 sentences about the term -- fairly trivial (though not totally, I'll admit). Finally, the rest of the article, is, yes, original research, as a synthesis of various media references of the term. Most egregious is the hint, every so subtly dropped, without the support of any reliable source, that the term may have contributed to Santorum's defeat. Pan Dan 09:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • (further comment) So, the big picture, in my view (fwiw): The term itself fails WP:NEO. The ancillary material about origins and repercussions is not reliably sourceable -- except for the material you added that's based on the 4 sentences in Slate. I wouldn't object to a merge of this material to Santorum controversy and/or Savage Love. (Or you could insert it yourself so a merge is unnecessary.) However the Slate reference cannot by itself sustain a stand-alone article, because it's brief (wrt the term) and because there are no other sources to balance the POV. Pan Dan 10:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One of the added references is to an article by Jesse Sheidlower reporting on the ADS meeting. It should be noted that Jesse has said that he does not think the word has real currency. So far I have seen no references that demonstrate currency. Again I think the important point is to distinguish WP:NEO arguments from WP:N arguments; "santorum" fails the former, but is a notably successful political act. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike Christie (talk • contribs) 13:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC).:[reply]
  • Keep simply because there's no consensus. -Toptomcat 14:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the effect that this term has had on pop culture, and indeed, Santorum's credibility is notable enough for inclusion. -- weirdoactor t|c 15:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have evidence that this term has had the effect you suggest, so that we could write a stand-alone article on this beyond what's in Santorum controversy? Pan Dan 15:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do YOU have any evidence that it HASN'T? -- weirdoactor t|c 15:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you have any evidence that is has?  :-) But seriously, we can't write an article on a hypothetical effect just because you (or any Wikipedian) thinks it exists and is notable. It has to be covered in multiple non-trivial 3rd-party sources, so we can write a verifiable article. Pan Dan 16:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it's clear the onus is not on Pan Dan to disprove notability- that we can all agree on. Still, this article seems to be "covered in multiple non-trivial 3rd-party sources" and "a verifiable article" of a good quality has accordingly been written about it. I don't see that more sources should be necessary or that any good reason for discounting the present ones has been provided. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 16:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Re: "good quality" -- I think we can all agree that Dhartung's rewrite is of excellent copyedit quality (I wish I could write and organize as well as that). The problem is that everything in the article (except for the 2nd and 3rd sentences in "References in media" section) is either (1) verified by a primary source, (2) original research, or (3) already in Santorum controversy. Moreover there is still no sign the term itself passes WP:NEO. The 2nd and 3rd sentences in "References in media" section are verified in a reliable (though POV) source, which is why I would not object to merging those two sentences into Santorum controversy (though Dhartung can do that manually himself to preserve GFDL credit). Pan Dan 16:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not sure what you mean by POV source. There is no requirement that sources be neutral, most will be advancing a point of view. The usual response if one feels a source is partisan is to counterbalance with another source that shows the opposite point of view. In this case, one that claimed the word had seen little use out of the Dan Savage context and had failed to become part of wider popular culture. AfD is not the place to address problems with NPOV or lack thereof- that should be done in the editing of the article. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 16:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • The point about the POV source is somewhat trivial as it only concerns those two sentences, as the other sources are all either unreliable or primary. But as to the POV issue itself: you make a good point -- "the usual response...is to counterbalance" -- but, I'm afraid, you reach the wrong conclusion: "AfD is not the place to address problems with NPOV." In this case, there is no sign that it is possible to write the article using counterbalancing sources, because those 4 sentences in Slate are the only (even slightly) non-trivial source anyone has found. Pan Dan 16:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE I couldn't care less about politics so I feel fairly neutral when it comes to political-based articles like this. Anyway, my thoughts are theses:
1) The TERM itself must be the subject of mulitiple, non-trivial, independent, Reliable, Reputable, third-party sources. What that means is that just like any thing else, the sources have to be reporting on term, not using it. Non-Trivial means that the news/magazine/web/tv/radio article must be completely about the term and nothing else. A sentance or paragraph in a news/magazine/web/tv/radio article talking about a different or slightly related matter does not make that source non-trivial. It's a mention in passing and disqualified as a source.
2) Many of the keep votes here are not baseing their arguements on policies but rather their POV. "simply because there's no consensus", "[the] effect that this term has had on pop culture", "per last afd", "[because] no one uses wikitionary". Many of the delete opinions have been made using the wikipolicies to back their comments. I argue on policies, not POV thinking.
3) Comments that the term will live on after the senator is gone is Crystal-balling. --Brian (How am I doing?) 16:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In its revised form, it's a textbook neologism article. Plenty of good citations of print publications and others discussing the term. Uucp 16:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plenty of citations, yes. Good citations, no. The 4 sentences in the Slate reference are the only non-trivial (just barely) material that discusses the term in a reliable source. Pan Dan 16:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to agree with Uucp, unless I am completely misunderstanding guidelines this does seem like a textbook neologism article and, to repeat a comment I made above, I am not sure what further sources people could be demanding - it occurs to me that this article is being held to an exceedingly stringent standard re: debates about the validity/primacy/notability of every source and statement. I look at those sources and I see multiple, non-trivial discussions of the term itself - no Times cover articles true but nothing to sniff at so easily.--Dmz5 16:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see multiple non-trivial discussions on Savage's own website -- but see WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:N, WP:INDY. I see the somewhat non-trivial 4 sentences in the Slate reference; this is not enough to build an NPOV article (or any kind of article, it's so brief), which is why I have suggested that be used as source material for a couple of sentences in Santorum controversy. In all the other references, even the ones that I would reject as POV and unreliable, I see a passing mention, a usage, or a dicdef. Pan Dan 17:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree with Pan Dan. I DO NOT think that Slate reference as a non-trivial coverage. My requirements are the same as wikipedia's. Articles must be about the term itself and nothing else. They should talk about the term, it's uses, history and such. A paragraph in an article about the senator or about the senator's comments are not what I call non-trivial sources for the TERM. However if I am over-ruled in this case by the closing admin, then I wish to point out....that's only ONE non-trivial coverage. Multiple (and in practice, admins usually hold articles to an unwriten 'three sources' rule) sources do not exist. So the the American Dialect Society called the term Most outrageous of 2004...doesn't matter. Something to mention but NOT a source. --Brian (How am I doing?) 17:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks to mee like it meets notability criteria and sources are reliable. delldot | talk 19:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uucp; this does seem to be a "textbook neologism article", and a well-documented one at that. Furthermore, I've looked at the diff between this article immediately after its last AfD and its current state, and the changes are fairly minor. If the result was "Keep" back in August, I'm not sure what has changed in the article that would change the result of this subsequent AfD. Seventypercent 19:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE. It fails WP:NEO. Period. I happen to like the word and dislike the former senator, but still, it is clearly a neologism, and a politically motivated non-neutral one at that. If the word survives, in a few years it can be reconsidered for its own article. --SECurtisTX 19:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 20:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted that due to a large overhaul of the page, all votes before the overhaul of the Wikipedia article should not be counted. That is all. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? Last I heard, an AfD was not about "votes" it was about the quality of arguments for or against. Seeing as how most of the delete statements do not deal with the quality of the article as much as the fact that the article is not encyclopedia material. As such, I have re-read the article and come to the same conclusion as I had before. Delete as a non-notable neologism and fancruft. User:Bschott said it best I think. --Sable232 21:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Further reply to Sharkface) I don't think the rewrite addresses any of the concerns of the delete comments (of course, I can only speak for myself for sure). The term itself still fails WP:NEO and WP:N. The article still contains original research. The article is still verified only by primary sources or unreliable POV sources. For example the Philadelphia Weekly source just added is dripping with POV -- not surprising given that the Weekly bills itself on its website as "alternative" which is code for leftist left wing. Pan Dan 23:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that isn't a pretty POV statement in itself. If one has to "reaffirm" ones "!vote" because of the changes, I emphatically reaffirm my comment to keep. The improved article certainly addresses the issues raised, and the only contrary argument seems to be to dismiss them or to treat them as if they aren't there. Agent 86 23:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(1) "If that isn't a pretty POV statement in itself" -- did you read the Phil. Weekly source? My statement is completely justified. It is also well known what "alternative" means in this context (I have changed leftist to left wing, I don't know how to say it without sounding at least a little bit nasty). (2) Could you explain in what way you think the article now addresses the issues raised? Pan Dan 23:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pan Dan; could you let these folks know about the change? Thanks. -- weirdoactor t|c 23:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arrggh, you got me!  :-) But no, in this case the Phil. Weekly is a left wing paper. Plus, I just found out that Dan Savage writes a weekly column in the Phil. Weekly -- so the paper is not even independent of Savage, and so that source violates POV twice over. Pan Dan 23:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Soooo....am I to understand that any newspaper that buys Savage's syndicated column would be suspect? And by extrapolation, any paper that buys a syndicated column by any "left wing" columnist would also be suspect? And would this also apply to "right wing" columnists? So, any paper that buys Ann Coulter's syndicated column would ALSO be suspect, and not a WP:RS? -- weirdoactor t|c 23:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The paper is independent of Savage in the sense that he doesn't work directly for them. However the fact that the Weekly syndicates his column does raise questions of non-independence as the paper benefits from promoting its readers' interest in Savage's columns. And, the left wing-ness of the Weekly is unquestionable, and the POV of their write-up on Savage referenced by Dhartung is unmistakable. Pan Dan 00:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism. Valrith 21:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pan Dan's comprehensive nomination. How much more neologistic can we get? Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • deleteIf the term does survive, can add it then.DGG 23:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add usage information. I always like to see how neologisms are used in context. Would anyone object If I add a few media references containing a few sentences, to see the word in context? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be original research. No original research is policy. Please see also WP:NEO. (Of course, the section titled "References in media" is already 90% original research anyway. That's one of the problems with the article.) Pan Dan 00:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I find this nomination fundamentally flawed on numerous levels, not to mention a troubling indicator of the mis-application of WP guidelines. I do understand that the article has changed since the original nomination, but there are a number of lingering issues which should be discussed. However, first let's look at the merits of the nomination arguments themselves. The issue of WP:NPOV has been, for the most part, resolved with the current rewrite, as have the arguments concerning Wikipedia is not a Dictionary.
The issue of reliable sources is perhaps the most troubling part of the nomination for me, and I find it to be completely unfounded. Dan Savage sources are used to identify the term and chronicle the events surrounding its creation, precisely as a primary source must be used as per WP:RS. As it was once put to me: "In the absence of a secondary source, we use a primary source for uncontroversial claims about the subject. Such primary sources can't establish importance, but they can be used for simple, uncontroversial claims in the absence of any alternative secondary source."
Moving on, I fail to see how this article "fails" WP:NEO, as it (#1) does not use the term in the article except by way of definition or example, (#2a) is an article about a neologism, not just a definition, (#2b) is backed up by verifiable sources, such as The Economist, Tuscon Weekly, and the Daily Show, concerning both the nature of the word as well as the use thereof, and (#3) is supported by the same secondary sources listed previously. The assertation that the article does not meet some arbitrary "minimum secondary source count" such that it still does not satisfy WP:NEO #3 is another fundamentally flawed argument, attempting to create a requirement where there is none. While it is true that there are not an overwhelming number of secondary sources to support the article, the permience of the term in common sources is naturally limited due to the fact that it is a sexually explicit term; as such, any expectation of finding secondary sources should be adjusted appropriately.
Finally, the issue of notability should be no issue at all; though the appearance in common or popular media is spotty, the term has nonetheless been used in a major magazine as well as a major and significant nationally broadcast cable news/comedy program at least twice.
Additionally, I find the nomination fundamentally flawed from another significant point: the criterea used to nominate this article for deletion are all guidelines, not policy. Guidelines are either suggestions on how Wikipedia articles generally should be constructed, (e.g. the Manual of Style) or they are synthesized suggestions on how to interpret Wikipedia policy. (e.g, WP:NEO) If an article can only be nominated under the justification of guidelines but not the underlying policies upon which the guidelines were constructed then the most one should justifiably expect to happen to an article is that it be rewritten. Guidelines by definition are more flexible and likely to have exceptions, and as such should not be used as a rigid measure of whether or not an article should be deleted. -- Y|yukichigai 00:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, regarding your point that it's OK to use Dan Savage as a primary source for the circumstances surrounding his coinage of the term: The problem here is not just the reliability of Dan Savage as a source, it's that the efforts being described are those of Savage advancing a POV about Sen. Santorum, and these efforts cannot be described in an NPOV fashion because no external reliable sources have taken note of these efforts. It's really a failure both of WP:NPOV and WP:N. I would further say that in the absence of external sources that have taken note of Savage's efforts, it is unwarranted to use Wikipedia as a platform for advertising these efforts.
That brings another point to mind: there is no policy prohibiting the use of POV sources, only prohibiting the creation of POV articles. Just because an article is dripping with personal opinion and the like does not, under any circumstances, necessarily mean that there are no facts which can be extracted or otherwise referenced from that source. Had the Dan Savage references been used to assert the notability of the topic there would be a serious argument. As it is the references are only used to 1) define the term, 2) show that he held a contest to determine the definition, 3) show that he set up a website to promote the popularity of the term, and 4) provide a quote as to his response to certain key events. Again, these are all perfectly permissiable uses of a primary source. -- Y|yukichigai 01:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"there is no policy prohibiting the use of POV sources, only prohibiting the creation of POV articles" -- would you not call this section of the article POV? It's about Savage's efforts to advance a POV about Sen. Santorum, and these efforts have been been non-trivially noted by no mainstream media source. It thus calls attention to a negative aspect of Santorum with no possibility of counterbalancing sources. Pan Dan 01:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By itself the section would appear to promote a POV. However, the section is in relation to the origin of the term and is simply detailing the history, the facts behind the origin. While there was a POV behind the term it is nonetheless a relevant piece of information concerning its origin. While no currently cited secondary sources have specifically covered the topic of Savage's efforts, secondary sources have covered the term itself and briefly touched on its origins. The expansion or augmenting of this information with more detailed information from the primary source is perfectly acceptable. I hate to Godwin myself here, but would you cite an article on the Nazi party for POV issues because it mentioned their hatred of the Jews? You would not, because the article does not advance that POV, but rather mentions it as a relevant fact about the Nazi party. -- Y|yukichigai 06:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bad comparison. The Nazi party, and its hatred of Jews, is well covered by many, many sources inside, outside, supportive of, and opposed to the Nazis. Savage's campaign was covered only by himself and non-independent sources. Pan Dan 15:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second, regarding your points about WP:NEO: The problem is not that the article fails WP:NEO; only neologisms can fail WP:NEO. The article fails No Original Research for synthesizing information about "the nature of the word as well as the use thereof," as you put it. Your point that the refences are verifiable is irrelevant in the face of WP:OR. Moreover, the term itself does fail WP:NEO, because there are no non-trivial reliable external sources about it.
You're splitting hairs here; it applies to the article, it applies to the word, whatever. The point is that it does not apply here because each one of the provisions the article/word supposedly fails has in fact been met. As to WP:OR, there is no synthesis of information done on the article side, beyond the mere collection of information. Each statement is clearly referenced and directly reflected in the sourced material; there is no conjecture, assumption, or any drawn conclusions present in the current version of the article, and I challenge you to explicitly cite any statements you think are Original Research. The most you can argue is that there are some weasel words present, which is an issue for the article's talk page, not AfD, but on the offchance I'm wrong I think it is highly likely that any OR could easily be removed, leaving the article intact. -- Y|yukichigai 01:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"no synthesis of information done on the article side, beyond the mere collection of information" --"Collection" is "synthesis". We cannot at Wikipedia take note of media references of a term, unless those references have been noted by other media. This is because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The entire section titled "References in media" is thus original research, except for the 2nd and 3rd sentences. Note, that if this kind of synthesis were permissible, there would be no point to WP:NEO's requirement of sources that discuss a neologism as opposed to sources that just use it. As for WP:NEO itself, the term fails it because WP:NEO requires that "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." I'm not sure what #1, #2a, 2b, 3, refer to in your original comment -- those numbers are not in WP:NEO. Pan Dan 01:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Check WP:OR#What_is_excluded?: none of the article content falls into any of those categories. The closest you can come is the section which first defines the neologism itself, which as we've already determined meets the qualification of having a reliable source: the primary source. (Though notability is not established by that source) Collection of information is never Original Research unless it directs the reader towards a particular conclusion; collecting information, after all, is the very core of Wikipedia.
Dictionary writers take note of usages of a term, or trivial references to it that don't go beyond a definition. It's not what we do at Wikipedia.
Actually, what you're talking about is an encyclopedia entry. A dictionary entry would simply be the raw definition of the term with, at most, a one sentance mention of the term's origin. -- Y|yukichigai 13:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. You appear to be unfamiliar with what dictionary entries may contain. Entries in Wiktionary, for example, may contain far more than "the raw definition of the term with, at most, a one sentance mention of the term's origin". That is a stub dictionary article, as far as a dictionary like Wiktionary is concerned. Full Wiktionary articles may also contain usage notes, translations, pronunciation guides, inflection tables, synonyms, related words, antonyms, homophones, alternative spellings, and multiple quotations demonstrating the word in actual use for each meaning.

This word was rejected from Wiktionary because it could not be demonstrated that anyone independent of its coiner was actually using it in running text. Uncle G 01:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it much matters this late in the AfD, but I believe both Pan Dan and I were talking about actual Dictionaries, rather than the Wiktionary. -- Y|yukichigai 19:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I note further that the synthesis in this article falls under bullet #6 in WP:OR#What is excluded?, as it "introduces ...a synthesis of established facts...in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor" -- viz., that "santorum" has been referenced in various media-- "without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." Pan Dan 15:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Collection of information is not synthesis. Synthesis would be creating new information or conclusions from existing information. Simply gathering information into one place is not synthesis by any means, and in fact, as I said, is the very nature of what Wikipedia is. -- Y|yukichigai 13:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement of WP:NEO that their exist secondary sources about the term in question does not specify that those sources be exclusively about the term, and there are not one but four separate secondary sources (if I count right) listed which talk about the term. It would be counter to logic to assume that there is such a requirement, as I can think of no neologisms (with the possible exceptions of Truthiness and Wikiality) which have ever had entire articles from reliable sources devoted exclusively to the term.
The problem is that the references are trivial. The article is not now based, nor could it be re-written as based, on those references. (Not sure what four references you mean, but every reference listed is either trivial or in a primary or unreliable source.) Pan Dan 15:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for my numbers, they correspond with the sections of WP:NEO going from the top, with #2a and #2b corresponding to the bullet points. -- Y|yukichigai 06:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Third, regarding your point that my nomination relies on guidelines, which you say are "flexible and likely to have exceptions," unlike policy. You're right that the difference between policies and guidlines is that the former may never be overriden, while the latter may. Still, there has to be a good reason to override guidelines -- especially dealing with WP:NEO and WP:N, which are directly based on the policies of WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR. You have given no good reason to override guidelines in this case. Besides, as I explain above, the article in its current form blatantly violates WP:OR. Pan Dan 01:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point is not that the guidelines should be ignored; my point is that guidelines should never be used as the exclusive basis for an AfD nomination. As guidelines are more subject to interpretation, exception, and outright being ignored any nomination that uses them as its sole basis will be on shaky ground at best. If an article really needs to be deleted then you should be able to cite violations of actual Wikipedia policy, rather than the "derivative works" thereof. (as it were) -- Y|yukichigai 01:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are articulating here a pretty idiosyncratic idea. Guidelines are cited all the time as reasons for deletion. Pan Dan 01:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cited, yes. As the exclusive reason for deletion? Well, perhaps in some instances, but just because something worked in one AfD doesn't mean it was correct. My point is that if you can't cite the core policy or at least some other policy as a reason for deletion the appropriate course of action is not AfD, but rather a rewrite or article cleanup. -- Y|yukichigai 06:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I have argued that there is no way to rewrite or source this article in a way that conforms with WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT. Pan Dan 15:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One more comment: Your speculation that the term is less likely to be found in printed sources because it's sexually explicit is both irrelevant and unsubstantiated: irrelevant because sources are a requirement at Wikipedia, and there can't be any "excuses"; and unsubstantiated because the term, its effect, its origins, etc., could be discussed in print without explicitly rendering the definition. Pan Dan 01:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ; the fact that we are talking about a guideline specifically qualifies the use of "excuses", as you put it. The issue of notability to which my statement was concerning will be directly influenced by the relative vulgarity of the word, as it precludes its appearance in certain groups of media. You would not, for example, expect an article on the term felch to appear in the Christian Science Monitor. As for my argument being "unsubstantiated": this is an argument, not an article. I don't need sources for my arguments to be valid; common sense works just fine. -- Y|yukichigai 01:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, we need non-trivial sources to write the article. As for your argument being unsubstantiated, perhaps I used the wrong word. I should have said, maybe, unconvincing. The reason it's unconvincing is, as I said above, that the term, its effects, origins, etc. could be discussed in print without ever rendering the definition. Pan Dan 01:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have non-trivial sources. Obviously you disagree on this point, but I've pointed out, repeatedly, major and significant sources which have discussed or used the term. Combined they form both the justification for notability and secondary sources suitable for the article. -- Y|yukichigai 06:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per "Keep" votes above. - eo 03:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitary section break

  • Keep -- the ridicule engendered in this term was one of the major things that ended Santorum's Senate career. And tell Pan Dan to cool it. The page is 48kb long -- we get the point already, and he's very close to Wikilawyering. Haikupoet 03:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd appreciate it if you took care to address the concerns here instead of suggesting that my attitude has been anything but cool. Your assertion that this term had anything to do with Santorum's Senate defeat is not supported by a single reliable source. Pan Dan 15:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per votes above. this term is frequently used for its defined purpose in my social circule. - Poshua 03:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful - in many ways DelPlaya 07:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per everyone who voted already. If this doesn't meet notability, I don't know what does. (As someone mentioned before though, it should perhaps be made clearer that it is an artificial creation, and not in fact a successful neologism on its own terms.)Ford MF 09:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments above. Notable term. VegaDark 11:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per above. Very, very notable and well-known word that has transcended its origin. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to either Savage Love or Santorum controversy. There are several separate issues here that are not fully teased apart in the discussions on this page. This is a long entry; sorry about that but it's a complicated discussion.
  • Is it the coinage a notable political act?. I think the answer is absolutely clear; yes, it is. The citations in durable media that have been given (without any exceptions that I can see) attest to the political act's notability.
  • Is the coinage successful in that it has entered the language in a permanent way? The article rightly says that this is unknown. The burden of proof is on those who would argue that it has. There is a long list of usage citations on the talk page at Wiktionary; these were all assessed (by an editor there) as failing to come from independent sources. Several people above have made comments to the effect that it has entered the language, but no evidence has been presented beyond the citations which (I would argue) only show the effectiveness of the political act. It also needs to be acknowledged that part of the political action that Savage and his readers are engaged in is explicitly to make the word appear to be in general use. I'm not criticizing this, just commenting that it's evidently so, and that this makes the need for citations in independent sources paramount before any assertion can be made (on WP, at least) that the term has real currency. Without independent evidence, WP should not state that the term has entered the language. We clearly do not have that evidence.
  • Should the political act (and hence the coinage) be mentioned in Wikipedia? The answer is pretty clearly yes; the citations make a strong case.
  • Does it need a separate article? This one seems trickier. Although I don't suspect any particular editor here of not acting in good faith, I have to say that if I were one of the people who followed Savage's exhortation to "get the word out there", I would argue strongly in favour of keeping this as a separate article. That's because that would in turn lend support to Savage's stated goal of having an established word out there to outrage the Senator. However, given that AfD is not a vote, I don't think this is too much of a concern; the closing admin is going to look at the arguments, not the votes.
  • What should the title be, if it's a separate article? I could support a separate article if it were (a) clearly titled in a way that made it about the political action by Dan Savage, and not titled in a way that makes it appear the word has gained real currency, and (b) made clear in the title that the content would be offensive to some. This latter criterion is important for the following reason. Suppose that we title this article "santorum (political act by Dan Savage)". Then on the dab page, someone might click on the article who might be very offended by the content. This is precisely the goal intended by Savage's campaign: to present Santorum's supporters with this offensive material as a jolt. We should present this information in such a way as neither to further nor unfairly hinder Savage's campaign. WP is not censored, so that's not the issue: the issue is that we should not mislead viewers with the title. The current title accurately meets criterion (b), but not (a). A title such as "santorum (political act by Dan Savage)" meets (a) but not (b). The only way of ensuring both would be some title such as "santorum (sexual slang term coined as political act)". That would work for me, but a merge back to Savage Love seems more sensible, because given that the entry is really about a political act, it fits naturally within that article. Mike Christie (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I continue to doubt the notability of what you so aptly call Savage's political act -- still don't see evidence of non-trivial independent sources. However, if the material on the politial act belongs anywhere on Wikipedia, I have to agree it belongs in Savage Love. There is not enough material on the political act to require a Wikipedia:Summary style breakout article from Savage Love. Pan Dan 16:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Pan Dan: at this point, can you honestly say that there will ever be consensus for this AfD? I see this as more of an example of concrete political polarization rather than an actual debate about the deletion of a Wikipedia article. Your thoughts? You’ve been so quiet for the last half hour. Hee. -- weirdoactor t|c 16:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, as for consensus, the closing admin will determine that. As for the arguments themselves, yes, some of them have been going around in circles. However Mike Christie has just come in with what I'd call a middle position; I will be curious to see what folks think of his views. As for political polarization, I have to disagree with you there, I don't see any evidence of that, although I anticipated that many Wikipedians, who travel in liberal social circles, would weigh in with comments like "of course this is notable" -- see 3rd paragraph of my nom. I don't suspect anybody here of bad faith, I just think many folks have an inflated view of the notability of this term because of their social circles. Sort of like movie critic Pauline Kael (a liberal living in New York City) exclaiming after Nixon's 1972 landslide victory (he won every state but Massachusetts), "I don't know how Richard Nixon could have won. I don't know anybody who voted for him."  :-) Pan Dan 17:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • a liberal living in New York City? Seriously? Pan Dan, did you pull that out of the Limbaugh/O'Reilly "phrases used to rile up conservatives" playbook? Dude. I consider myself to be pretty moderate, but that sort of thing sickens me, and muddies my good faith for this AfD, unfortunately. Unless it was a joke. Was it a joke? Please let it have been a joke. -- weirdoactor t|c 18:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've got nothing against either liberals or NYC. I added that because it's relevant to showing how insular her social circle was, which is why, by her own admission, she didn't know anyone who voted for Nixon. It's interesting you mention Limbaugh, because a while back I nominated for deletion an article about a neologism he popularized. Interesting, isn't it, that that article went down without a peep? Pan Dan 18:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a fascist from Brooklyn and even I think it's notable. Ford MF 18:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You think it's notable? As in, "it's notable because all my friends have heard of it and use it"? That's exactly the point I was making by saying Kael lived in NYC -- she had a liberal social network and her view of what was going on in the country was badly skewed for that reason. Had she been a liberal living out in rural Missouri, she would have had a different social network and therefore a different view. In addition, what you say makes me suspect that your concept of notability may be subjective, and, as the venerable User:Uncle G said to me a while back, notability is not subjective. Pan Dan 19:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So because I'm from a blue state I'm unfit to evaluate the notability of this article? As for my "liberal social network", when I said I was a fascist that wasn't a euphemism. I genuinely believe people aren't fit to democratically govern themselves (this debate reminds me why). As to the "subjectiveness" of notability, don't be silly, of course it's subjective. The fact that it's based on "non-trivial" sources, with "non-trivial" left nebulously defined, pretty much assures at least a degree of subjectivity. Clearly the disagreement here is that you believe the article's citations to be trivial, while a good number of disagree. Objectivity, on Wiki as everywhere else, is a goal to be striven for, not something that is ever actually accomplished. Just because the venerable Uncle G says a thing doesn't make it true. Ford MF 04:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. I consider myself to be a bit of a slang/jargon junkie, but I don't recall having heard/read drive-by media before today. -- weirdoactor t|c 18:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you are making my point beautifully. You heard of the neologism "santorum" because you probably have friends who are fans of Dan Savage (or friends who are friends of fans, or, etc.). You never heard of "drive-by media" because you probably don't have friends who are Limbaugh fans. Is your concept of notability subjective too? Pan Dan 19:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So your argument is that because the term isn't universal among all political and cultural strata, it's not notable? Ford MF 04:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh. I have more than a few friends who are "Ditto Heads" and fans of Fox News. I travel in strange circles, being a gun loving social libertarian/fiscal conservative from Texas, living in Illinois. Interestingly enough, I first heard "santorum" from one of those "Ditto Heads"...I've only recently become a fan of Savage, who is surprisingly conservative for a sex columnist. Example: he's still (today, at this moment) FOR the war in Iraq. -- weirdoactor t|c 20:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aarrghh, got me again! I stand corrected, at least in your case :-) Pan Dan 20:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(further comment) I notice, however, that you didn't answer my question. Is your concept of notabilty subjective -- if you think this term is notable, do you think so just because you've heard of it, or because you've examined the sources? You give no sign in your original comment in this AFD. Pan Dan 23:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't answer your question because a) I found it to be a rude insinuation on your part that I chose to ignore and b) it seemed off-topic. I'll answer it now: Yes. MY, me, weirdoactor's concept of notability is subjective. As is yours. As is that of everyone on Wikipedia. Does that affect my ability to follow Wikipedia policy? No. I'm not religious; but I revert vandalism and copy-edit religious articles. Just because my personal beliefs and opinions do not match up with Wikipedia policy, that doesn't mean I am unable to FOLLOW said policy. Again, you assume bad faith; something you seem quite skilled at, Pan Dan. It's getting tiresome, as is your Wikilawyering. -- weirdoactor t|c 23:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilawyering Lecturing, I plead guilty. Bad faith, no way. Your comments so far have made no references to sources, which is exactly what objective notability is about; in fact your original comment made a claim about the neologism that I don't believe is backed up in any source. It was therefore reasonable for me to ask you whether you looked at sources. It wasn't off-topic either; we were discussing the reasons why you thought the neologism is notable. However, since my question clearly offended you, which I had no wish to do, I apologize to you for the offense, and I withdraw the question. Pan Dan 00:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fair point. I also think that we could have a very lively discussion on why some users do/don't find this notable. However, even if one concedes that this term is popular primarily to "liberals", it doesn't have an impact on the sources at hand and the article's assertion of notability, which of course are what this debate is about.--Dmz5 19:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We've already debated the sources and the objective notability of this term, so I won't address those again here. But I agree with the basic point you're making -- the popularity of this term among liberals is irrelevant to the debate itself. However its popularity among liberals may -- just may -- help explain the views of some people in this debate. I suspect no one here of bad faith, but I do suspect that some are reaching their conclusion about this article based on a skewed perception of what's subjectively notable to them, instead of judging notability by looking at the sources as you have, Dmz. Pan Dan 20:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly notable, and widely reported. Perhaps a better name might be found, but this is not the form for doing that. -- The Anome 17:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and fails WP:NEO. Articles like these threaten Wikipedia's integrity and 'seriousness'. Until Britannica and other reliable encyclopedias have an entry for 'Santorum', I say Wikipedia stay clear as well..... -RiverHockey 17:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No, but I believe they leave out 'Santorum (sexual slang)' as to keep a level of professionalism, whereas wikipedia has more articles as a result of good contributors and reliability. 'Nonsensical' juvenile based articles such as sexual slang threaten Wikipedia's integrity. Perhaps a few lines is acceptable but users go too in depth. Look how long the page is.....- RiverHockey 18:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a) Wikipedia's integrity is more damaged by censorship, bad faith, and partisan political deletion, not by inclusion of a notable term that helped unseat a powerful US Senator. b) Look how long the page is? Is article length a reason for deletion? If so, will you do me a favor, and nominate this for deletion? Thanks! -- weirdoactor t|c 17:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentSomehow I doubt the term had little to do with him being unseated...... -RiverHockey 22:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed! I also doubt that the term had "little" to do with him being unseated. It had a lot to do with him being unseated. He lost considerable credibility within his own party at being the...um, "butt" (HA!) of a national joke. I understand why you don't WANT to believe that, based on your particular leanings; but keep in mind, I'm a MODERATE who is defending the term, not some Green Party moonbat. Does that tell you anything at all? -- weirdoactor t|c 22:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I live in Pennsylvania and voted for Casey myself, and the slang terminology 'Santorum' had no impact on my decision. Pennsylvania voted him out because they were tired of him mimicking Bush's views/votes. The sexual slang played little, if any role at all, with his defeat. And, hypothetically, if sexual slang unseated a senator, our nation is very sad. -Yours truly, the voice of reason -RiverHockey 01:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am constantly baffled by the degree to which we tollerate deletion abuse. This is factual, and verifiable. Trollderella 17:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well-referenced, encyclopaedic. I'm having trouble seriously believing it's possible to nominate this article in good faith. WilyD 18:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding both above comments, I have no trouble at all understanding the arguments for deletion, particularly Pan Dan's. I just disagree on a perhaps philosophical level. I truly hope that the tangential injection of an essentially non-partisan politically-oriented discussion above doesn't taint editors' impressions of the good faith in which the delete !votes are being made. --Dmz5 19:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not as familiar with American politics as most Editors, I imagine, so I'll steer clear of that - specifically, the more I read the relevent articles, the more Santorum seems to be a more important politician than I had guessed. That said, I also understand Pan Dan's argument for deletion, but it's factually incorrect in a number of regards. Tangential discussion of politics + lots of delete !votes on a article no reasonable editor could !vote delete for is a highly suggestive situation - I was hoping editors would take a reminder to be objective. I think WJB's noting that:
  1. At its annual meeting in January 2005, the American Dialect Society selected "santorum" as the Most Outrageous Word of the Year 2004
Really says it all. WilyD 20:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, whaddya mean WJB noted the ADS selection? I noted it first! In my nom! Give me a little credit here  :-) Now, would you care to point us to the multiple non-trivial independent media mentions the ADS selection received? or to point out where my argument is "factually incorrect in a number of regards"? Pan Dan 20:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to give you credit for noting it first. I mentioned WJB because I stole his phrasing. Apart from which, you accuse the article of failing WP:N, which is patent nonsense - lots of reasonable coverage have been noted here. Your nomination also says the article fails WP:NEO - again, patent nonsense. Third party coverage has a sort of weird quality to it. Most of the references aren't quite trivial, albeit they are fairly shallow. A lot more comes directly from Dan Savage (which I suspect you'll argue is not a third party source - a position I'm not convinced either way on). Apart from which, as low as my opinion about rotten.com is, it's almost certainly a reliable, third party source (ugh!). WilyD 20:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for articulating what you think is wrong with my arguments. You're conflating coverage, which both WP:N and WP:NEO require, with usage or trivial references. The references are trivial, because they are nothing to build an encyclopedia article on without conducting original research. However, even though I disagree with what you say, I'm not going to call it "nonsense" or "factually incorrect." Neither is my argument, even though you clearly disagree with it. Pan Dan 22:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(comment on rotten.com since you mentioned it specifically --) The rotten.com source is about what Mike Christie called Savage's political act, and is already in Savage Love. Pan Dan 23:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're being far too generous in what you're calling Trivial coverage. Trivial coverage is of a fundamentally differnt nature from Shallow coverage. A large number of shallow sources can be used to build an article, a large number of trivial sources can't. 'Duplication of information is also not a criterion for deletion - lots of articles duplicate information found elsewhere, if only for readability's sake. This also serves developmental purposes and the like. WilyD 22:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the ADS listing I noted in the first AFD that Jesse Sheidlower (the US editor of the OED, who was at that meeting) said that the ADS listing "should not be cited as proof of currency", and went on to say with regard to selection for those categories that "the only criterion is that someone nominates it. Many of the words we select, esp. for categories such as 'most outrageous', are stunt words with no real currency. The nomination or election of a word in one of the ADS words-of-the-year categories has nothing to do with whether the word is truly current." As with all the other citations, this supports the effectiveness of the political act but not the currency of the word. Mike Christie (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the situation is exactly the opposite - the ADS award confers notability (at least partially) WilyD 21:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing can "confer" notability except for being the subject of multiple non-trivial external sources. Pan Dan 22:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hence my comment to the effect of "partially" WilyD 14:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment please close this afd. I don't see consensus to delete coming. Just H 20:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconded This has ceased to be a debate about the deletion of an article (as much as it ever was; it seems more like a re-hash of the 1st AfD), and has become a bully-pulpit for Pan Dan. -- weirdoactor t|c 23:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgive my wikilawyering lecturing (not actually sure what wikilawyering means, so better not plead guilty to it...). Whether this is closed early or not, I promise to make no more comments here unless a new source or proposal comes up. However I'm not the only delete voter here. And I wish especially that folks would respond to Mike Christie's reasonable and thoughtful analysis. Pan Dan 00:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I probably shouldn't even sugest this, but merge to Dan Savage might be a possible solution. --Sable232 02:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Per Agent 86 and others. I heard the neologism used long before I ever heard of Dan Savage, and it has outlived the Senator's current senatorial career. Its notable that a Google search of the phrase "Man on dog" leads straight to the Senator and his Wiki controversy article too. - F.A.A.F.A. 08:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoop-dee-doo on the Google search. The left's beloved "miserable failure" doesn't have its own article on Wiki - the phrase redirects to the Google bombing article. Also, whoop-dee-doo for you hearing the term used in the given context. Doesn't mean it's notable. This neologism is far, far less notable than Fitzmas, which you claimed you'd vote for deletion if it were nominated. Jinxmchue 14:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, you are defending this largely unknown, little used neologism while seeking to delete the article on the much better known and more widely used "idiotarian." I think you need to explain this inconsistency (which should be most amusing). Jinxmchue 15:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just thought this image recently uploaded is an interesting commentary on the editor's position in this discussion.--RWR8189 08:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Non-notable neoglogism. Merge and delete Very, very limited usage - only among small groups of unhinged Republican-bashers. The article seems like a desperate attempt to skirt WP:WINAD. Jinxmchue 14:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my position. I think the article can be condensed down to a paragraph (covering its origin, meaning and handfuls of subsequent uses elsewhere) and merged with Savage's article. Jinxmchue 05:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please remove your personal attack from your Delete vote, and restrict comments to those on the merits of the article, not your views on the personal characteristics of those who voted to Keep. Otherwise you appear guilty of violating WP:NPA. Edison 16:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)*Comment At this point, Pan Dan has posted 4249 words in 51 posts in this deletion discussion, compared to 7285 by all others combined. The article in question, with all references, etc., only amounts to 1,979 words. Edison 16:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Gosh, Jinx. I had no idea I was part of a "small group of unhinged Republican-bashers". I thought I was part of a large group of unhinged moron (Demon-crats, Republiscum, Greenie-Weenie, etc.) bashers. I also thought that there was a policy about personal attacks on Wikipedia. Your vote comments are clearly a personal attack, so I must have been wrong! Thank you for helping me see the light! Yay! Oh, one question: is this a "desperate attempt to skirt" WP:BIO? -- weirdoactor t|c 16:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gosh, Weirdo, I thought I was referring to Savage and the other handful of the loony-toons left who suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome and regularly use terms like this and not to anyone here. You clearly can read my mind better than I can, so I must've been wrong! Thank you for helping me see the truth. Blah blah blah blah blah. 17:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinxmchue (talk • contribs)
  • No, dude; thank YOU for making my points here better than I ever could. Feliz Chrismukkah! -- weirdoactor t|c 17:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Consensus None is going to come, this is just getting ugly now. Close this, please. Just H 17:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per user:The Anome RaveenS 20:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep + I'm Here to confuse and add more info:Proquest has 358 articles on Santorum. But most of them, maybe all even, are on the Person Rick Santorum. For example The Advocate, Los Angeles: Oct 24, 2006. , Iss. 973; pg. 5, 1 pgs, says:
"Would we like to see Rick Santorum skulk out of the U.S. Senate with his tail between his legs? Absolutely. Would we lift a single finger to campaign for Bob Casey? Absolutely not... We realize that we don't speak for every gay and lesbian voter, and we recognize and appreciate the work queer activists in Pennsylvania have done to educate voters about the "pro-family" Santorum and his distinctly antifamily agenda."[2]
There are other articles such as "US government restricts abortions [Santorum Bill]" or "Two Catholic American evangelicals" Anonymous. Catholic New Times. Apr 10, 2005.Vol.29, Iss. 6; pg. 7 says "Santorum is the Senate's third-ranking Republican, the "standard bearer of social conservatives on the Hill," taking the point position against gay marriage, abortion rights and judges who defend either. He meets monthly with evangelical leaders, and his staff regularly taps evangelical broadcasters to mobilize support for their common agenda. Santorum, 46, is said to have presidential ambitions."[3]
(My original research and instinc say:) This sexual dirty santorum article and it's "new" definition may be an attempt to slander the name of a potential presidential elect.
For example, Rick is considered one of the shrewdest players in the front ranks of the faith-based Republican Party George W. Bush and Karl Rove have erected.[4] Ironically, I found this wiki article via a left winged Anti-Americanistic users talk page. His talk page says it all and I think this entire article may be a satirical attempt to insult this politician. Ironically it appears to be vehicled in strict compliance to wiki rules! I don't see anything really bad enough to warrant deletion. The irony is still existant and I could understand why some people may want to delete the article. Take for example Newsweek, New York: Jan 3, 2005.Vol.145, Iss. 1; pg. 89, 3 pgs states "As the third-ranking Republican in a majority soon to expand to 55 members, Santorum is close to the White House, operates one of the largest personal campaign funds and is a point man on hot-button issues ranging from gay marriage to Social Security." I haven't read through this vulgar wiki article but I bet you anthing it is the anti-thesis of Rick Santorum.
The debate will probably continue on for a long time. And I believe it is related to the person Rick Santorum. Newsweek has even said:
“[RICK SANTORUM] had better get used to it. Attacks-from right and left-are sure to rise as he juggles the sometimes clashing roles of Senate power broker and cultural militant. "Rick is going to have to help make sausage like the rest of us," said a fellow Republican senator. "That is going to mean sometimes saying 'no' to the base." Yet he can't do that too often or he'll lose what is distinctive about his political persona.”[5]. Maybe this material should be merged as an with the article Rick Santorum, or maybe it should just stay here, or maybe it should be removed as an attack on Rick. But it seems to meet WP:V, WP:CITE?. So long as we are not saying it! I think wiki should be legally Okay! --CyclePat 06:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I think this article should definitely be on Wikipedia. First, the term does get used often enough and someone will likely look to Wikipedia to explain what it means and where the term came from. In that sense the term is much more encyclopedic than it is a dictionary term. Also the term has gotten used here at Wikipedia to describe one of the high ranking members of the Wikipedia community who does a fairly poor job here. I'm afraid that is probably the alternative agenda behind this AfD. This is just the type of steps these Wikipedia invaders do when they see one of their coconspirators attacked: they circle the wagons. --Listen to the music now 07:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This possibly is a single-purpose account. Jinxmchue 21:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sockpuppet of banned Cplot. MER-C 08:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This one of the best article I've seen nominated for deletion. It should not be merged with Santorum controversy. There is a paragraph in that article about this topic, and that seems about the right weight. It makes sense to go into more detail here. --Samuel Wantman 08:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not a dicitonary. Tbeatty 10:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The usage got significant press and became a factor in the election. I can't see any reason why we wouldn't want this article, which covers the subject thoroughly and with lots of cites. -FisherQueen 13:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add my strong keep to the frothy mixture of keeps and deletes. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't read Dan Savage, but have heard of this. Skeezix1000 17:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, I certainly hope everyone here who's voting to keep this little-known neologism will go here and vote to keep a better-known, more widely used neologism. Jinxmchue 19:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Three things 1)AfD is not a vote, it's a discussion, 2) that AfD is already closed, and 3)Given that that neologism is neither better known nor more widely used, it seems a strange request. WilyD 21:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) Yes, you're right. It's not a vote. Poor choice of wording on my part, though I think it makes my point (which is the important part). 2) The AfD discussion for "idiotarian" was just closed a few minutes ago. Perhaps if people were more consistant, that article wouldn't have been deleted. 3) "Idiotarian" is far and away better known and more widely used than "santorum" or even "fitzmas." That much is obvious. Jinxmchue 21:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad for not checking the closure time. But to say that Idiotarian is obviously more widely known than Santorum is clearly false. I, for one, have heard Santorum in my real life, never Idiotarian or Fitzmas. This may be a regional or political or social or economic thing - as people, all we need to have in common to be here is a basic grasp of English - so what seems obvious to you may not be obvious to others, or even true. That said, I've little doubt some a few "voters" used to Do I know about this in real life test? that although unsanctioned, I see applied often (and have probably applied once or twice myself). WilyD 21:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:My reasoning as well. When I heard the term used on The Daily Show, (and Air America - to a lesser extent) it became 'mainstream' and notable, IMHO. It just got another RS V notable mention : "Should Santorum sign with Fox, they'll probably have to do something about his web presence. The first thing you get when you google Santorum's last name is sex advice columnist Dan Savage's approved definition of "santorum" - "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex." Ewww." TV Squad Dec 12 - F.A.A.F.A. 23:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:IHEARDOFIT does not trump WP:V, WP:RS and other poicies. The nomination is well reasoned, and my review gives the same result: lack of independent reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the fact that the article passes WP:V and WP:RS doesn't enter into it either? WilyD 23:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't, because the sources are not properly independent. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I sort of see your point as far as "The Daily Show" is concerned. I don't know enough about the ADS to comment but surely The Economist is completely independent? WJBscribe (WJB talk) 01:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, for crying out loud, delete as a textbook example of a neologism. Grow up, people. VoiceOfReason 05:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that's the argument they made for the "idiotarian" entry. More people know what "idiotarian" means than know or even care what word some hateful, sex-obsessed nobody decided to define as "the frothy mix of anal lube an feces produced during buttsecks" or whatever. Jinxmchue 07:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strange that is passes Wikipedia's policy on Neologisms as an article that should be kept. Or did you mean This is a textbook example of a neologism that should be kept, but let's delete anyway?WilyD 16:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've implied above in a couple of places that I don't think the term meets WP:NEO. However, I think I have to agree that it does meet the letter of the reliable sources part of that guideline. This makes it an odd case, because it seems to me clear that the term has no real currency, and nobody has presented any evidence that it does -- just assertions. So we have a term that is not a demonstrably successful neologism, but clearly is a successful something. Hence I still feel either a rename or merge is the best answer; the current title is misleading. Mike Christie (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing that my own personal experience that the term has gained currency by the Gay community is insufficient, I went on-line to see if I could find it used that way. A quick search found this and this. Considering the nature of the word's definition, it will be difficult to find much evidence, but I have shown that it is out there. -- Samuel Wantman 19:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of words that are "out there," yet they don't deserve a place on Wiki. A neologism such as this that has very limited exposure to the general public and even more limited usage even among those who know of it is one of those words. Jinxmchue 19:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes you feel better, I'm a conservative, heterosexual foreigner, and I've heard it in the field. WilyD 05:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia has no "policy" on neologism. WP:NEO is a guideline, not a policy, and I find it distressing how many people treat guidelines as Holy Writ: that which passes the guidelines deserves to stay, that which fails them must go. This is not the case and never was, nor should it be. This is a term that was coined as a political attack, and I doubt (despite WilyD's undoubtedly good-faith assertion) that there are any reliable sources that have used the term without the underlying political intent. In a few years, after Rick Santorum has faded into obscurity, if the term is still in widespread use, by all means create an article on the subject, but for now the article is premature at best. VoiceOfReason 06:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, guidelines are not meant to be a rigid standard for evaluating articles; that is why this entire AfD should never have occured in the first place, as the entire justification for the delete is based solely on supposed non-compliance with a few guidelines and a "crystal ball" prediction that the article could not ever possibly meet policy requirements. -- Y|yukichigai 19:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok, so is this afd ever going to end? Just H 19:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per arguments in previous AfD. It's a very notable term that has longevity beyond the former Senator and the controversy that it originated from. Disgusting? Yes. Politically charged? Yes. But wikipedia is not censored and AfD is not a battleground for killing off the politically incorrect. Agne 08:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"...that has longevity beyond the former Senator and the controversy that it originated from." Says who or what? Your crystal ball? Jinxmchue 15:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Dan Savage. The word is a neologism, and the article provides no evidence that it is "sexual slang" rather than a representation of the controversy which Dan Savage created in protest of Rick Santorum's statements. My personal rule of thumb is that if people feel the need to popularize a word, then said word is still a neologism, and shouldn't have its own article here. In the absence of Dan Savage's efforts to popularize the word in a political context, rather than a common use context, this word would be completely non-existent except as a surname. The information contained in this article would also be better presented on Dan Savage in order to keep it in a NPOV context. --DachannienTalkContrib 09:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, more of a Request. I would ask those who have voted to keep this article to consider supporting condensing it and merging it with Savage's article. I now think it is not notable enough to deserve its own article, but can be a part of Savage's. Jinxmchue 15:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though I'd accept Mike Christie's idea of keeping it under a different title, such as his suggested "Santorum (sexual slang activism)". JamesMLane t c 18:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I am surprised there is even a debate about this article - I never usually intervene in these things nor am I too familiar with the Wikipedia policy regarding the notability of articles but I strongly believe this article should be kept. Strangely enough, as a foreigner studying in North Carolina, I heard several people use the term and I even saw someone wearing a t-shirt with the definition on campus. Only months after having first heard the term did I realize Santorum was in fact a senator in PA, as I am not too familiar with American politics. I know my example is a bit extreme but I think it reflects how much the term has infiltrated subcultures on US campuses and in the LGBT community. I think articles detailing the origin of such terms are exactly what make Wikipedia so unique and interesting - which is why I believe, whether you agree with the term or not, these are quite important to keep. Vincentl 18:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment/Suggestion - If you could manage to, say, photograph anybody you happen to spot wearing a Santorum T-shirt it would both provide an excellent GFDL picture for the article as well as providing a bit more evidence to support the notability of the article. -- Y|yukichigai 19:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- appears to be well-cited now, many major media outlet mentions eliminates lack of notability. Don't see why not. Dylan 03:04, 25 December 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Santorum_(neologism)_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138339352"