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 Keep. There is substantial support among established commenters that this word has now reached encyclopedic notability. The name "Santorum" will be redirected to the Senator, as I think consensus and common sense demand. There is widespread support for Santorum (neologism) as a renaming, but neologisms don't belong in Wikipedia: the result of this debate thus compels a different title. Santorum (sexual slang) is adopted as the most popular option consistent with WP:NOT. The question of how, exactly, to disambig. (a delicate matter, considering the Senator is deserving of personal respect, per BLP), I will leave to talk page discussion. Xoloz 15:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The neologism referred to, created by Savage Love, does not have any evidence of real currency as a neologism. It should be treated as a political act by Savage Love, and described under that article. Giving it a separate article implies that it is a generally accepted neologism. Mike Christie 03:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note there have been prior AfD's; see Revision as of 03:21, 23 Oct 2003 (immediately prior to first deletion) and Revision as of 00:04, 28 Nov 2003 (immediately prior to second deletion). The current talk page also has a lot of relevant discussion; this is apparently because the talk page was not moved when the current article was created after moving the prior Santorum page (though I can't swear that's the sequence of events).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike Christie (talk • contribs) 13:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Change to Keep and rename, per various notes below. I agree it's notable; my complaint is really about the listing as a neologism when I don't see any usage evidence, only notability evidence. I also agree it probably deserves its own article now, rather than just a section in Savage Love. Per Kaustuv Chaudhuri, I think Santorum should go to the senator, and I also agree that the article should discuss the impact or political action; the coinage and its meaning should be given but not treated as being in current usage. (With reference to a couple of suppositions below, my objections to this are all about currency, not politics.) I'm also not sure what to call the article -- I suppose "Santorum (neologism)" is the best idea, though I'd really like to see something that doesn't imply the usage is widespread. Barring a better wording I'm happy with "Santorum (neologism)". Mike Christie 00:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Santorum (sexual slang) might be a more fitting home for it--do some Google sweeping for it, you'll see it's already creeping up all over the place as a reference. rootology (T) 00:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There is absolutely no reason to delete this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Santorummm (talk • contribs) 03:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails notability for neologisms. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 03:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: while I would not be averse to a redirect to Savage Love, it should be noted that Santorum meets WP:NEO, "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." The American Dialect Society selected it as most outrageous word in 2004.[1]. Recommend a redirect of Santorum to Rick Santorum with a dablink from Santorum (disambiguation) to Santorum (neologism) or Santorum (terminology), i.e., this article. Note also that the AfD banner has been repeatedly removed out of process. I have reinserted it, but it may disappear again. No vote. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 04:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Prior to the creation of the current article, Santorum was a disambiguation page (now at Santorum (disambiguation). User:Santorummm appears convinced that the slang term is far and away the primary usage of the word, but I strongly feel that Santorum should be a disambiguation page, as it was before. Powers 12:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatever the case, Santorum should not be the disambiguation page, but should be redirected to Rick Santorum. There is no way in hell the neologism is more notable than the senator. Also recommend that the def in Santorum (disambiguation) be severely toned down. In its present form it's an attack. I also recommend that the Santorum (neologism) article (that should not have been prematurely created and redirected to Santorum as that's the wrong direction) should describe the impact of this coinage, rather than the coinage itself. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 18:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as Santorum (neologism) per Kaustuv Chaudhuri Msalt 06:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kaustuv Chaudhuri. The American Dialect Society gives it currency.Agne 09:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: with regard to the ADS citation, I contacted Jesse Sheidlower, who is a member of the ADS and was at the meeting at which the word was nominated. (Jesse is Editor-at-Large for the Oxford English Dictionary.) I'd like to introduce his comments into this debate, not as a final authority, but as informative. If they are relevant but regarded as needing verification I'll see what I can do about making them verifiable. Anyway, he said that the ADF 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." Finally, I asked him if he personally thought the word had currency, and he said "I don't think it has any real currency". Personally I think the nomination supports the notability of the political act but does not support the currency of the term. Mike Christie 14:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above, but move to a proper disambig. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Adequately covered in Savage Love#Santorum. Powers 12:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as [[Santorum (neologism}]]. RedRollerskate 14:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, term has become widespread, possible politically-motivated nomination. BoojiBoy 15:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. (italicized comments from the WP:NEO talk page) In my opinion, an article about the political act is verifiable if there are news citations. The word 'santorum' is clearly an integral part of that act, and its usage and meaning within the context of the political action is verifiable from the news sources [so within context it is a verifiable neologism]. However, it would not be OK to go around adding santorum as a technical term within articles on, say, anal sex (although again mentioning it within the context of the political act would be ok). Regarding whether it should be merged, an article for a political act by a notable person is distinct from other articles concerning the person, and I think that Santorum has a life separate from its genesis in Savage Love. The article, however, should focus on the act, and not just on a dicdef or it is inappropriate for WP. At this point it has some historical information, etc. and therefore I think it can stay. -- cmh 15:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am neutral on the best name for this article. Although I voted keep I would also support Santorum being a dab page with a link to an appropriate name for the page in question. -- cmh 21:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak rename to Santorum (neologism). Santorum should lead to the disambiguation page or to the Senator's article. A couple more good sources wouldn't hurt the article, I think it's on the edge of WP:NEO. Ryanminier 16:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — As someone who used wikipedia to find out what the heck Santorum meant when I came across it maybe a month or so this page would have been ideal. A google search for santorum fecal yeilds 23,700 results. Certainly notable enough. - Glen 18:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree. Name should remain. The word has grabbed hold in the culture. It is clear why people want it to go away, but this is nothing more than knee-jerk linguistic stuffiness born from the idea that language stands still. "Santorum" has meaning, is generally used, and should remain at wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.253.139.93 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/rename to the neologism version and add to the disambiguation page. "Santorum" as a name should not go right to the senator either. rootology (T) 00:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Additional news sources citing the Santorum in question, proving it's notability: [2], [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1678249/posts], [3], [4], [5] rootology (T) 00:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. Also, while I am admittedly a big fan of both Dan Savage and The Stranger, he is its editor in chief, and thus has a pretty big sway over what it publishes. Using it for a source of the term's prevalance should be taken with a healthy grain of salt. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 05:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as Santorum (neologism) or Santorum (sexual slang) or some such. Santorum should redirect to the Senator, who is much more notable than all other uses combined. JamesMLane t c 08:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's interesting, it's informative, it's accurate. There's no good intellectual justification for deleting it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quentinmatsys (talk • contribs) .
• Delete the existing content and restore Santorum's status as a dab page for the following reasons: Dpbsmith (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, people wishing information on the Senator should not be required to type in his full name in order to escape the full details of a (richly deserved but) very non-neutral attack on the Senator.

Second, there is still no evidence of any significant use simply to refer to the frothy mix. I'll believe we need a separate article on the word when I see it in lower-case in my drugstore on the package of a personal-care product (e.g. "Also works on santorum stains!" )

Santorum-the-neologism is inseparable from Savage, and its description belongs in Savage Love. It is as others have said, a notable political act, but not yet notable as a real word. It is simply not in the same class as "derrick" or "boycott" or "Web 2.0." The word is used only to provide an opportunity for explaining it (thereby delivering the attack).

The well-thought out previous compromise was for Santorum to be a disambiguation page which was carefully calculated to serve a) those seeking information on Rick Santorum—some of whom, strange as it seems, might well be admirers of the Senator and justifiably offended at being directed to the neologism; b) those seeking information on the neologism. The wording of the dab page was carefully chosen so as to make the general nature of the attack clear, without actually subjecting readers explicitly to the attack itself until and unless they followed the link.

I don't understand how anyone can fail to see the violation of neutrality involved in using the Santorum article to further Savage's political agenda. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and per Dpbsmith, and the definition box right up there in front seems irregular, almost as though it was being advocated as truth.....(cough WP:V cough)Homestarmy 15:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, widespread use (maybe not in context, but more along the lines of "Did you hear what they named after him?"). However, should be moved, and this should be a dab page. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 15:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as dismbiguation page. The concept may be inseparable from Savage, but many users will search on it without using his name, just as many users will search on Senator Santorum by last name only. A tactfully-worded disambiguation is the best answer. The Savage-related link could be to a section within the Dan Savage page rather than to a separate article if that's preferred.DanB DanD 19:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: That's exactly how it was before User:Santorummm got involved. A tactfully-worded disambiguation at Santorum with links to the Senator's article and to Savage Love#Santorum. Powers ^T 23:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% that a reader curious about santorum-the-frothy-mix shouldn't need to know that it was coined by Dan Savage or that it appeared in Savage Love. However, we don't know what a user who types in "santorum" as a Go word is looking for. If a user searching for information on the Senator... particularly one of the Senator's supporters... types in "Santorum" as the "go" word, he or she should not be subjected to material which he or she might find offensive... should not, if you like, be subjected to symbolically being soiled with santorum! The obvious solution is for Santorum to be, as before, a disambiguation page which a) makes clear that "santorum" is a sexually explicit neologism, b) makes it easy for the reader who wants to know what it means to find out, and c) also makes it easy for the reader who does not want to know what it means to remain ignorant of its meaning. It's not Wikipedia's job to force awareness of Savage's opinion on anyone. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a separate issue from having an article on the frothy-mix meaning. Your standard (which I agree with) would be met if Santorum were a dab page, referring people to Rick Santorum and to Santorum (neologism) without saying exactly what the neologism meant. Your standard would also be met if Santorum redirected to Rick Santorum, and the latter had a note at the top along the lines of, "For the use of Rick Santorum's last name as sexual slang, see Santorum (neologism)." I'd be satisfied with either of those alternatives, but I think the latter is preferable, because most of those typing in "Santorum" will want the Senator's article. JamesMLane t c 15:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these are perfectly fine with me. I tend to agree with your judgement that Santorum-redirects-to-Rick Santorum-and-Rick Santorum-dablinks-to-the-neologism almost certainly gives more users what they seek in fewer clicks. It's tricky, though, because someone who types in the full term Rick Santorum probably is not looking for the neologism. On the one hand, it doesn't seem right to have Santorum be a dab page that seemingly gives equal weight to both disambiguations; on the other hand, it seems a little inappropriate to put a frothy mixture of you-know-what right at the top of the Rick Santorum article.

There are currently four items listed on Santorum (disambiguation); your second suggestion does not address what to do with the other two items. (In other words, the hatnote should link to the disambiguation page, rather than directly to the slang article.) Powers ^T 17:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other terms don't really belong on the dab page, because they are not commonly abbreviated to "Santorum," but I've always thought they added value to the page—someone typing in Santorum might well want an overview of all articles with Santorum-related content. And, quite frankly, I've thought they served a useful purpose in diluting the santorum, so to speak; the dab page is 75% devoted to material about the Senator and only 25% to the notable attack on the Senator. Just my $0.02. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Are the users who are editing at Rick Santorum in on this debate? Surely they will have an opinion about the dab setup? This conversation has gotten much wider than just simple deletion of a page and once this AFD has closed there will not be an obvious venue to continue the debate. I will add something to their talk page. -- cmh 19:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notified the Dan Savage folks as well in the spirit of fairness of recruiting people to an AfD. -- cmh 19:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same note added to Savage Love, where this originated, and where the term is also mentioned. rootology (T) 19:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge into Rick Santorum Ashibaka tock 22:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if you mean merge the article on the sexual slang into Rick Santorum, then this is an invalid vote. Read WP:BLP#Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors: "Criticism should be [...] about the subject of the article specifically." The sexual slang is not about the senator specifically. Alternatively, if it isn't a criticism of the senator, then it does not belong in his article. WP:BLP is a much bigger deal than any minor benefit to merging these articles, and might invite accusations of libel. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and do not change name. Surely Senator Rick Santorum is not now and will not ever be the only "Santorum," so redirecting Santorum to the article on the good Senator seems unreasonable, and is likely to prevent readers from accessing information on santorum, since anyone entering simply "Santorum" as a search term is unlikely to be looking for the Senator. There is absolutely no doubt that this term deserves its own article and is notable enough to warrant one. Exploding Boy 04:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You may wish to vote in the straw poll (see below); it seems the consensus is going to be to keep the article, but the question of what should direct where and how the disambigs should link has several answers, which is what the straw poll is trying to ask about. Mike Christie (talk) 10:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and do not change name. A Google search reveals the neologism to be the first result on Google. At this point, lots of people have heard "santorum" in a slang context only, without knowing who the Senator is. Only Pennsylvanians and politically attentive Americans know who Senator Santorum is, but people around the world know "santorum" as sexual slang. — Coelacan | talk 14:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC) UPDATE: In order for this search to work, Google SafeSearch filtering has to be turned off for your computer. This can be done by changing your Google preferences. The above search link has been altered by adding "&safe=off" to include a temporary off-switch for SafeSearch. — Coelacan | talk 23:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's relevant that Dan Savage asked his readers to Googlebomb the term, and deliberately move it up to the top of the list. Here's the article where he does so. As a result, I don't think we can deduce anything from which is first on a Google search. Mike Christie (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That the first result is an effect of Googlebombing is certainly relevant. I disagree that we can't deduce anything from it, however. We can deduce something very simple: more people have linked "Santorum" to the "frothy mix" than to the Senator's home page. That's actually saying quite a lot, considering all the political websites (neutral and pro-) that must be linking to the Senator's page, and all the mainstream media sites that link to the Senator when they cover him, etc. There are so astoundingly many links to the Senator's home page as to have made it the number 2 result out of "about 4,580,000" yet all those links have been outvoted, plain and simple. — Coelacan | talk 23:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ninth Google result is also "the frothy mix," at Urban Dictionary, which was not part of the Googlebombing but certainly reflects currency. — Coelacan | talk 23:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP: Defining Santorum thusly, as it is used on the street, is no different than using the term "Comstockery" which is now used in everyday parlance. In this instance, the name of a conservative prude had taken on negative connotations because of his condemnation of certain acts. It is no different, and I'm certain the Comstock family has long survived the realities of the polysemous nature of discourse. And I'm a Santorum supporter.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.253.139.93 (talk • contribs) .
  • As I mentioned here, we don't have an article on Comstockery either. This is not a term in common use on the street, except as a laugh and snicker. Or, if you claim it is, perhaps you have some reliable sources? Powers ^T 20:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think "comstockery" was a term that had its currency sometime, I dunno, between World War I and II. I don't believe I've ever heard it spoken aloud... but then the last time I think I heard the name Anthony Comstock spoken aloud was in the mid-1960s when I attended a performance? lecture? recitation? by Ogden Nash, when he recited the poem about how "Senator Smoot / Republican, UT / Is planning a ban on smut." Dpbsmith (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Santorum (neologism). Santorum should become disambiguation. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The neologism is more popular than the senator and should take precedence. Throw 08:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If by "more popular" you mean "better-liked", you could be right. I think the senator is clearly more notable, though; Google shows 3,520,000 hits for "Rick Santorum" -fecal, and 30,700 for "Rick Santorum" +fecal. Mike Christie (talk) 10:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, no, not better liked by any means. I mean more popular in the sense that santorum the excrement is more noteworthy than the senator. Since we're using Google, "santorum" the excrement is the first thing listed and the senator is the second. That's what I mean more popular. It has nothing to do with personal feelings. Throw 16:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because Google Web hits are easily manipulated, I'm going to try the same test on Google Groups (i.e. USENET) which theoretically is easily manipulated too, but people rarely bother, and Google Books, which is quite hard to manipulate (but due to the time it takes to write and publish books has a time lag). I don't know yet how these tests will come out. If santorum sensu Savage exceeds the Senator on Usenet, and has at least a respectable showing in Google Books, then I'll agree that the neologism has taken hold. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, for starters, I can't replicate Coelacan's results. Using the same link he cited, I get Senator Rick Santorum's senate website as the top hit... and Wikipedia's article as the third... and I don't quickly spot Santorum in Savage's sense anywhere in the first fifty or so entries. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I didn't realize this earlier, but Google SafeSearch filtering has to be turned off for your computer. This can be done by changing your Google preferences, or you can use this link which has been altered by adding "&safe=off" to include a temporary off-switch for SafeSearch. — Coelacan | talk 23:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I may not know exactly what to look for, but in Google Groups a search on Santorum appears to be overwhelmingly references to the Senator, not the substance. This is very significant to my way of thinking because many of the references to the Senator are very negative, so this is a venue where you'd expect to see the Savage neologism if, in fact, it were really current. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In Google Books, santorum -fecal yields Books 1 - 100 with 5210 page. santorum fecal yields "Your search - santorum fecal - did not match any documents." "dan savage" yields Books 1 - 94 with 94 pages on "dan savage," which is a very respectable number of hits for Books and confirms that Dan Savage is notable, not that I ever doubted it. "dan savage" santorum yields a single hit, and the page in question is a 2003 quote from Savage criticizing Santorum which appeared in the New York Times, but has nothing to do with the neologism.
      • At this point I am utterly unconvinced that the neologism has gotten real currency, and I have no idea what people were talking about when they said Savage's neologism was getting more Google hits than the Senator, unless it was a short-lived successful Google manipulation. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is. In the long view, the word will outlive the Senator. As a second option, Santorum should go to a dab page. SchmuckyTheCat 17:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per dpbsmith. No evidence of widespread usage. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete covered in two other places even though it has no widepsread usage--Tbeatty 07:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in some fashion - Has reached the fuzzy threshold of what I consider a generally accepted neologism. Cyde Weys 15:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's in wide usage (not sure how anyone is saying its not, just google). rootology (T) 20:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The overwhelming majority of Google hits are along the lines of "Hey, here's a neat word Dan Savage made up to make fun of Rick Santorum" rather than usages of the word in its intended context ("Man, I had to clean up a bunch of santorum before I could get to sleep last night"). I'm not sure if the former category really qualifies to indicate something is "in wide usage". Powers ^T 22:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

→ straw poll (moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Santorum#Straw poll as AfD is not the place for it. The straw poll asks about the preferred name for the article about the sexual slang term, and about where the link Santorum should go, and what the contents of the disambig page should be.)

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.