Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campaign for "santorum" neologism

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 June 21.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Consensus has been established on this more than necessary - let's not retread a dead horse. Or whatever the saying is. m.o.p 18:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign for "santorum" neologism

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected

csp

|username}}.

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The term "Santorum" was coined as an attack on a living person. Per WP:ATTACK: An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages are subject to speedy deletion. Upon finding such a page, identify it for speedy deletion by prepending the {{

Attack

}} user warning template. Attack pages may also be blanked as courtesy.

Per WP:ATTACK and WP:BLP this page must be deleted. Any mention of "s@nt0r&m" as a neologism needs to be removed as it exists only to disparage Rick Santorum (No I don't support him and think his comments are un-intelligent at best, but I DO support keeping attack pages of the pedia ) KoshVorlon'_Nal^uboutes _Aeria^Gloris 11:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (possibly with additional re-naming / re-focus of article). Ample coverage in reliable independent sources, relating to public figure, can be written in encyclopedic manner without violation of policies. ^Bongo_matic 11:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(
Talk • Contribs) • 9:41pm • 11:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

oh for fuxake... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actually, I think this argument holds water. The sources are clear in stating that the entire Google bomb campaign is an attack by Savage and his followers on Santorum. Therefore, it makes sense that Wikipedia, by its own policies, cannot aid and abet this attack on a living person by joining in in this campaign. Cla68 (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at least as currently titled. Paucity of sourcing (documenting use or employment independent of the issue itself) suggests it is NOT an established neologism and certainly within WP editorial discretion to decline independent treatment as such. Issue can be adequately and appropriately addressed in

Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep (and work on it) 5th nomination .... I saw the previous title to be offensive and participating on the attack. But this one? It does not say the term is real neologism (JakeInJoisey? The previous title really did so). Instead it says someone really push for it. Making it clear, that there is dirty attack on the Senanator in real life and article is just about it, not the word. (If it is not clear from the title - better should be chosen, see bellow) The real life attack is dirty, and it is pretty notable as may be seen by the lists of sources. It influences his career too (without Wikipedia taking part in it), in previous political campaign it was blamed. But the article is written in wrong manner to collect sources and qoutes to bolster the notability, it is not nice one. But effort to rewrite it is just normal cure here. The title should be adressed, it should match the content better. And it should be adressed there, where the debate is ongoing. See:

#Back_to_the_re-naming_issue section. The current title is considered interim a) before we rewrite it to see clearer what would be best fit b) to aleviate the BLP - this title was the best working title not pretending that the neologism has any significance here. But those are concern for RfC and debate, not for AfD here. --Reo ⁺ 12:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Instead it says someone really push for it.

You mean like Dan Savage Google-bomb Attack on Rick Santorum? I'd merge that as well. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Article just survived an RfD that proposed merging it without a redirect, which was functionally equivalent to deletion. It's survived three previous AfDs plus an aborted AfD proposed by this editor while the aforementioned RfD was in process. Based on the RfD voting and previous results, there's not a snowball's chance that this AfD will pass. The "it's an attack page" argument has been advanced repeatedly in the past without success or consensus. The nomination comes close to being
WP:STICK. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The article seems contrary to numerous policies including
WP:UNDUE. It generally seems quite outrageous and maintaining this blatant attack page while the subject is a high-profile presidential candidate seems likely to bring the project into disrepute. Warden (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Token delete, really, since there's probably Not a chance in hell of it happening, but it really is just another front in the Savage vs. Santorum war rather than a legitimate article. I have to wonder what the tune here would be if, say, Glenn Beck coined something like "The Obamalama" as the frothy mixture of something similarly distasteful, and the right-wing blogosphere + FoxNews dutifully reported it and put it into general use. Tarc (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow dog - as in Kosh Vorlon of the Regulon Sector is very dogged in his determination to eliminate the sa-nto-rum quandary of the Galaxy. (ok, but seriously, really again?) (also a dog with snow on his tail is known among the 7 tribes and 2 remnants of Vorlosh 2 as the sign for don't delete because this article has notability and sourcing) -- Avanu (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care As long as the page is renamed to remove those god-awful quotation marks. Reywas92^Talk 13:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, I guess. I'm not thrilled about the existence of this page, but I can't bring myself to !vote delete here. The title change is a (somewhat flawed) step in the right direction, but the article really seems a bit bloated to me, like someone tried to mention every single time someone in the media referenced this campaign. I'd feel a lot better about keeping this if it were trimmed down to the most significant coverage by the most reliable sources available.
talk) 13:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep It's terribly written, probably needs renaming still, but is of a notable prank. There may not be enough relevant stuff to say about this to justify a stand-alone article, but that won't be known till all the irrelevant bloat has been trimmed. It's perfectly possible to write about an attack without becoming part of the attack. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a huge stretch to try to apply attack page policies for biographies to an article covering of an orchestrated campaign at politicized language manipulation. I like the new title for the page "Campaign for "santorum" neologism" as opposed to "Santorum (neologism)" because that is precisely what is of historical import in this affair: the campaign... Not everything in life is sweetness and light, it is not Wikipedia's mission to lend coverage to only that which is wholesome and positive and edifying. The question is whether this coordinated campaign of the 2012 election cycle is encyclopedia-worthy as a historic event. I think there is a sufficient body of published material to demonstrate that it is. Carrite (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article, under its former name (changed to satisfy Santorum partisans), has survived four AfD nominations. It is already well established that the article does NOT violate BLP guidelines. Will requests for deletion become a regular event until the partisans get their wish? Yes, it is becoming very difficult to maintain good faith. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates
WP:BLP * Keep - after reviewing the history and background, changed my opinion on the matter. Santorum has been maligned by this sex advice columnist but does appear to have achieved notability and not a BLP violation. Warfieldian (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. It's not a BLP violation. It's not an attack page. It's a notable topic. It's not terribly written. It's well sourced. We've been down this road before. Trout for the nominator for trying it yet again. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. It's a smear, but a highly notable one (much like
talk) 15:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep as this AfD is clearly against the current consensus for renaming (which has been done twice now as an 'interim measure') and reviewing the content. Those are currently being actively discussed on its Talk page. I have no idea how this AfD can be justified at this point in time, especially by someone who hasn't been taking an actually active part in the Talk page discussion. His/her confusion seems to be between an actual attack page, and an article describing a notable attack. There's a difference. Flatterworld (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that. You and I may not have agreed much on the article's talk page, Flatterworld, but you've hit the nail on the head with this one. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And groan. The subject of the page passes
WP:N. What is needed now is editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep. Opening an AFD right after a weeks-long RfC with feedback from over a hundred editors (including Jimbo Wales) closed with a consensus to keep the article is a severe case of
back slowly away from the horse carcass and close this nonsense. elektrik SHOOS 16:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep Current name is per consensus, is notable, and when the
Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, one of the worst misinterpretations of BLP I've ever seen. An article about an "attack" is not an "attack" itself, nor even is the term itself an attack in the sense of a negative and/or false factual statement about Rick Santorum. Even if it were, it is not a BLP violation to cover notable negative false statements made by third parties and reported upon by reliable sources, as noted above by Khazar (e.g.,
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth). postdlf (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep. Article passes
WP:NPOV criteria: nor, as said above multiple times, is it a BLP violation. This has been established by four AfD processes so far -- nothing has changed recently, and merely repeating AfD nominations over and over is not a reasonable response to this. -- The Anome (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
This will no doubt be kept, but the rationale above is largely bullshit, as a coterie of like-minded editors do not get to decide what is or is not a BLP violation. It has been said before and bears saying again; local consensus should not be allowed to override Wikipedia policy. Tarc (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that consensus is what decides Wikipedia policy in the first place (including
WP:BLP) I find your rationale interesting. elektrik SHOOS 17:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
What part of "local consensus" did you find confusing? Tarc (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Local.. under your tone, it would be hard to decide, when the consensus ceases to be just local. Is full fledged RfC local or not? Centralized RfC would be? Proposal to change policy is local if the number of people attending it is small? How you would be deciding hierarchies of policies. Consensus is consensus, the only viable thing, it is not determined by number of votes.Reo ⁺ 17:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, there was an
RFC that closed last week that determined that the article should not be deleted or merged/redirected.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2011 (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.