Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Santorum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents

[edit] Straw poll

  • Comment We might as well continue the discussion here as anywhere else, but it probably should be pointed out at this point the discussion is not really about whether or not there should be an article at the heading Santorum. IMHO there's a clear consensus to "keep" Santorum as an article title. The discussion has now morphed into a discussion which probably should have taken place atTalk:Santorum but might as well continue here, as to the content of that page. Everyone needs to remember that, formally, this AfD formally only advises the closing sysop as to whether or not Santorum should be deleted, and is not binding as to article content.

In order to try to establish a consensus about what happens next, I'm calling for a straw poll here. Add your name to every proposal that you find acceptable (i.e. you can put your name under more than one proposal. Add any comments you think might be helpful. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


While I appreciate the effort, I find this straw poll to not have the right options. For example, I believe that there should be a page, and that it should be moved from Santorum to Santorum (something) but this is not an option in the straw poll. At the end of the day, we need to decide two things separately here:

  1. Do we want an article on the political act called Santorum, wherever we determine it should go (the topic of the AfD); and
  2. If we do want such an article, how should it be disambiguated with respect to the other meanings of Santorum.

Can the straw poll be modified somehow to treat these things independently? -- cmh 00:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear from the votes above that there is no consensus to delete, and that doesn't seem likely to change. I would suggest that there's no need for a straw poll on that. The name of the article is up for grabs, certainly. I've added two more options below that I hope address those. Mike Christie 00:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your view of consensus. However, I still think we have some trouble with the poll, there's two polls in one still. One is on the question of the article title, the second is on the question of the dab page and the dab link on the santorum article. What if we separated into two polls. Article in question should be at: 1) Santorum 2) Santorum (something) 3) Santorum (something else). Then a second poll for DAB: 1) Santorum is the political act 2) Santorum is a dab page 3) Santorum is Rick Santorum and there is a toplink to a Santorum (dab) page 4) Santorum is Rick Santorum and there is no toplink to other pages. For the record I would vote 2 for the first poll, then 3 for the second and I don't think I can do that in the current poll.-- cmh 01:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you can, unless I misunderstand your intent. You can vote in more than one place; dpbsmith above requested that votes be added to every acceptable proposal. So couldn't you put your vote down below under "Santorum should be a disambiguation page, with its "traditional" content" and also under "The article on the Savage neologism should be titled Santorum (neologism)"? I've done something similar with my own votes below. Mike Christie (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Santorum should be an article about Savage's attempt to define the word "santorum"

(as it is currently, mostly as a result of User:Santorummm's edits circa 10 August)

  1. Notable enough as it is on it's own to warrant a small article, per the links/urls that were added. Also, add a reference on the disambig page that leads to Santorum (sexual slang) where this article will live after the AfD. Sort the various Santorums on the disambig alphabetically, with Rick Santorum first as he's the most visible/notable one. No one will have cause for complaint then. But "Santorum" itself should not be for the Senator, it's gotta be the disambig page. rootology (T) 00:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
If I understand the intent of Dpbsmith's straw poll correctly, it asks where the link Santorum takes you, not whether the article on sexual slang should exist at all. If I'm right, I think your last comment means you agree with one of the next two options, not this one. Did I miss something? Mike Christie 00:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant make Santorum the disambig page, Santorum (sexual slang) about the new sexual slang Dan Savage came up with, and then make sure that the Senator's article is first on the list on the disambig page. rootology (T) 00:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. — Coelacan | talk — 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 13:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I can't replicate that result. When I click on the link you provide, I get http://santorum.senate.gov/public/ , the Senator's website, as the first and second links, and the Wikipedia article on the Senator as the third. I don't honestly see santorum-the-slang until I get down to about the fiftieth hit, Jesse Sheidlower's January column in Slate which mentions it about halfway through. Am I doing something wrong or missing something obvious? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
You might have SafeSearch on. I get http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/ as the first result. This in no way means the slang term ought to be considered the primary meaning, I hasten to add. Powers T 18:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
After reviewing the site I linked, I note that while it does use the slang definition, it uses it in the service of a) promoting the definition and b) criticising the senator. I daresay that's evidence toward making the Senator the primary topic rather than evidence against. Ideally, supporters of making the slang term primary ought to be looking for sources that make use of the term as a slang term without reference (beyond perhaps an etymological one) to the senator. I doubt there are very many. Powers T 18:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. - Exploding Boy 17:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Santorum should be a disambiguation page, with its "traditional" content

(I.e. the content it had, with minor changes, from about 22 August 2005 to about 15 July 2006), namely:

Santorum may refer to:
  • Rick Santorum, a United States Senator from Pennsylvania
  • Santorum, a sexually explicit neologism coined by Dan Savage in his column Savage Love
  • Santorum Amendment, an amendment proposed by Sen. Santorum relating to the teaching of evolution in U.S. public schools
  • Santorum controversy, Sen. Santorum's controversial statements about homosexuality in 2003
  1. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Mike Christie 00:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Powers T 02:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. RedRollerskate 02:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. GideonF 18:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Santorum should be a disambiguation page, with some other content (explain)

[edit] Santorum should be a redirect to Rick Santorum, and Rick Santorum should have a dablink...

...with content roughly as follows:

Santorum redirects here. For other uses of "Santorum", see Santorum (disambiguation).
  1. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Kaustuv Chaudhuri. I have modified the text of the dablink to be more standard and neutral as there are other people named Santorum.
    Anyone with an article on Wikipedia? Powers T 02:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    Hmm... No, it appears. Let me amend my comment to say "... as there are other articles, distinct from the slang, bearing Santorum in their titles." — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 02:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Powers T 02:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. RedRollerskate 02:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mike Christie (talk) 09:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes
  7. The Senator is definitely the primary usage here. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I have to chime in to say I definitively oppose this. We generally do not redirect Surnames to the current most famous person. Not Clinton, nor Reagan nor Lincoln. No Kennedy. SchmuckyTheCat 06:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Santorum should be a redirect to Rick Santorum, with no reference to the Savage neologism in the Rick Santorum article

  1. Google shows 3,520,000 hits for "Rick Santorum" -fecal, and 30,700 for "Rick Santorum" +fecal. That seems evidence in support of the redirect. I assume this option still has a dablink to the current disambig page. There seems no reason to pick out this particular meaning from the disambig page and link it directly, instead of one of the other meanings. Mike Christie 00:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Powers T 02:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The article on the Savage neologism should be titled Santorum (neologism)

[edit] The article on the Savage neologism should be titled Santorum (sexual slang)

  1. No evidence has been presented that the term has any currency, as opposed to notability. Mike Christie 00:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Savage neologism needs no article; sufficiently covered at Savage Love#Santorum

  1. Powers T 02:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Mike Christie (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC) . A user who types in "santorum" as the Go word might be seeking the Savage neologism, so whatever page "santorum" leads to should should contain a clearly identifiable link or dablink to Savage Love#Santorum within the first lines of text.

[edit] Other

[edit] Polls are evil

  1. Powers T 02:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC). Especially here; this should be at Talk:Santorum.

[edit] Proposal 1

Well, the straw poll doesn't seem to have come to a consensus. I propose the following, which I see as the most neutral option. Three pages:

  1. Rick Santorum - as at present. With for other uses see Santorum (disambiguation).
  2. Santorum (neologism) - moved from its current position at Santorum. With for other uses see Santorum (disambiguation).
  3. Santorum (disambiguation)Santorum - a disambiguation page with links to Rick Santorum, Santorum controversy, Santorum (neologism) and Santorum Amendment
  4. SantorumSantorum (disambiguation) - a redirect to Santorum (disambiguation)Santorum

That seems the fairest to me given the lack of consensus because no page is given the Santorum name itself and the user is given the choice. -- cmh 04:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree this is a fairly neutral proposal. Before I support, can I ask why you don't suggest that Santorum should redirect directly to Rick Santorum? I thought the standard for having a redirect not go to the dab page, but instead go straight to one of the possible answers, was that one of the answers was much more likely to be the intended target. The Google scores I quoted above seem to me to show a ratio of over 100:1 in favour of hits on the senator vs. hits on the slang term. The fact that the first hit is often the slang term seems likely to be a result of acknowledged Google-bombing. Wouldn't this imply the redirect should be to the senator? As I say, I think your solution is fair, but I'm curious about the standard for the redirect. Mike Christie (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Based on the policy at WP:DAB (see the primary page section) there does not seem to be a consensus among editors that one of the two pages should be primary. This is based on looking at the straw poll and comments on the AfD page. Therefore I propose that Santorum redirect to the disambiguation page per the WP:DAB policy. This has the advantage of fairness and neutrality IMO because if you view the debate as a competition between proponents of Rick and the Neologism then neither is "winning" under this solution. -- cmh
Thanks for the explanation. Mike Christie (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
If I may, your Google searches aren't accurate for what you're trying to show. "'Rick Santorum' +fecal" would only return results where the Senator is mentioned by name. Even "Santorum fecal" would return only results where the slang term was defined. It's difficult to show true currency with a Google search, because if it's really current, it's going to be used standalone, without reference to its origin or definition. Powers T 15:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Frankly I'll support anything meeting these criterion:
A user who types in "santorum" as the Go word intending to find information about the Senator can find it very easily.
A user who types in "santorum" as the Go word intending to find information about the neologism can find it easily.
A user who types in "santorum" as the Go word is not presented immediately with the details of the neologism, but must click on a link, and the link must have some kind of label that communicates that fact that they are about to read about a political attack on the the Senator.
There should be no implication that Wikipedia endorses the neologism as somehow being "the real meaning" of the word. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, except (neologism) is not a good disambiguation word. If the word does indeed become current, we'd have to change the article title! It should be (slang) or something similar. (Note: I actually believe the topic is covered sufficiently in the Savage Love article, but there doesn't seem to be a strong consensus to prevent the slang term from having its own article, so I reluctantly acquiesce to this proposal.) Powers T 13:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
That may be, but I'm not sure slang is right either. Perhaps it would be better to go with (political act) or something. However, we have (neologism) proposed right now and let's see what comes of it before muddying the waters with new proposals. Could we just decide to move the page later should this become an issue? -- cmh 15:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Per LtPowers I'd prefer (political act) or something along those lines, but I don't want to muddy the waters. I also feel that Santorum should go directly to the senator; I think the evidence is all in favour of the senator's notabiity, and I'm not convinced that having Santorum going to the dab page as a compromise is the best answer, though clearly it does avoid anyone 'winning' the implied political debate. So I'm supporting since I think this is a reasonably fair and neutral way out. Per cmh above, we can debate moving the page to (political act) or something later. Mike Christie (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't have strong feelings on whether the word deserves its own article or not. If it makes others happier for it to have its own article OK. There's enough material, and it will probably deserve ongoing updates. (e.g. if there has been a successful recent Googlebombing, that could be noted). I also don't have strong feeling on the title for such an article as long as it is something other than Santorum and agree with cmh that there's no need to decide this now. I wouldn't oppose any reasonable move later. I don't have a problem with either Santorum (neologism) or Santorum (slang) even though I do not think a good case has been made for its actually being current slang. I'll throw Santorum (coinage) into the pot just for laughs, because I'd say a word with a well-known origin traceable to a particular person remains a "coinage" even after it enters the lexicon, e.g. "ecdysiast is Mencken's coinage." But, whatever. My $0.02. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I want to suggest a small correction. I believe that per WP:MOSDAB, Santorum should be the disambiguation page, with Santorum (disambiguation) a redirect to it, rather than the other way around. Powers T 15:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Gah. Ok, you're right. Should we have a second proposal to be very clear? How do you think we should proceed? -- cmh 15:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Just change it. Ignore all rules and all that; we don't need to be a bureaucracy-choked morass here. Powers T 21:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't change it. Santorummm 06:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)