Deletion of Santorum (disambiguation) (2nd nomination)

Comment: per IAR: seems a tidy solution:  (a) someone searching on "Santorum" may be wanting to find out about the neologism, in which case one click from the hatnote takes them to the dab page and a second to the article they want, and (b) the neologism is not given undue weight: readers searching on "Santorum" and wanting to find out about the politician know they have arrived on the page they want and will ignore the link to "other uses".  No harm to anyone, and within spirit of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: Having a disambig page between the word santorum and the man Rick Santorum is the whole purpose of disambig pages, per .  The other option would be to have a hatnote for Santorum (neologism) at the top of Rick Santorum's page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Disambiguation (WP:CONCEPTDAB)

Comment: per  and the arguments made Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santorum (disambiguation)|last time this was nominated in July. The discussion here seems to be a proxy for a hatnote dispute that belongs at Talk:Rick Santorum. The current scenario is a working compromise for those who believe that having a link to the neologism would violate 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Disambiguation (WP:2DAB||WP:BLP)

Comment: there's been a number of opinions voiced that  prevents excessive linking to an article by kooks.  santorum is not a fringe theory, it's a  neologism; policy says neologisms are boring but might have encyclopedic value if there's enough reliable sources on their history and development.   doesn't apply to this discussion.  wikt:santorum has details of use (in printed media!  What is the world coming to?) establishing it as a neologism
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:NEO||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: From   "Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy." There are 1000's of reliable secondary sources that talk about the term or concept of the neologism  so I find
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: WP:TWODABS says if there is no  then the dab page should can stay; if there is a primary topic, then the dab should ''can'' go and a hatnote be added to the primary topic.  This discussion might be better framed in terms of "Is Rick Santorum the primary topic for Santorum?"  The internal links to Santorum have all been disambiguated, so there's no data there to aid a decision.  The top Google hit is for the website around which the campaign for "santorum" neologism focuses.  I can see either argument winning as not being an edifying outcome for the politician
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Disambiguation (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC)

Comment: It is entirely reasonable that someone would search for "Santorum" seeking the neologism, but besides that one and Rick Santorum, there are no other articles that would reasonably be sought using that term. The disambiguation page only exists because of a sentiment that a hatnote linking directly to the neologism would be offensive, and that the neologism article should thus be treated differently from how we would treat an article about a less risque topic, which I continue to believe is a blatant violation of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCENSORED)

Comment: per ; also, most of the terms stem from Rick Santorum anyway. '''Ten Pound Hammer
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Disambiguation (WP:PTM)

Comment: there's been a number of opinions voiced that adding a hatnote to Rick Santorum is a violation of .  There's already a link to Campaign for "santorum" neologism from Rick Santorum.  Excuse my ignorance, but what part of BLP would a hatnote violate? —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: The argument made by Theoldsparkle (hatnote instead of dab page) is perfectly sound as a matter of principle.  As a matter of practice, it's hopelessly unrealistic.  The effort to insert and keep that hatnote would almost certainly fail, and even if successful would require enormous investment of editor time, lasting approximately forever.  The intensity of the desire to suppress any and all information about this topic means that we have to put up with some practical accommodations that wouldn't be necessary if everyone had Theoldsparkle's commitment to 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCENSORED)

Comment: on Rick Santorum pointing to Campaign for "santorum" neologism. Per , "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote". I agree with the nominator that there are only two senses appropriate for disambiguation: the person and the neologism. The others that currently appear are not appropriate because they are either Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial title matches|partial title matches or unlikely misspellings
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Disambiguation (WP:TWODABS)

Comment: Disambiguation is unnecessary per . Hatnote cannot be added to Rick Santorum per  and , and per precedent at September 11 attacks with regards to not linking 9/11 conspiracy theories in the hatnote
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Disambiguation (WP:PTM||WP:BLP||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: nbsp; As per ringe theory, "A Wikipedia article about a fringe theory should not make it appear more notable than it is."&nbsp; The root of the problem here is the existence of the redirect titled {{noredirect|Santorum (neologism)}}, which IMO exists to use Wikipedia for licentious political |advertising.&nbsp; As per WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing."&nbsp; The name of the article is, "Campaign for "santorum" neologism".&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Non-free content (WP:F||WP:NOTADVERTISING)

Comment: there's been a number of opinions voiced that because there's a link to Campaign for "santorum" neologism from Rick Santorum, there's no need for a hatnote or a dab page.  That's not how  works.  Disambiguation pages disambiguate between articles that could reasonably be expected to be found at a given term.  There's a get-out that says a dab page is not needed for a term if
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Disambiguation (WP:DAB)

Comment: Having a hatnote on the top of Rick Santorum that points to a page devoted to the slur is likely not going to happen per  concerns, the same concerns that have kept the campaign and the "frothy" definition out of Santorum's bio.  So those calling to delete in favor of a hatnote may wish to reconsider
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: Highly contentious stuff like this often requires a small, wisely-targeted dose of .  A workaround that is pragmatic (e.g. in keeping drama to a minimum) is much better than one that closely follows policy but is likely to become an even bigger argument-magnet.  DAB is more realistic than hatnote per User:JamesMLane, and is "a useful kludge even though it breaks a number of other common WP practices" per User:Dravecky.  I can't add more than to suggest a careful re-reading of both these editor's posts
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)