Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Santorum (neologism)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[Santorum]] should be an article about Savage's attempt to define the word "santorum"

message: (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
# Dpbsmith (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Santorum]] should be a disambiguation page, with its "traditional" content

message: ...with content roughly as follows:
# Dpbsmith (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Santorum]] should be a redirect to [[Rick Santorum]], and [[Rick Santorum]] should have a dablink...

message: # 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)
thread_title: [[Santorum]] should be a redirect to [[Rick Santorum]], with no reference to the Savage neologism in the [[Rick Santorum]] article

message: #No evidence has been presented that the term has any currency, as opposed to notability. Mike Christie 00:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The article on the Savage neologism should be titled [[Santorum (sexual slang)]]

message: # Powers T 02:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Savage neologism needs no article; sufficiently covered at [[Savage Love#Santorum]]

message: # Powers T 02:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Polls are evil

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Don't change it. Santorummm 06:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion