Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 8

message: I have yet to find good guidelines for this.  Are there notability guidelins for statements, sections, paragraphs, etc. that are within articles.  The problem arises frequently with WP:BLP.  "Controversies du jour" get added even if they generate very little impact and stop being discussed completely after a couple weeks.  However, once added and persisting for a while they become very hard to remove even if trivial.  The end result is that a lot of BLP (especially of controverstial figures) end up with litanies of minor non-controversies, trivial events, etc. that become very hard to remove.  I would love to get some help from more experienced Wikipedians. Thanks. --Rtrev 05:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To my understanding, notability is about what subjects can be included. The weighting of subjects within an article is more a matter of "undue weight" explained at WP:NPOV. Trebor 07:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There are also references to this sort of thing at Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources in articles about themselves and at several places in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. —Centrx→talk • 22:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability of elements within articles

message: I disagree that notability and newsworthiness are different concepts.  I'd like to see the argument that they are discussed here. Wjhonson 19:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, by that, it means that notability isn't about whether the subject is in the news at the moment, whether much is currently heard about it. Older or more obscure topics may never have been in the news, or may have been in the news but are no longer "current"; this doesn't mean they aren't notable. Trebor 19:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In a truth table, there are four positions.  You are arguing one of them, that is, that, "not newsworthy does not imply not notable."  But the effect on the main page is that all four positions are equally false.  I'd like to hear the argument that says "Newsworthy does not imply notable." Wjhonson 18:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you like to hear this argument? (I'm not intending to be critical, I am seriously curious... I'm in a discussion with some others concerning this issue as well.) Sancho McCann 18:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has quite a bit to do with several things. First, encyclopedic notability is different then newspaper notability. A "flavor of the week" or "human interest" article might sell a few papers (or at least fill a few inches on a slow news day), but it's not of the lasting or historical interest necessary for encyclopedic notability. A "cute" story might similarly make several papers through the AP newswire (again, especially on a slow day), but again, probably not of the lasting or historical interest necessary for encyclopedic notability. The big problem here is, when many papers run a story (especially, through AP, run the exact same story), a news event might very technically satisfy "multiple non-trivial secondary source coverage", and yet there will not be enough coverage to write any more then a stub stating "This happened once", nor will there ever be. Finally, we have a project for news coverage, but anyone coming here to do it typed the wrong URL. The correct URL is here. If we allow coverage of run-of-the-mill "news" events here, we damage our sister project-just as we would damage Wiktionary by allowing dicdefs. We also damage our own project, by allowing in things that are outside our scope and that we're not well-equipped to handle. Seraphimblade 18:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would people be open to making the criteria stronger than simply the requirement to be in multiple, non-trivial... etc. sources? Could we work in something saying that certain types of news coverage are trivial, or that coverage must extend over a certain period of time? Or perhaps not allow coverage in daily publications to count as a non-trivial coverage. This way, only subjects that are important enough to end up in at least a weekly publication (Time) could establish notability solely from "newsworthiness", which in the case of a weekly publication would be a stronger argument.Sancho McCann 18:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would generally think that coverage in Time or Newsweek would be a far stronger assertion of historic and lasting notability then coverage in the Podunk Daily News, provided that the coverage is a full piece and not just a brief. A proposal is currently in the works at WP:NOTNEWS. Seraphimblade 18:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * American Heritage® Dictionary Definition of newsworthiness: "interesting enough to the general public to warrant reporting".  This is fairly similar to the definition for notability in the guideline "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice".  The link from this sentence goes to a paragraph where the concept of newswothiness is not discussed but permanence is discussed, so based on the above discussion leading to this conclusion, I made the change at the project page --Kevin Murray 04:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  We agree right down the line.  That's why the term "newsworthiness" is so weak and ambiguous. --Kevin Murray 05:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Newsworthiness

message: Are online petitions ever notable enough to be included in an article?  I don't think they are unless they are proven to be successful.  If they're not successful, are they notable?  Maybe if there's media coverage of them, but I think this would be a case of something the media would cover but an encyclopedia would not. Шизомби 23:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability of online petitions?

message: :::Guy, since it just popped up on DRV, how are you reconciling your view on Uncle G with your prior opinion on the Marsden-Donnelly case? ~ trialsanderrors 03:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was mostly about the article being used as part of an attack on a living individual.  I am still of the opinion that it is not a particularly important case, editors who study law have not said it is used in legal texts, for example.  It all hinges on whether one equates sensationalist with non-trivial, I suppose.  Guy (Help!) 09:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually that pretty much drives my point. Your claim now is that the factual basis for the article, which passes the pnc with flying colors (about 40 newspaper articles on the subject, ongoing national coverage including multiple Toronto area and national papers like The Globe and Mail), is insufficient to establish neutrality. This is exactly my claim what the pnc is missing right now, and what the specialized notability guidelines have to do, independent of the pnc. It seems your argument draws from the fact that the case did not become a legal precedent, which is nowhere near what the pnc requires. ~ trialsanderrors 21:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * No, what I'm saying is that non-trivial coverage of a legal case means critical review of the case and the precedents it sets.  Sensationalist reporting of the case does not seem to me to amount to anything above the trivial.  If, say, The Times or the BBC legal correspondent discussed the case in some detail, or even if it was featured by Marcel Berlins on the pop-law programme Law In Action or some such, I would almost certainly count that as non-trivial.  So: we look at the coverage and assess whether it contains substantive critical review of the case, or simply repeating the facts (which is the job of Wikinews). Maybe it does, here, I don't know. My major problem was the WP:BLP issue. Guy (Help!) 19:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Ignoring your unsupported weaselword "sensationalistic", your ignorance of the basic facts of the case is quite astounding. First, this was not a legal case. The case was decided in mediation, agreed upon by both parties, a priori and a posteriori. Second, the case was primary case for various op-eds on sexual harrassment by reputable media outlets. Third, the sheer amount of coverage exceeds even the most extremist reading of the PNC: Coverage was national, ongoing, headline-making, and picked up by reputable media outlets covering the Canadian political spectrum, none of which disagree on the key facts. Newsbank has 16,000 words on the case in 1997 alone, and that's only from broadsheets. Fourth, there is no "must set legal precedence" criterion anywhere in WP:N, and it clearly clashes with the PNC which has no such provision. The case is included based on its newsworthiness, and we have a Front Page box that makes it clear that newsworthiness by itself is a criterion for inclusion. You're simply constructing a new criterion for yourself in order to cope with your squeamishness about the subject matter, but it has nothing to do with either the PNC, or any other established notability criterion for that matter. ~ trialsanderrors 20:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sensationalism and notability

message: This discussion here is being used to force changes without related consensus at WP:WEB, WP:BIO, and WP:MUSIC.  I would appreciate if some editors would give their two cents regarding the issue at those related talk pages so we can put that part of it to rest. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Related dispute

message: Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations) under topic 4: Placing the 'bar of notability.' This may be of interest to those discussing standards for notability, with ongoing debate about the {{WP:ORG]] proposed guideline Assertion of notability: The following cannot be used to assert notability: 2)Student run papers since it hinges largely on whether student-run independent college newspaper can ever be considered reliable and independent sources to establish the notability of groups on campus. Edison 21:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about groups loosely affiliated with the campus but not actually on the campus?  I'm thinking companies started by alumni, etc.  ColourBurst 04:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: College newspapers and notability

message: As I removed the following edit, I'm placing it here for discussion:
* "One of a series", meaning not necessarily hugely notable in himself but an integral part of a set or list of people whose individual entry may be expanded by others.
For my part, I believe this is ambiguous and nearly meaningless. A series of what? I'm one of a series of people, and I actually have a notable ancestor, but that doesn't make me or any of his other descendants notable. Nor might every part of a series be notable-for example, if one issue of a relatively obscure comic creates a huge controversy, that doesn't make every comic in the series notable-just that one. Seraphimblade 07:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am hugely in favour. For example, one in a series of Peers or Baronets, or (Lord/Deputy) Lieutenants of County Armagh, or Lord Mayors of London or Colonels in chief of a Regiment or Air Marshalls of the Royal Air Force. Having a notable ancestor or being the owner of a prescriptive title would not in itself be adequate. - Kittybrewster 07:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not even entirely sure all of those there would be notable-certainly the top royal family get a lot of coverage, but do all the lesser ones tend to get secondary source coverage? (It's entirely possible they do, just asking.) If they get that coverage, it's a nonissue anyway, they all pass on that. If not-well, then they're not all notable. Seraphimblade 08:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed change

message: Notability seems to be one of the most important guidelines for Wikipedia articles.  If a topic is not notable, reliable, verifiable sources frequently don't exist.  If a topic is not notable, few or no future editors will improve the article.  If a topic is not notable, sufficient sources to make an NPOV article are unlikely to exist.  Et cetera.
Considering the importance of notability to Wikipedia, I believe it should be mentioned in the MediaWiki:Newarticletext template.  What are other's thoughts? Lyrl    Talk     C   00:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should notability be mentioned in the new page template? 

message: I am also posting this question at the help desk, but anyway, the question is, what are the notability guidelines for buildings and structures? I'm asking because I would like to create pages for numerous skyscrapers and don't know whether they'd be considered notable. The points for are:
*Each of them has been a subject of numerous newspaper articles and received non-negligible media attention outside the internet.
*Each skyscraper in question is unique, but may or may not have symbolic value for its location.
However, it still seems strange that nearly all unique/named (mostly this means non-residential) skyscrapers above 100m height should have their own pages, which will be the case if I start creating the articles (talking about skyscrapers in Israel). So, does anyone know any notability criteria for buildings and structures?
-- Ynhockey (Talk) 10:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Jeff, I saw it.  It's not notable, it's just another skyscraper, like the man said.  Generic black glass box.  You want notable skyscrapers, visit Düsseldorf.  My company's London office is across the road from 30 St. Mary Axe - that's a notable building.  Another office is close to One Canada Square - that's notable.  Plenty of other big buildings are not. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *So the largest building in a state is not notable?  I don't buy that for even one second.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *It certainly is, but depending on the coverage it might be better to cover it in the city article rather than in a stand-alone article. Notability discussions tend to take this partisan "it's good enough" — "no, it's not good enough" spin. The point is really, what is most helpful to the user? If I read an article on Wichita, Kansas and click on a link to a supposedly notable building, just to get to a two-line stub I'm usually slightly annoyed. On the other hand, like in this case, merging would be silly since she was connected to multiple people, and if I click on her link in her dad's article, I want to reach her bio, and not the one of one of her husbands. These are common sense considerations that tend to get steamrolled by our AfD discussions. ~ trialsanderrors 20:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability of buildings and structures

message: This was discussed at WP:BIO to uncontroversial, and somewhat supportive, results: change "the primary subject" to "a primary subject" regarding multiple non-trivial works.  My rationale is that it better falls in line with the intent of "notability" (finding enough information to base an article), and still removes the "this guy saw a fire and was mentioned and is notable" nonsense that's sometimes seen.  Thoughts? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense to me. It avoids any chance of wikilawyering over whether something is the primary subject.  Trebor 19:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The term I use is "central". My pet case: Marion Keisker, whose role in the history of Rock'n'Roll is amply documented, but usually in biographies on Elvis Presley. Of course I won't agree to a change from "primary" to "central" unless "multiple" gets changed to "sufficient". ~ trialsanderrors 20:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting take.  I actually like that wording a lot better - both "central" and "sufficient."  Anyone else object? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the main point is the primary notability criteria is to ensure that there is enough secondary source material to write a verifiable, neutral article but I see wikilawyering on the horizon over the word "sufficient". ColourBurst 05:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That will never go away, even with multiple. But multiple doesn't ensure NPOV. ~ trialsanderrors 05:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Do I actually agree with Jeff on something? I like the "central" and "sufficient" criteria too-a book, for example, could contain plenty of biographical information about several people besides its central subject. As to lawyering, there's already been way too much of that over "multiple" as it is-"Well two sources say this guy's name, so he's notable!" In this case, it at least allows sufficiency to be questioned when, for example, there are several source mentions, but all of those mentions are about the same event, and there's nothing or nearly nothing available outside of that on the subject. That might also help cut down on news-type "event of the week" articles, while ensuring that we include those who might not have been a central player in anything, but had enough of a hand in enough things for there to be tons of information available. Seraphimblade 05:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  moving this more in line with intent 

message: I'm seeking clarification after erroneously creating Transgender_Day_of_Remembrance_Webcomics_Project, which I thought was notable but which, under WP:WEB is clearly not. The general notability guidlines mention that Wikipedia:Notability_criteria#Notability_is_generally_permanent Notability is generally permanent due to "multiple independent reliable published sources", and this is echoed on WP:WEB.
My questions are:
* Would a page such as the one listed above become 'notable' at a future date when multiple independent reliable published sources occur? e.g. Reference in a publication about web comics; numerous journal references et cetera.
* Is such status for the wep page "permanent" (since the offline references would continue to exist)? Under what conditions would it cease to be notable?
* Would future deletion of web page referenced (for whatever reason) also be cause for deletion of the wiki page referring to it, or would that page merely note that such a page had existed and when? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LauraSeabrook (talk • contribs) 22:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In answer to your questions, in order:
**Absolutely, if those mentions were to occur in the future, the subject would become notable. That's true of most of our articles-Joe's Garage Band is not notable today, but if they become the next Nirvana in a couple years, they certainly are at that point! The same is true of the scenario you put forth.
**Offline sources are perfectly fine to use, and a mix of online and offline sources is generally best of all. Part of the rationale behind the requirements for multiple non-trivial published sources are so that even if a source becomes unavailable, others exist as well. The page would not be deleted just because a web source went offline. Also, there are methods in place of dealing with web pages used as sources that later go offline, and they generally remain available through the Internet Archive. The reference to the previously-existing web page would remain, it would be updated to note that the source is no longer online, and a link to the Internet Archive version of the page would be provided if available. That in itself would not be reason to delete the page-generally, notability isn't something that can be "lost" once it's achieved. Seraphimblade 02:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-notable web pages becoming notable? 

message: I just realized a bit of a miscommunication above. My proposal to use central was in the wording of WP:BIO: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This should read "a central subject of sufficient blablabla", as discussed above. The P/CNC is not a criterion at all, it's the definition of notability, or more exactly notedness. The specialized criteria (award, 2 albums, 100 porn flicks) are examples of claims to notability. Any article that isn't in the exempt group (cities, highways, etc.) has to include a claim to notability, usually in the form of "best known for". There are hundreds of possible claims to notability, and we only codify a few of them in the specialized guidelines based on established precedent that certain levels of notability almost surely lead to keep or no consensus decisions in AfD's. ~ trialsanderrors 20:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I follow you, and support this, but please bring it up there? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too much Wikitalk involvement already. My point here was the clarification what the functional difference is between our two types of supposed citeria. ~ trialsanderrors 20:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, and it should be the phrasing both here and there. ~ trialsanderrors 20:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree, but others might there, which was where my request came from. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say we try to figure it out here first, per WP:MULTI ~ trialsanderrors 21:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How the hell is that a guideline?  Regardless, very well, but it can't be expected that it will carry over to the respective criteria, because not as many people watch this page. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea, it might win an award for the most obscure guideline ever. I think it's a guideline because it expresses a Good Idea. ~ trialsanderrors 21:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions and claims

message: Resurrecting the idea of a "Notability in AfD" meta-topic (see /Archive 6) for exploring abuse/misunderstanding of WP:N, but expanding the scope of the original idea to merge debates as well. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ
===:Santorum (sexual slang) and :Savage Love merge===
This is a really "interesting" case (in the sense of the Chinese curse...)  See Talk:Santorum (sexual slang) (bogus article) and Talk:Savage Love (merge target).  The short version is that the proponents (and boy do I mean proponents; the principal author of the article is User:Santorummm!) of :Santorum (sexual slang) seem to be under the firm belief that if they can provide 20 or so citations to :Dan Savage talking about his own protologism (i.e. not "independent" sources), and one or two articles that mention his activistic memetic experiment and its results that this a) establishes notability at all (which it certainly does not in the first case, and arguably does not under the "multiple" requirement in the latter case), and b) establishes notability of "santorum" as a term in notable currency in English slang (justifying the article title, as opposed to something like Santorum (meme)), which it absolutely, positively does not.  So, please come on over to Talk:Savage Love#New merge proposal and back up my effort to get this garbage "article" merged back into its parent to the extent any of it is salvageable at all.  Or at least wonder and be amazed at the fervor with which former "Mr. Anti-Notability" cites the revamped WP:N.  >;-)— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop throwing around rhetoric and focus on the evidence.  IS it a recognized neologism by others? Yes.  Is citing it 20 times to the guy who publicized it excessive? Yes.  Is that proof it has no currency beyond him? No. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I've seen the whole santorum bit covered in quite a bit beyond Savage's writing, so I'll have a look. If secondary sources have covered it, that'd be a nonissue anyway. (Personally, I know what it means, but of course that means absolutely nothing.) Seraphimblade 13:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a recognized neologism, at least per published independent sources.  It may have independent citations but no such sources are given in either of its two AfDs or the talk pages of the two pages mentioned.  I believe the AfDs established notability for the political act -- that is, not for the neologism as a word, but as an act of political activism.  There were certainly enough citations to establish that.  For that reason I believe the current page title is misleading, but a proposed rename to make it clearer the article was about political activism received no support.  SMcCandlish, if you were to propose a rename to "Santorum (meme)" I would certainly  support that.  Seraphimblade, if you can find evidence of independent usage other than the cites already examined and discarded by e.g. Wiktionary (see last entry on that page, in particular), then that would be very valuable -- it's not what's needed to establish notability per WP:NEO, but it would settle the question of whether this is truly a neologism or a meme.  Mike Christie (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Another example of something obviously "notable," but may not meet the "multiple, non-trivial" standard.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but under the WP:AMNESIA test, how do you write an article if you don't have multiple, non-trivial mentions? ~ trialsanderrors 21:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To use your criteria, there's sufficient information to build an article off of.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But would it meet our WP:NPOV#Undue weight policy? ~ trialsanderrors 21:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why wouldn't it?  --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the article, I possibly agree. ~ trialsanderrors 21:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: But it does have multiple non-trivial mentions; not for usage, but for notability.  It gets substantial treatment from Jesse Sheidlower, the North American editor of the OED, and in the Scranton Times-Tribune.  The other references in reliable sources (Philadelphia Inquirer, Montreal Mirror, The Economist) cited in santorum (sexual slang) are more in the nature of asides, and could be regarded as trivial, but these two seem unimpeachable sources that directly discuss Savage's coinage -- as political activism, however, not as a valid neologism.  Mike Christie (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm almost inclined to move this to the article talk page. Btw and fwiw, Santorum would pass the scientific terms standard at WP:SCI as a diffused neologism. There is an agreed-upon definition and a pattern of wide-spread usage. ~ trialsanderrors 21:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability in deletion and merge disputes

message: This is a really "interesting" case (in the sense of the Chinese curse...)  See Talk:Santorum (sexual slang) (bogus article) and Talk:Savage Love (merge target).  The short version is that the proponents (and boy do I mean proponents; the principal author of the article is User:Santorummm!) of :Santorum (sexual slang) seem to be under the firm belief that if they can provide 20 or so citations to :Dan Savage talking about his own protologism (i.e. not "independent" sources), and one or two articles that mention his activistic memetic experiment and its results that this a) establishes notability at all (which it certainly does not in the first case, and arguably does not under the "multiple" requirement in the latter case), and b) establishes notability of "santorum" as a term in notable currency in English slang (justifying the article title, as opposed to something like Santorum (meme)), which it absolutely, positively does not.  So, please come on over to Talk:Savage Love#New merge proposal and back up my effort to get this garbage "article" merged back into its parent to the extent any of it is salvageable at all.  Or at least wonder and be amazed at the fervor with which former "Mr. Anti-Notability" cites the revamped WP:N.  >;-)— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop throwing around rhetoric and focus on the evidence.  IS it a recognized neologism by others? Yes.  Is citing it 20 times to the guy who publicized it excessive? Yes.  Is that proof it has no currency beyond him? No. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I've seen the whole santorum bit covered in quite a bit beyond Savage's writing, so I'll have a look. If secondary sources have covered it, that'd be a nonissue anyway. (Personally, I know what it means, but of course that means absolutely nothing.) Seraphimblade 13:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a recognized neologism, at least per published independent sources.  It may have independent citations but no such sources are given in either of its two AfDs or the talk pages of the two pages mentioned.  I believe the AfDs established notability for the political act -- that is, not for the neologism as a word, but as an act of political activism.  There were certainly enough citations to establish that.  For that reason I believe the current page title is misleading, but a proposed rename to make it clearer the article was about political activism received no support.  SMcCandlish, if you were to propose a rename to "Santorum (meme)" I would certainly  support that.  Seraphimblade, if you can find evidence of independent usage other than the cites already examined and discarded by e.g. Wiktionary (see last entry on that page, in particular), then that would be very valuable -- it's not what's needed to establish notability per WP:NEO, but it would settle the question of whether this is truly a neologism or a meme.  Mike Christie (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Another example of something obviously "notable," but may not meet the "multiple, non-trivial" standard.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but under the WP:AMNESIA test, how do you write an article if you don't have multiple, non-trivial mentions? ~ trialsanderrors 21:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To use your criteria, there's sufficient information to build an article off of.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But would it meet our WP:NPOV#Undue weight policy? ~ trialsanderrors 21:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why wouldn't it?  --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the article, I possibly agree. ~ trialsanderrors 21:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: But it does have multiple non-trivial mentions; not for usage, but for notability.  It gets substantial treatment from Jesse Sheidlower, the North American editor of the OED, and in the Scranton Times-Tribune.  The other references in reliable sources (Philadelphia Inquirer, Montreal Mirror, The Economist) cited in santorum (sexual slang) are more in the nature of asides, and could be regarded as trivial, but these two seem unimpeachable sources that directly discuss Savage's coinage -- as political activism, however, not as a valid neologism.  Mike Christie (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm almost inclined to move this to the article talk page. Btw and fwiw, Santorum would pass the scientific terms standard at WP:SCI as a diffused neologism. There is an agreed-upon definition and a pattern of wide-spread usage. ~ trialsanderrors 21:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Santorum (sexual slang)]] and [[:Savage Love]] merge