| Revision as of 13:07, 11 August 2006 editMike Christie (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors70,543 edits →[]: Note prior AfDs, other discussion← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:03, 11 August 2006 edit undoMike Christie (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors70,543 edits →[]: Add comment about ADS referenceNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| *'''Keep''' as ] per Kaustuv Chaudhuri ] 06:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' as ] per Kaustuv Chaudhuri ] 06:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' per Kaustuv Chaudhuri. The American Dialect Society gives it currency.] 09:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' per Kaustuv Chaudhuri. The American Dialect Society gives it currency.] 09:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :*'''Comment''': with regard to the ADS citation, I contacted Jesse Sheidlower, who is a member of the ADS and was at the meeting at which the word was nominated. (Jesse is Editor-at-Large for the Oxford English Dictionary.) I'd like to introduce his comments into this debate, not as a final authority, but as informative. If they are relevant but regarded as needing verification I'll see what I can do about making them verifiable. Anyway, he said that the ADF listing "should not be cited as proof of currency", and went on to say with regard to selection for those categories that "the only criterion is that someone nominates it. Many of the words we select, esp. for categories such as 'most outrageous', are stunt words with no real currency. The nomination or election of a word in one of the ADS words-of-the-year categories has nothing to do with whether the word is truly current." Finally, I asked him if he personally thought the word had currency, and he said "I don't think it has any real currency". Personally I think the nomination supports the notability of the political act but does not support the currency of the term. ] 14:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' per above, but move to a proper disambig. --] <small>]</small> 11:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' per above, but move to a proper disambig. --] <small>]</small> 11:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete'''. Adequately covered in ]. ] 12:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete'''. Adequately covered in ]. ] 12:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 14:03, 11 August 2006
Santorum
The neologism referred to, created by Savage Love, does not have any evidence of real currency as a neologism. It should be treated as a political act by Savage Love, and described under that article. Giving it a separate article implies that it is a generally accepted neologism. Mike Christie 03:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Note there have been prior AfD's; see Revision as of 03:21, 23 Oct 2003 (immediately prior to first deletion) and Revision as of 00:04, 28 Nov 2003 (immediately prior to second deletion). The current talk page also has a lot of relevant discussion; this is apparently because the talk page was not moved when the current article was created after moving the prior Santorum page (though I can't swear that's the sequence of events).
- There is absolutely no reason to delete this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Santorummm (talk • contribs) 03:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Fails notability for neologisms. Baseball,Baby! 03:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: while I would not be averse to a redirect to Savage Love, it should be noted that Santorum meets WP:NEO, "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." The American Dialect Society selected it as most outrageous word in 2004.. Recommend a redirect of Santorum to Rick Santorum with a dablink from Santorum (disambiguation) to Santorum (neologism) or Santorum (terminology), i.e., this article. Note also that the AfD banner has been repeatedly removed out of process. I have reinserted it, but it may disappear again. No vote. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 04:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Note: Prior to the creation of the current article, Santorum was a disambiguation page (now at Santorum (disambiguation). User:Santorummm appears convinced that the slang term is far and away the primary usage of the word, but I strongly feel that Santorum should be a disambiguation page, as it was before. Powers 12:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as Santorum (neologism) per Kaustuv Chaudhuri Msalt 06:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Kaustuv Chaudhuri. The American Dialect Society gives it currency.Agne 09:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: with regard to the ADS citation, I contacted Jesse Sheidlower, who is a member of the ADS and was at the meeting at which the word was nominated. (Jesse is Editor-at-Large for the Oxford English Dictionary.) I'd like to introduce his comments into this debate, not as a final authority, but as informative. If they are relevant but regarded as needing verification I'll see what I can do about making them verifiable. Anyway, he said that the ADF listing "should not be cited as proof of currency", and went on to say with regard to selection for those categories that "the only criterion is that someone nominates it. Many of the words we select, esp. for categories such as 'most outrageous', are stunt words with no real currency. The nomination or election of a word in one of the ADS words-of-the-year categories has nothing to do with whether the word is truly current." Finally, I asked him if he personally thought the word had currency, and he said "I don't think it has any real currency". Personally I think the nomination supports the notability of the political act but does not support the currency of the term. Mike Christie 14:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above, but move to a proper disambig. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Adequately covered in Savage Love#Santorum. Powers 12:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)