Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident/Romney neologism

Merge of new material
There is some discussion at WP:AfD to merge the Campaign for "romney" neologism even before that discussion ends, which is not prohibited. It may be the best outcome: they'll only be one target for vandalism and trolling. Would anyone object if a short, sourced paragraph about that topic were selectively merged into this article? Bearian (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Doubtful. I think it would be undue weight for that stuff to be included anywhere.  What did you have in mind?  Arzel (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be okay with it. I propose the following info be added to the Seamus article:
 * In 2012, in response to Mitt Romney’s road trip, web designer Jack Shepler created the neologism 'romney' which means 'to defecate in terror'. The neologism was inspired by the neologism 'santorum', which gay rights activist Dan Savage had created in 2003. Shepler stated that he created the new word in order to draw attention to Mitt Romney's "mistreatment of a family pet" and his personal judgement. According to Google, the romney neologism's web listing is due to the website's popularity, and not because of Google bombing or search engine optimization. Debbie W. 21:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be fine with me, but please confirm that the sources say what is cited. Any further discussion? Bearian (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Neologism
Removed the section on Neologism because it is just somebody's blatant attempt to smear Mitt Romney. Wikipedia is no place to do that. JettaMann (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It is safe to say that Romney's dog smeared his car if the report is true 2A00:23C7:4501:5E01:D885:5B55:D7BB:A58 (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Neologism section appears to have been re-added. I googled/binged 'romney' and the neologism appears to have fizzled, its not on the first page on either engine. Recommend removal or modification to explain it was passing fad, however as a noob I'm not sure whether a link to the google results constitute original content. 87.113.225.247 (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Romney (neologism)
Is there reason to believe that this coined definition of "Romney" is anything more than a bit of non-notable WP:NOTNEWS? There is one article linked to CNN, which is of course a reliable source, but that doesn't mean that this is necessarily a definition which can be considered notable. I think there might be WP:BLP issues as well, though I am not as well versed as I should be in BLP policies so someone can correct me if I'm wrong...actually I think I'll ask User:Youreallycan because he knows his BLP policy well. In the Santorum case, Dan Savage was at least a notable person to begin with, but who is Jack Shepler and why is anything he says notable? S Æ don talk 05:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Looked into the issue and would have to agree with the points you make - I'm not seeing that the attempt at creating a neologism ended up being at all notable. Kelly  hi! 14:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, no long term notability - this whole article has partisan attack issues. Its incredibly bloated and wants stripping to a couple of sentences and wants merging not renaming imo  -   You  really  can  18:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, see discussion at Articles for deletion/Campaign for "romney" neologism. Community consensus was to delete, not merge, that material. Kelly hi! 21:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)