Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santorum (disambiguation)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. v/r - TP 19:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Santorum (disambiguation)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I'm proposing this "DAB" be deleted because: So, this dab is not justified under Wikipedia guidelines. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There at most two plausible entries in it: the dude, and the proposed neologism, for which there are no reliable sources (English dictionaries, etc.), so the dude is the clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. See also RfD for Santorum. "Santorum", the neologism, is nowhere near lynching or gerrymandering as far as sourcing is concerned. A Google News search, which is technologically restricted to mostly reliable sources does not return the alleged neologism on the first page.
 * There were some more entries added to this DAB pointing to articles about some of Santorum's activities, which have sub-articles, but entries those clearly fail WP:PTM as partial title matches.

As a minor note here, the creator of this page, User:Lir is now banned. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He is banned, but not for creating DAB pages like this. causa sui (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't even know he was banned until after I had nominated this page for deletion. I found out when Twinkle failed to post to his talk because it's protected. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ,, – Do your research. Lir moved "Santorum" to "Dan Savage". He wasn't creating an attack page. This is what the original "Santorum" article looked like. What Lir did was to turn what could potentially turn into attack article on Rick Santorum if there wasn't anything done into the basis for the Dan Savage article. Lir resolved the Santorum article dispute of his day, and now FuFoFuEd is attempting to say, "A bad guy created this page." --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. If we are to have an article on the Googlebomb, it just doesn't make sense not to be able to get there fairly easily when typing the "neologism" itself into the box. This is not a violation of WP:PTM, as the text near the end of that section makes fairly clear; "Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context".  The other two entries might violate PTM; they're basically a "kludge" (as someone on, I think, Talk:Santorum called it), to help avoid undue weight to the Googlebomb term; I think it's a good kludge, but I'm not positive that it's backed up with policy.  Your arguments would make more sense in a discussion about whether the article on the Googlebomb should exist, but that ship has already sailed.  Given the fact that it exists, the dab page needs to exist too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the part about neologism is a violation of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand; even when there's a primary topic, we still have dab pages. Am I misreading you? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, that was further down in the WP:TWODABS section: "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 on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. (This means that readers looking for the second topic are spared the extra navigational step of going through the disambiguation page.)" FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. No, I pretty strongly disagree with using a hatnote at the top of the Rick Santorum to refer people directly to the Googlebomb page; an undue emphasis that IMHO would be a BLP problem, no matter how carefully the hatnote was worded. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But the current solution is just a cheesy BLP violation then. Two clicks don't make it less a BLP violation than one click. Because the whole shebang is related to Rick Santorum, I've added it to the top of that section . Deleting this unnecessary dab does not imply a hatnote at the top of the dude's biography needs to endorse the neologism, for which there seem to be no reliable sources. I said there are at most two plausible topics here. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep as a useful kludge (I'm afraid I'm the one who first called it that a while back) to avoid the intense heat of the raging wildfire then in progress across several talk pages. In a perfect world, Santorum would redirect to the former Senator and a tasteful hat note would point readers to the article about the term santorum. This is not a perfect world. I'm not happy that we need a disambiguation page to keep the peace but it is keeping the peace. (In a few months, when the former Senator returns to obscurity and/or cable punditry, the issue can be revisited out of the campaign spotlight.) - Dravecky (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SOAP as this seems to be overt political campaigning rather than a genuine dab page. Warden (talk) 05:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if I've misinterpreted your meaning. The options are 1) a hatnote at Rick Santorum pointing the reader to the article about the neologism, and 2) the status quo: a hatnote at Rick Santorum pointing the reader to "other uses". It is probable that option 1 will give more prominence to the disparaging neologism and, to some extent, boost the neologism campaign. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Look, Rick Santorum is an asshole. I get it. But this is a POV escapade intended to steer casual inquiries to the neologism campaign page. And that, my friends and comrades, is out of bounds. Carrite (talk) 05:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment immediately above. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Sure, it looks like a dab, but we all know its purpose, and that purpose is not appropriate at Wikipedia, even in this case. Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * keep this is helpful due to how obscure the butt juice term can be in many circlesFireTool87 (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * KEEP this term requires disambiguation. im surprised the santorum Amendment was removed from this page. im not overly familiar with wp policies and politics, but i am a fan of common sense. -badmachine 08:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC) i have reconsidered this, and since there really are only the two terms requiring dab, a hatnote at the top of rick santorum's article should be sufficient... so:
 * DELETE and place a hatnote for the neologism at the top of Rick Santorum. -badmachine 05:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: not only is this technically an entirely correct case for the use of a disambiguation page, as there are at least three different things that need disambiguating (the politician, the surname in its various forms, and the frothy by-product) but, as Dravecky says, it also serves as a useful kludge to avoid political battles over the hatnote on the Rick Santorum article. -- The Anome (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per The Anome. The disambig is useful. Absconded Northerner (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to Santorum as first choice. If deleted, I agree that there should be a hatnote to the article about the neologism (whatever we've ended up calling that article) at the start of Rick Santorum. We should be providing navigational assitance to readers, not fretting about politics. WJBscribe (talk) 12:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: All this debate over the Santorum article reminds me that Rick Santorum still thinks he has a political future, hence disambiguation is needed.--Milowent • talkblp-r  04:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, allows us to have a neutral hatnote at Rick Santorum (who is clearly the primary topic). —Kusma (t·c) 08:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. "To disambiguate" does not mean to list related subjects. This page lists a person and an article about an attack upon that same person – there is no ambiguity. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * keep - better than a hat-note. Off2riorob (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, using the page instead of the hatnote doesn't provide any benefit for disambiguation and hinders users by sending them through an unnecessary extra page to reach their target. The idea that a hatnote is giving the linked article "undue weight" is silly -- it's giving the linked article the weight of being the only other article reasonably likely to be searched for under "Santorum". Hiding it behind an extra step simply because you find the article's topic distasteful is a clear violation of WP:NOTCENSORED. If the article were, say, about a tiny town called Santorum, or an obscure species of frog called the Santorum, or a 1980s pop group called Santorum that only barely squeaked by the notability standard to be included here, and that article drew only a minute fraction of the number of readers that the neologism article draws, I highly doubt that there would be objection to linking to any of those topics with a hatnote or that a hatnote would be accused of giving the topic "undue weight." Discussions about content navigation should be based on usability, not subjective feelings about that content. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Off2riorob, it's better than a hatnote, which may confuse newbies. Bearian (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kusama, allows for a neutral hatnote AIR corn (talk) 07:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Inviting readers of Rick Santorum to the neologism page in a hatnote at the top of the article would be, to some extent, advertising the neologism and so joining in the attack on this execrable person. With the status quo, readers looking for the neologism will find it, but we're not promoting it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.