Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santorum (disambiguation) (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. This discussion was surprisingly not very, er, frothy. Thanks! My analysis:
 * Views discounted: 99.90.197.87 (attack on living person); Choyoo(etc.) (no argument); Stevertigo (no argument for deletion, only against the neologism and a hatnote); Dsetay (similarly no argument for keeping); Dominus Vobisdu (political speculation unrelated to the issues being discussed); 93.96.148.42 (argues for keeping the neologism, which is not the issue here); Roscelese (no clear opinion); DGG (no argument related to any applicable policies or guidelines; "WP is an encyclopedia" can be used to argue for or against nearly anything); JamesMLane (speculation about editing outcomes in another article, not related to whether or not this one should be kept); ProtoFire (as with Dsetay); Johnden223 (argument is not understandable); Milowent (no argument related to any applicable policies or guidelines); Temporary for Bonaparte (argument about keeping the neologism, and speculation); Pawsplay (confusing speculation); Ken Arromdee  ("delete or rewrite" means "delete or keep", not very helpful to this closer); unsigned third-to-last opinion (as with Milowent).
 * Headcount of the remaining opinions: delete 16 (57%), keep 12.
 * Argument evaluation: The "delete" side invokes DAB style guidelines; a valid but not decisive argument, particularly in view of MOS:DAB (which of course applies to all guidelines). On the "keep" side, there is much discussion about the propriety of a hatnote as a possible alternative to this disambiguation page, but whether or not to place a hatnote (or where, how...) is a issue not related to this article and can be separately decided later. Plausible arguments have been made that no hatnote is needed at all and that in-text linking from articles suffices. The hatnote-based "keep" opinions are therefore not very convincing. There are however also arguments to the effect that this dab page is a reasonable compromise to address the various concerns related to this set of articles; this line of argument is more convincing. On the whole, though, there are valid arguments on both sides, so I may not decide the issue by supervote.
 * Conclusion: there being no consensus for deletion, the page is kept by default.  Sandstein   19:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Santorum (disambiguation)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for a disambiguation page. Santorum is a surname, but Rick Santorum is the only person with that surname who has an article. There are no other articles about anything else titled "Santorum." There is the neologism, but that is a WP:DICDEF, and does not qualify for an article under that title per WP:NEO guidelines. There are other articles with "Santorum" in the title, but they fall under partial title match and therefore do not belong. Even the one article listed here, Campaign for "santorum" neologism, as a partial title match. It is also already linked from Rick Santorum under the heading Homosexuality and "santorum" neologism. Other than that, there are some see alsos of words with similar spellings, but that is not the purpose of a DAB page, and a DAB page cannot be supported by that alone. So when you get to the bottom of this, all the reasons for this DAB page to exist are not present. Stedrick (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:PTM; also, most of the terms stem from Rick Santorum anyway. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Having a disambig page between the word santorum and the man Rick Santorum is the whole purpose of disambig pages, per WP:CONCEPTDAB. The other option would be to have a hatnote for Santorum (neologism) at the top of Rick Santorum's page.  -- Stv  Fett erly  (Edits)  21:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and replace with hatnote link to neologism. It is entirely reasonable that someone would search for "Santorum" seeking the neologism, but besides that one and Rick Santorum, there are no other articles that would reasonably be sought using that term. The disambiguation page only exists because of a sentiment that a hatnote linking directly to the neologism would be offensive, and that the neologism article should thus be treated differently from how we would treat an article about a less risque topic, which I continue to believe is a blatant violation of WP:NOTCENSORED. Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * delete and add hatnote to Campaign for "santorum" neologism. This page is a kludge, if i recall correctly, and as long as someone has decided to re-raise this issue, we may as well resolve it now. -badmachine 00:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and add hatnote on Rick Santorum pointing to Campaign for "santorum" neologism. Per WP:TWODABS, "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". I agree with the nominator that there are only two senses appropriate for disambiguation: the person and the neologism. The others that currently appear are not appropriate because they are either partial title matches or unlikely misspellings. —Caesura(t) 01:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Keep' From WP:NEO  "Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy." There are 1000's of reliable secondary sources that talk about the term or concept of the neologism  so I find  Stedrick's contribution nonsensical.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For clarification: this is a delete discussion for the page that disambiguates between the politician and the neologism. By my reading, you're trying to "keep" a different page.Josh Parris 15:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I want to keep this disambiguation page. I was commenting on Stedrick's contribution above.93.96.148.42 (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete but make sure there is an adequate link from the straight Santorum biography piece sorry, couldn't resist to the Campaign for Neologism piece. This linkage is currently weak, probably owing to politicization of that particular bio during this historic interval in the American Presidential campaign. This dab page strikes me as an attack piece in guise of a dab... Carrite (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:TWODABS says if there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC then the dab page should can stay; if there is a primary topic, then the dab should can go and a hatnote be added to the primary topic. This discussion might be better framed in terms of "Is Rick Santorum the primary topic for Santorum?"  The internal links to Santorum have all been disambiguated, so there's no data there to aid a decision.  The top Google hit is for the website around which the campaign for "santorum" neologism focuses.  I can see either argument winning as not being an edifying outcome for the politician.  Josh Parris 05:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * comment: this discussion says the primary topic is the candidate. -badmachine 06:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case, Delete and add hatnote - is as pleasant as you're going to get; it certainly beats  Josh Parris 15:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and add hatnote - the politician is the primary topic. I agree with Carrite re: ATP masquerading as a DAB. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 07:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * comment re:the politician is the primary topic. Today maybe but tomorow this may be reversed. Keep will pace reverasl discussion when santorum(neologism) will stay and Rick will go home. Must admit - not nice and dispitful way to fight politics. (but still beter than hire terrorist as do Israel) 99.90.197.87 (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as a useful kludge even though it breaks a number of other common WP practices. This page is an inanimate carbon rod separating a couple of radioactive fuel rods (those who want the neologism article scrubbed from the internet and those who want it to be the primary topic with a hatnote to the former Senator (as it once was)). There are middle grounds but, as in modern American politics, they satisfy neither "side" and thus are at best temporary truces in a war of attrition and nerves. - Dravecky (talk) 08:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * this "kludge" has been around for eight years. time to dump it. -badmachine 11:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Dravecky. The hatnote option seems in conflict with the current consensus at Rick Santorum, which is that Savage's campaign should be mentioned in the body of the article but not given more prominence than that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Having a hatnote on the top of Rick Santorum that points to a page devoted to the slur is likely not going to happen per WP:BLP concerns, the same concerns that have kept the campaign and the "frothy" definition out of Santorum's bio. So those calling to delete in favor of a hatnote may wish to reconsider. Tarc (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's already a link - and a section - within the article; what's the additional problem with a hatnote? This is merely normal process for the mechanics of the encyclopedia. Josh Parris 15:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because this isn't a normal situation where activists have made use of the internet, including the Wikipedia, to campaign against a public figure. If a reader goes to Rick Santorum and the first thing they see is something like "For the sexual neologism, see Campaign for "santorum" neologism", that's unacceptable for the same reasons we do not put info about the "campaign" in article lead. Tarc (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you can have good and bad hatnotes. There's a redirect that I've used (above) for what I think is a fairly innocuous hatnote. Josh Parris 15:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * looks reasonable to me. -badmachine 02:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no need for either a hatnote at the top of the page or a DAB page because the Rick Santorum article already has a link to Campaign for "santorum" neologism via a hatnote in the middle of the article in a manner where it fully belongs. This makes it easy for anyone who wants to to find the article. Also, if you google "Santorum," two of the first hits include the Wikipedia articles Rick Santorum and Campaign for "santorum" neologism. Stedrick (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:DAB, it's a very long standing policy allowing us to distinguish between multiple articles that could occupy a single term; Santorum in this case. WP:MOSDAB covers the layout of disambiguation pages. Josh Parris 22:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as what is essentially a 2-item disambiguation. The hatnote can be written adequately,if needed, even though the neologism article sitll violates a number of Wikipedia policies.  Probably something like "For Dick Savage's attempt to redefine "sanctorum", see ...."  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Whether we like it or not, the word "santorum" has taken on a life of its own that is not wholly dependent on the man "Santorum", and will probably shortly become the primary meaning of the term once Rich Santorum vanishes from the political stage. Moves like this AfD are obviously motivated by politics as the former senator is now in the limelight, and his supporters are eager to bury all reference to the word "santorum" in order to help their candidate. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Arthur Rubin - "as what is essentially a 2-item disambiguation. The hatnote can be written adequately,if needed" - I note that such partisan positions as soapboxed by Dominus Vobisdu above deserve deletion as well.    You really can  16:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as improper 2-item disambiguation where one of the two is not even the proper article name on Wikipedia Collect (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - There is no neologism, there is only a campaign for one. And its more of a defamatory slur at that. Also a hatnote pointing to the neologism/slur article would violate BLP. -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Your only other option would be to add a hatnote leading directly to the Santorum (neologism) page directly as is standard when pages have similar titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsetay (talk • contribs)
 * Delete - The neologism is not notable enough to require a disambiguation page. It can be linked from Dan Savage's Wikipedia page.01:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.31.193 (talk)
 * It's notable enough to have an article, and santorum is the natural term for it. Thus, it requires disambiguation from the senator. The question here seems to be: keep a WP:TWODABS dab page, or delete it and hatnote whatever is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Josh Parris 06:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep/Delete: delete if and only if a hatnote is added to the main article, otherwise keep. It is not necessary to have a disambiguation page for only two articles, but this is something like the ninety-sixth time editors are trying to stymie readers who want to read about the neologism, and readers who search on "santorum" should be able to reach the article in question easily. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Doesn't this dab page also link to the former Senators legislation? It did, which isn't useful for the 2DAB guideline. The neologism article may not be titled Santorum, but it was for several years, making that a very prominent redirect and appropriate for a dab page for those who are looking for the word. The current article title isn't stable, there are monthly rename questions and proposals and it may move in the future. Given that people do come to Wikipedia looking for the word, unless a hatnote is acceptable at the top of the BLP to what the maintainers of that BLP consider a slur, we should keep the dab page just as a civility barrier. While I am most certainly apply AGF to any commenter here, I do not actually suppose that hatnote will be agreeable to some hypothetical editor otherwise involved in editing about the former Senator. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * The legislation wasn't known as "Santorum", it merely had the word in it. It wasn't appropriate to list on a disambiguation page.  Mind you, that hasn't stopped editors whacking it in over and over... Josh Parris 06:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Generally accepted practice would be for a hatnote on Rick Santorum saying "Santorum" redirects here. For other uses, see [Santorum (neologism)]. That would mean deleting this disambig page (especially unnecessary as the neologism page is linked to again part way through the primary topic "Rick Santorum" article and mentioned in the primary article's Contents Index).  However in this case there will doubtless be a lobby insisting that the hatnote to the Rick Santorum article read "For the frothy mixture of lubricant and fecal matter as an occasional byproduct of anal sex, see [Santorum (neologism)]."   We'll then have to endure all sorts of specious arguments for why WP:NOTCENSORED demands that this be the first language encountered by any visitor who goes directly to "Rick Santorum".  Dan Savage's anti-Rick Santorum campaign could hardly expect more of an assist from Wikipedia that to have even searches for the full name "Rick Santorum" produce this outcome.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Upon further reflection I'd just call for Delete because I'm agnostic about whether there should be any disambigs here, let alone two. Rick Santorum's "Google problem" is arguably just a spinout of the Rick Santorum article.  If so, there should be a Main article:... hatnote to the appropriate section of the Rick Santorum article, not a hatnote to the whole article.  Hatnotes to article heads instead of chapter heads are reserved for substantively unrelated subjects that happen to have the same names.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete As per WP:Fringe theory, "A Wikipedia article about a fringe theory should not make it appear more notable than it is."  The root of the problem here is the existence of the redirect titled, which IMO exists to use Wikipedia for licentious political advertising.  As per WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing."  The name of the article is, "Campaign for "santorum" neologism".  Unscintillating (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - with only two entries, which are strongly related, there's no need for a disambiguation page here. Santorum should redirect to Rick Santorum. Since Campaign for "santorum" neologism is already linked from that article, I don't think there's any need for a hatnote link to it as well, although I wouldn't strongly object to it. But this disambiguation page is essentially useless. Robofish (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The argument made by Theoldsparkle (hatnote instead of dab page) is perfectly sound as a matter of principle.  As a matter of practice, it's hopelessly unrealistic.  The effort to insert and keep that hatnote would almost certainly fail, and even if successful would require enormous investment of editor time, lasting approximately forever.  The intensity of the desire to suppress any and all information about this topic means that we have to put up with some practical accommodations that wouldn't be necessary if everyone had Theoldsparkle's commitment to WP:NOTCENSORED. JamesMLane t c 05:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, no hatnote Disambiguation is unnecessary per WP:PTM. Hatnote cannot be added to Rick Santorum per WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE, and per precedent at September 11 attacks with regards to not linking 9/11 conspiracy theories in the hatnote. NYyankees51 (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Partial title matches?
 * Santorum voted for the legislation.
 * Police recovered DNA from santorum found at the scene.
 * There's disambiguating needed in both cases. In the first case, Rick Santorum, in the second santorum (neologism).  Without disambiguation, misunderstandings could arise; for example, that the senator provided DNA. Josh Parris 10:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Somehow I doubt you will find many articles on Wikipedia (or even elsewhere on the web) where 'santorum' is used in the latter sense. The politician is overwhelmingly the primary topic here, so a dab page is not necessary. Robofish (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment there's been a number of opinions voiced that WP:FRINGE prevents excessive linking to an article by kooks. santorum is not a fringe theory, it's a WP:NEO neologism; policy says neologisms are boring but might have encyclopedic value if there's enough reliable sources on their history and development.  WP:FRINGE doesn't apply to this discussion.  santorum has details of use (in printed media!  What is the world coming to?) establishing it as a neologism. Josh Parris 10:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment there's been a number of opinions voiced that because there's a link to Campaign for "santorum" neologism from Rick Santorum, there's no need for a hatnote or a dab page. That's not how WP:DAB works.  Disambiguation pages disambiguate between articles that could reasonably be expected to be found at a given term.  There's a get-out that says a dab page is not needed for a term if :
 * there's only two articles to disambiguate; and
 * one of them is the primary topic
 * it them prescribes that the primary topic must include a hatnote to allow readers to quickly locate the alternate article or dab page. The hatnote is not optional; it's there because a two article ambiguous term can be served by pointing the primary topic at the alternate or the dab page.  Note that if there is no primary topic (I believe there was a consensus formed that Rick Santorum was the primary topic) then the dab should occupy the ambiguous term, otherwise there should be a hatnote. Josh Parris 10:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment there's been a number of opinions voiced that adding a hatnote to Rick Santorum is just not going to survive, but the dab page should be deleted. The two positions are not consistent with policy.  If the hatnote idea is terrible, the dab page ought to be kept and the redirect pointed at it .  If the dab page is terrible, then a hatnote is required.  Having neither is inconsistent with policy out guidelines. Josh Parris 10:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's already a hatnote to the relevant section of the Santorum biography. Policy does not call for TWO hatnotes by having another one at the head of the whole biography.  It is not like there is a another use of Santorum out there whose connection to Rick Santorum is limited to mere coincidence of name, thus requiring an article hatnote.  The "other use" was a reaction to statements by Rick Santorum, and it is accordingly referenced by a hatnote to the section of the Rick Santorum biography raising the topic of the statements.  The bottom line is that the two articles are related, with one being a spin-out of the other.  If you want to raise the profile of the neologism, go manipulate Google's ranking processes, not Wikipedia's, which unlike Google's can be protected against manipulation by editor reviews like this.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * those seeking the neologism should not be expected to read the article on the candidate. a hatnote belongs at the top when this workaround is resolved. -badmachine 17:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Those seeking spinout articles generally have to use more extended or distinguishing language if they want to navigate directly to that article without first landing on the origin article and then paging down to the hatnote to the spinout article. e.g. you're interested in the Political positions of Mitt Romney, but just typed Mitt Romney? Then you go to the "political positions" section on the Mitt Romney page where you first land and follow the "For more detail on specific Romney positions on many issues, see Political positions of Mitt Romney" hatnote.  Ditto if you're interested in more details on Dan Savage's campaign and your origin point is Rick Santorum instead of Dan Savage.  Now it's true that Savage wants a higher profile for his campaign by deliberately designing it to exploit Google's ranking system by having those seeking the politician be deemed to be "seeking the neologism" as you put it. Savage wants those seeking one thing to be given navigation results for something else in a feedback loop such it that the something else then becomes deemed by the navigation system as the (possibly) searched for thing.  Just because Savage can hijack Google like this does not mean he can similarly hijack Wikipedia because here at Wikipedia there are humans involved who can see the loop.  To the extent that the "frothy mixture" has an existence apart from this loop interested users can already navigate to frothy mixture directly.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Another problem with adopting this "those seeking the neologism should not be expected to read the article on the candidate" argument is that it could well end up calling for similar top-of-the-article hatnotes all over Wikipedia biographies. There is, for example, a neologism out there that appears in the top results for Google searches of Romney (and is discussed in reliable sources).  "Bombers" may be able to drive what Google returns for queries but if they are allowed to do the same on Wikipedia the encyclopedia is being manipulated for non-encyclopedic purposes.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Question there's been a number of opinions voiced that adding a hatnote to Rick Santorum is a violation of WP:BLP. There's already a link to Campaign for "santorum" neologism from Rick Santorum.  Excuse my ignorance, but what part of BLP would a hatnote violate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Parris (talk • contribs)
 * Delete to put it bluntly, enough of this nonsense. The relevant policy is that WP is an encyclopedia--or at least, it's supposed to be.  DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:2DAB and the arguments made last time this was nominated in July. The discussion here seems to be a proxy for a hatnote dispute that belongs at Talk:Rick Santorum. The current scenario is a working compromise for those who believe that having a link to the neologism would violate WP:BLP. Gobonobo  T C 23:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and add hatnote - there's only one article that should actually be on the disambiguation page, which defeats the purpose of a disambiguation page. The hatnote should be brief so as not to give the neologism undue attention.  -  Proto Fire →talk 05:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep due to extensive media coverage of Santorum's google problem, many searches of "santorum" are interested in the alternate definition, not the known politician. Johnden223 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC).
 * Keep - Highly contentious stuff like this often requires a small, wisely-targeted dose of WP:IAR. A workaround that is pragmatic (e.g. in keeping drama to a minimum) is much better than one that closely follows policy but is likely to become an even bigger argument-magnet.  DAB is more realistic than hatnote per User:JamesMLane, and is "a useful kludge even though it breaks a number of other common WP practices" per User:Dravecky.  I can't add more than to suggest a careful re-reading of both these editor's posts. --Middle 8 (talk) 11:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * comment if we are looking at a workaround, what is wrong with 's solution of a hatnote with one of the redirects? -badmachine 16:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep If memory serves, I created the current setup. I said all this on the talk page of the dab page at the time, but to reiterate:
 * Rick Santorum is the primary topic associated with "Santorum" - there doesn't seem to be any significant disagreement on this point. Thus "Santorum" should redirect to that page.
 * Since we do have an article on the attack phrase, which appears to be here to stay, then if someone types "Santorum" into the search box, they need to be able to get to the article about that phrase. While my heart tells me that we could let the hatnote further down in the article handle this (and this would be my strong preference if this page is deleted), my head tells me it needs to be a hatnote at the top of the article, as a service to those honestly seaching for the attack phrase.
 * It would be a BLP violation to make the attack phrase overly prominent in the article: such a violation of WP:Undue weight would not be a WP:Neutral point of view, and WP:Biographies of living persons requires that BLP's have an NPOV. I strongly believe that a hatnote at the top of the article specifically mentioning the attack phrase would make the phrase overly prominent. (Even the wording of Josh Parris's suggested hatnote.)
 * Thus, the setup that I created. A hatnote to a 2-item dab page. As Dravecky so accurately describes it, a kludge.  Intended to be what Middle 8 calls a "small, wisely-targeted dose of WP:IAR".  A compromise to balance the conflicting goals of MOSDAB and BLP.  In the real world, "consensus" is usually achieved not by supermajority, but by compromise.  This is a compromise, and I don't know of a better one, so I suggest this be kept. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Indeed, I hate that the kludge is necessary but there are only three ways around it ("Santorum" redirects to the dab page so it's no longer a kludge, the redirect stays as is and the Rick Santorum adds a hatnote to the neologism, or the redirect is replaced by the neologism article (as it was for many years) which adds a hatnote to the former Senator's bio) and none of those three will cause less drama and wangst than the kludge. - Dravecky (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Of course, if there was a third article that could reasonably be listed on the dab page, then this all resolves itself. But no-one's been determined enough to create one, even on the wife. Josh Parris 05:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I for one reject the idea that one of Dravecky's three approaches above must be followed. There is no policy reason that would prevent us from removing both the disambiguation page and the hatnote. Simply put, the neologism article does not need a prominent link from the top of Rick Santorum: (i) it's already linked further down in that article, and (ii) anyone who puts 'Santorum' into the search box will see 'Santorum (neologism)' listed as a possible destination anyway. Robofish (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Search boxes aren't the only way of getting to an article. Josh Parris 14:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

*Possible resolution - I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation that might defuse this. Josh Parris 05:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I've come to the view that 's original solution is the most pragmatic and in keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines. Josh Parris 14:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: The only reason I know of Rick Santorum used to be because of the sexual neologism.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per IAR. I am usually a strong proponent of deleting pages that violate TWODABS, but in this very specific case it would not be appropriate to use a hatnote to the "Santorum (neologism)" article. While I could probably quote BLP and UNDUE, the simple fact is that this is a real person we're talking about and it would be cruel of us link the "Santorum (neologism)" so prominently from his biography, which viewed by thousands of people every day, just so we can say "we followed a guideline". Jenks24 (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per IAR: seems a tidy solution: (a) someone searching on "Santorum" may be wanting to find out about the neologism, in which case one click from the hatnote takes them to the dab page and a second to the article they want, and (b) the neologism is not given undue weight: readers searching on "Santorum" and wanting to find out about the politician know they have arrived on the page they want and will ignore the link to "other uses".  No harm to anyone, and within spirit of WP:BLP.  Pam  D  08:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The usual policy would be to delete the dab page and put a hatnote on Rick Santorum. However, for obvious reasons, there is concern about having that hatnote on the biography. Therefore, I think it is better to keep the dab page. If the dab is deleted, we do need to put the hatnote on the article, and BLP does not override this. Someone who types 'Santorum' into the search box needs to have a clear path of links to either the biography or the article on the neologism. However, I think that it is more in line with the spirit of BLP to have the a separate dab page as we currently do. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even if the more contentious links are removed, it seems likely that at some point, the word Santorum will be used to reference something other than Rick Santorum. It also looks a lot like sanctorum. Pawsplay (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or rewrite. We're not supposed to have an article named "Santorum (neologism)".  Having that title as one of the targets for the disambiguation is bad for the same reasons that directly titling the article with that is bad.  We should either delete this disambig page (and invoke IAR to not put it in a hatnote), or rewrite the disambig page to include the proper non-redirect title of the article. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We're not supposed to have an article named "Santorum (neologism)" - this redirect exists, and people looking for the article will look under that name, which is why redirects exist. Redirects and dab pages exist to aid navigation. The claim "not supposed to have an article" seems to question the existence of redirects on this project entirely. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Important question: why is it that that Santorum (neologism) is deemed an inappropriate BLP-violation as a title, but can now be used to justify a dab-page? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because someone who types "Santorum" into the search box might be looking for either one? We can change the title of our article but not the neologism itself. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hah. Except for, this is not a dictionary. People could type all sorts of stuff into the searchbox. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, but in this case "Santorum" is exactly what you would want to type into the search box to find the neologism. There's no way a typical person would expect to know that the article starts with the word "Campaign". So whatever page pops up when you go to "Santorum" needs to make it easy to find both the neologism and the biography. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Santorum (neologism) already pops up as one of the suggestions. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming your browser supports that. Don't make technical assumptions. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Keep. Like everyone else, I am not comfortable seeing a fellow Catholic associated with some disgusting sex act; however, general purpose encyclopedias used by adults are not censored and it is clear that the neologism has been covered in mainstream sources and therefore have interest to readers who are likely to look for that term.  Plus, with the presidential candidate surging or tying Mr. Romney in the polls, it is not unfathomable that a First Lady Santorum would have an article at some point too, in the off chance he actually won it all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Temporary for Bonaparte (talk • contribs) 22:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Objectively, this is a simple matter of deleting a two-item disamb page. Everything else is some other topic, including whether to hatnote or not.  I think we all are aware (and if not, the campaign page makes clear) that both uses are meant to refer to one person.  One usage is meant as a negative.  Leaving this disambiguation here is contrary to what we would do with virtually any other topic.  --Tgeairn (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case rigid adherence to the guidelines brings about conflict and drama that could be avoided by using the dab page. How do you address that? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * It may be that my tendency is toward a hardliner attitude, but in this case I would go with the established way of handling variously related terms, such as at Prince. Hatnote with "Santorum redirects here. For the Campaign to associate Santorum with a derogatory term, see Campaign for "santorum" neologism."  Eventually, we might add "For other uses, see Santorum (disambiguation)."  --Tgeairn (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That hatnote on the top of the former Senator's page will cause conflict and drama for months. While that is the standard way of doing it there is no practical non-drama way to do that in this case. You are pushing a solution that is more trouble than it is worth, and certainly more trouble than the non-standard way this dab is handled. Can you give us some alternative thinking of a way to deal with the fallout of the choice you prefer? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * I don't think that's the way it works. We don't consider potential drama. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure we do. This is a group project and compromises to maintain the group dynamic and avoid flameouts are made all the time. This issue has proven itself so poisonous and a dab page rather than a hatnote is a simple and practical alternative that (mostly) keeps the combatants on different articles. Deleting the dab page is akin to putting two snakes in a cage and poking sticks at them. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * give me examples of what's "made all the time". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep this neologism is clearly in widespread use - I've seen people mentioning it all over the internet - I also think that including a direct link from the Senators page would be inappropriate.
 * With regards to comments stating that there isn't a neologism, there clearly is, I just Googled Santorum, and the top hit is the neologism page, followed by our article on the senator, followed by the neologism article, followed by his presidential campaign website. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Floquenbeam, this seems to be the least problematic approach. Rlendog (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2012 (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.