Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santorum (neologism) (4th 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 speedy close pending outcome of RFC/ArbCom case. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santorum (neologism)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Attack page on Rick Santorum. Needs to be blanked and deleted per Policy. KoshVorlon'_Nal^uboutes _Aeria^Gloris 20:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal capacity) Someone please speedy close this. Attempting to disrupt an open Arbcom case by trying to get the page under discussion deleted is unconstructive at best and intentional disruption at worst, given the number of times KoshVorlon has been warned about disruption at this page. – iridescent 21:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CLOSE NOW - This AfD is premature and distracting. It needs to be postponed AT LEAST until the RfC is done. (and this is despite me being in favor of deletion/modification)-- Avanu (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment This was opened prior to the Arbcom case, therefore it's not disruptive. It's also policy for attack pages.

KoshVorlon'_Nal^uboutes _Aeria^Gloris 11:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect: Arbcomm case opened at 14:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep Per previous AfDs, general consensus, and ongoing RfC about what to do with this page (which showed that whatever the consensus there's a clear desire to have some version of this page). Kosh's decision to start this also seems to be a bit tonedeaf in that Kosh has managed with his actions during this issue to irritate even people who sympathize with his position. (Also, I'm confused why Kosh apparently hasn't finished the AfD process - this is not linked to by the Santorum page). JoshuaZ (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP violation to a T. Fake word, fake neologism, an invented attack by a journalist who despised the person's politics and sought to google-bomb his "word" to the top of search engines. By having an article on the word as if it were real does nothing but perpetuate the original author's intent. What needs to be said about this is already covered at Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality#Public reaction and criticism. Perhaps an article could be written on the creation of the fake word and the controversy that ensues, but that is a content decision best described at that talk page. Best to blow this one up and start fresh. Tarc (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Comment Ongoing RfC there. Just let's follow and reflect on formal process in the RfC therein. In fact, personally I do not support to keep the article in the current state by this title (I would support rename per wp:NEO, to get it as in the sence of wp:BLP1E{just switch People notable for only one event for Word(neologism) notable for only one event}), but that should be (and had been) addressed all there. Reo ⁺ 15:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Close without action pending ArbCom decision and outcome of RfC. Deletion is not warranted until both of those actions are complete. I'm also not convinced this is an attack page, but that's a separate argument. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.