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 delete. Absurd, really. I would've probably redirected it to Seamus (dog) but that's utterly pointless given that no-one is ever going to type this title - including the scare quotes - into a search box. Black Kite (talk) 02:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign for "romney" neologism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Procedural proposal. I've just declined a speedy deletion proposal on this, but the community will want to debate it so I'm opening it up to comment. I personally am not taking a view as to whether this article should be deleted, just that it should not be deleted via the speedy deletion process. (striking that as I've subsequently commented) ϢereSpielChequers 16:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:Neo. Its a rather blatant attempt at trying to use wiki to increase the neologism's use, as opposed to an article on a term that has already established notability. Rorshacma (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I am not convinced that the two sources provided in the article are sufficient to establish notability, and I cannot find anything else about the campaign or the neologism. ItsZippy ^{(talk contributions)} 19:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually 4 independent references. Two had been deleted before this article was sent to AfD. I restored the 2 additional references.Debbie W. 19:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 2. One was a wikinews story, which is not a RS. The other to the NY Post is Dead. I don't know much about "Newser" but I don't think it is a very high quality source. Arzel (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are now 5 references. I fixed the New York Post reference which may have broke during editing, and I added references from CNN and the International Business Times. If you were not satisfied with my references, it would have been preferrable to simply add new references.Debbie W. 21:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Merge I created this article because of increased publicity that I saw about new word. Although I heard about the neologism about a month ago, I didn't think that there was sufficent usage or news coverage of it until the last week. Wikipedia's neologism guidelines states that there have to be independent sources which discuss the development of the new word, not just sources that use the term. Since there is a campaign for "santorum" neologism Wikipedia article which discusses the development of that neologism, and now there are multiple media sources discussing the origin of the romney neologism, I think there now can also be an article for the romney neologism. We just need to ensure that the article is written as NPOV as possible.Addendum: After reading everyone's comments, and seeing what a mess the santorum neologism Wikipedia page has become, I think we should merge this article with the Seamus article.Debbie W. 23:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was the original nominator. This is a nothing of a story. WP should not be used to push a political cause. WP should not be used for activism. The creator of this article has been pushing this and it's related story on several Romney related articles, and is using poor sourcing to make it appear to be more than it is. Arzel (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Seamus (dog) as suggested by Mark Arsten. It's definitely getting coverage in reliable sources, but we do not know if this coverage will be persistent or if the neologism will dog Romney in his campaign (pun totally intended) the way the santorum neologism is playing in its namesake's campaign. If it isn't kept (I'm not voting because it's too soon to tell), I'd recommend userfying it so the work isn't lost in case it continues to receive coverage that merits an article. A merge will put reliably-sourced content in an accessible location while not keeping a separate article on what may be a flash-in-the-pan, and the structure and content will be preserved in the edit history so the work isn't lost in case it continues to receive coverage that merits an article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Debbie W. 01:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Debbie W. 01:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Debbie W. 01:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Could someone please link to the most relevant notability guideline(s)? Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Wikipedia's neologism guideline. My reading of it indicates that the references must actually describe the basis or origin of the neologism, rather than just using the word.Debbie W. 01:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. That isn't a notability guidelines; that page describes what doesn't belong on Wikipedia and the exceptions to the rule. The exceptions are not automatically notable based solely on that page. The appropriate guideline is actually plain ol' WP:GNG.--v/r -TP 16:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize that WP:NEO is not the same as WP:NOTE, but I think that this article meets the guidelines needed to use a neologism. The neologism guideline says: "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....when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles." This article has five references that discuss the origin and usage of the "romney" neologism. Since secondary sources are available, we are allowed to create an article about the word or use the word in other Wikipedia articles.Debbie W. 19:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's too early to judge whether this particular campaign will achieve notability in and of itself. For now, I think it can be a subsection of the article on the campaign for the "santorum" neologism. "Parallel campaigns: in 2012, (this guy) started a campaign to redefine the name of Mitt Romney...(etc)." Maybe make this into a redirect. DS (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless the reliable sources drop this or are found unreliable. I'm not sure that we should be deleting articles on notable subjects simply because we discover they have been staged for Political effect. Such a rule would take out quite a few stories, a major bridge, and possibly even some wars. There is a subtle line between boosting bad news and giving a neutral presentation of it. In my view if the subject is notable before we create an article and we then create a neutrally worded article which explains it and puts it into appropriate context then we are doing no ill service to anyone. There is a broader question as to whether we need this neologism, but if American English lacks an equivalent of Brown Trousers moment, then perhaps it is needed. We also need to be aware of the BLP issues around this case and the Santorum neologism, "Attack now so notable that it gets a Wikipedia article" is not that bad a story, "Wikipedia waives neutrality to censor article unfavourable to ******" is a problem for both us and potentially for the person we might think we are protecting. Also, if we are to censor ourselves to avoid causing offence, then where do we stop? There are many subjects where a neutrally worded reliably sourced article would offend someone. ϢereSpielChequers 14:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have to disagree with the last part of your rationale. It suggests we are obligated to display an article for fear of someone accusing us of censorship. Check out my rationale below, I think the issue should be about combating the use of Wikipedia for political reasons rather than censorship.--v/r - TP 14:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well yes I am saying that; If a subject meets the GNG we should allow the creation of an article and if not we are vulnerable to accusations of censorship. If we want a policy that makes exceptions to the GNG we need to be clear why some things are exceptions and others aren't. I'm aware that the campaign to create this neologism is Politically motivated, but so were 9/11 and the Boston Tea Party. Our role is to cover Politically motivated stories neutrally. So the article on the candidate needs to be neutral about the candidate, but the article about a vicious smear against them can be clear that this is a vicious smear. As long as the sources talk more about the smear than the neologism then call the article "campaign for "romney"_neologism" as opposed to Romney (neologism). But the way to combat such campaigns is to create a neutrally worded article such as this one which clearly sets out what is happening and why, not in my view to bend our rules to delete something because the story has been Politically inspired. Ask yourself, is the story already so notable that people can find it via Google? If the answer is yes then surely it is better to have a neutrally worded wikipedia article than just a bunch of sites that repeat or discuss the attack. I'd accept that deletion was the right approach if this failed the GNG, but I'm not sure that even those who support deletion really assert that. As for precedents, try Charles Boycott, Joseph Hooker and Thomas Crapper, but most seriously David Icke, the Lizards and the Jews. ϢereSpielChequers 19:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, I'd have to disagree. It's not that it's politically inspired that I disapprove of. It's that it was specifically targeted to abuse Wikipedia's popularity. It also seems to have no notability outside of the Santorum neologism. It would not have received the attention it did if the Santorum one didn't already exist.--v/r - TP 19:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure whether either campaign was taking advantage of us so much as of the Internet. As for how it achieved the coverage it did, well that isn't our business as long as it was covered in reliable sources before an article was created here. Yes this is clearly a less original campaign than the Santorum one. But we don't require originality for article subjects, otherwise Hollywood might be in trouble. ϢereSpielChequers 20:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge We can't delete this when we continue to support the outrageous Santorum equivalent. I suggest that all such cases be redirected to a general dumping ground such as dirty tricks or smear campaign. Those articles should have an encyclopaedic and historical perspective from which an impartial selection of suitable examples can be made. Per WP:RECENTISM, WP:SOAP and WP:NOTNEWS, we should not be covering these matters in real time as part of the campaigning process. Warden (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Things made up in one day during political silly season to attack candidates for office are not worthy of standalone articles, this would be serious undue weight to the fringiest of fringe criticism of the subject. Sourcing is not the argument here. At most, a mention in Romney's 2012 campaign article, but that is an issue for editors to take up locally. Honestly, if this project retains this article, we lose anything remotely resembling neutrality and credibility. Tarc (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd suggest a selective Merge here--probably to Seamus (dog), though that article also appears to be a product of America's current "silly season". Mark Arsten (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I originally voted to keep the article on romney neologism, I like your proposal to merge it with the Seamus (dog) article. The two topics are related, and I think that if we have to merge this article, it would be far better to merge it with the Seamus article than to add it the Mitt Romney article, where it would be considered undue weight.Debbie W. 01:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Tarc. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This wouldn't have received any traction if it wasn't for the Santorum word. It has no independent notability, and I challenge any of the keep voters to show multiple reliable sources that discuss this word without Santorum. The notability of this is solely based on Santorum and at the most it should have a small 1 sentence blip on that article. This article is an attempt by a political opponent (I'm not referring to the article creator, I'm referring to the guy who created the 'verb') to game Wikipedia's notability guidelines in an effort to hit the top of Google search results. At the very least, we should WP:IAR delete this to prevent similar gaming and using Wikipedia for political slander in the future. This isn't about WP:NPOV or WP:CENSOR, it's simply about misusing Wikipedia's google search results for political gain.--v/r - TP 15:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will take you up on your challenge. I listed below three legitimate news sources which discuss the romney neologism without discussing Santorum. While there is a definite parallel between the santorum neologism and the romney neologism, the romney neologism has more to do with the story about Seamus (dog) than anything about Rick Santorum.Debbie W. 19:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100138018/mitt-romney-suffers-from-the-weirdo-factor/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/15/mitt-romney-detroit_n_1279565.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2012/02/16/romney_s_dog_seamus_did_he_run_away_to_canada_.html

First off, thanks for taking up the challenge. Your first source, the telegraph, is exactly what I was looking for and I grant you that one although the specific part about the neologism is quite small; about two sentences. The Huffington post doesn't even mention the neologism but does discuss the dog incident (I could be wrong, feel free to point out if I missed it). The slate source says "in a Dan Savage-like move" which is exactly what I am talking about above. This story's notability is based on the Santorum neologism.--v/r - TP 19:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first mentions it in passing in a larger blog post about Romney's weirdness, the second is from a very liberal leaning HuffPo, and you must have missed the Santorum link in the third article, a link that points directly to the Wikipedia's "campaign for "santorum" neologism" article. What this sort of thing brings to mind is the "forced meme" meme. Tarc (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph 4, line 5 of the Huffington Post article mentions 'defecate in terror', and this line links to the spreadingromney.com website that created the romney neologism. Although this article is from February 15, my understanding is that HuffPo was the first media organization (on Jan. 6th) to use the term 'defecate in terror'. I agree that the Slate article indirectly alludes to Santorum. Debbie W. 22:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't honestly believe anyone is going to buy that "which inspired the poor canine to defecate in terror" used in the context of the dog itself is going to satisfy WP:GNG for an article /about the neologism/. That source would be great for the dog's article. That's just not going to be acceptable for this article. The HuffPo article does not discuss the /neologism/ which is specifically addressed in WP:NOT that you quoted earlier and more clearly described in WP:GNG which says that the sources must be multiple, reliable, and also that they must significantly cover the /subject of the article/. That does not include using the term nor does it include using the meaning of the term. That HuffPo just isn't a source /at all/ for this article. I've already said my bit on the other two.--v/r - TP 22:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 3 references that I listed here are not the references that the romney neologism article currently utilizes. The article has 5 separate references which do discuss the romney neologism. Just because those reference allude to santorum does not mean that they are invalid references. For example, any reference to the Watergate scandal will mention Richard Nixon, but that doesn't mean that the references are invalid, or that there shouldn't be an article on Watergate. Debbie W. 23:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That analogy makes little sense and the two are not even in the same plane of existence. Even then, the existence of one does not preclude the existence of the other. Watergate could have happened without Nixon, however this little juvenile smear campaign would certainly not have begun if not for Savage setting the bar. Arzel (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. When the challenge is made, you accept it gleefully. When you cannot meet the challenge, you question the very foundation of the challenge. As Arzel said, Watergate would be notable without Nixon. This, on the other hand, would not have been notable unless a notable radio personality with considerable clout had not already started the Santorum neologism. That's why the challenge was made. Nixon's involvement with Watergate is a single event. Santorum and Romney neologisms are supposed to be two seperate events. The sources show that the Romney neologism's notability does not exist outside the wider Santorum neologism and Dan Savage notability. That is what my delete is based off of and you haven't been able to prove it wrong. My delete !vote is reaffirmed but I will say that I am not opposed to a merger to the dog's article or the Santorum neologism article. I prefer a delete though as a WP:IAR battle against gaming notability guidelines to use Wikipedia for political activism.--v/r - TP 01:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we going to ever fully agree on this issue, but I am also okay with a merger of this article with the Seamus. I'm not sure if Wikipedia's notability guidelines have been gamed, but I do think that the creators of these neologisms have gamed Google.Debbie W. 12:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Tarc. -- PBS (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not meeting WP:GNG. Its a follow-on of santorum, of course. Maybe it could be mentioned in that article, though the war is constant over that one right now, its frankly not worth it until after November.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tarc et al. This neologism is not catching on yet, unlike, let's say, santorum. There's nothing against WP:5P or WP:BOLD that would prevent someone from merging the two articles during this discussion, if one were so inclined. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I agree that a smerger of the barest possible mention, well sourced, would also be appropriate. 23:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - reductio ad absurdum JakeInJoisey (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is a pure attack page. Juno (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2012 (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.