Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This template is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
That a few videos titled "Santorum" might now be added to the site should not change the obvious fact that the neologism is not in use as a word. User:Fred BauderTalk17:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
A word that is actually in use will be found to be in use among naive users of the language, not just in isolated instances divorced from ordinary use. User:Fred BauderTalk19:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
In his 2009 book And Then There's This: How Stories Live and Die in Viral Culture, author Bill Wasik identified the term as a form of sexual slang, noting, "his surname was turned into a sexual slang word" — cite: Wasik, Bill (2009). And Then There's This: How Stories Live and Die in Viral Culture. Viking Adult. p. 80. ISBN0670020842. — secondary sources identify the term as sexual slang, and we go by those sources, not by the WP:NOR performed by Fred Bauder (talk·contribs). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Support It doesn't have the real-world currency of the other terms. Three appearances in print – representing its actual use as a slang word, divorced from the political campaign that spawned it – as opposed to millions of bona-fide uses of the other terms here – don't warrant inclusion. --JN46619:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose How does one define "sexual slang", and how do the other words that appear on this template make or not make the cut? That Santorum (neologism) is sexual slang is established; you cannot have something removed from the Misplaced Pages just because you don't like it being there. TechBear | Talk | Contributions19:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose -- the rationale for removal is curious: pornographic web sites are not the only places one would expect to find sexual slang, and there's no conclusion to draw from a Misplaced Pages editor's inspection of one such site. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. If you want to argue that santorum is not sexual slang, then that article's talk page is the place to do it. However, I would not suggest recycling your totally flawed technique to quantify santorum's use; that article has many more reliable sources than a single pornographic website that use and attest to the use of santorum as a sexual slang term, from books by sociologists to peer-reviewed sexological journals. Quigley (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose this is becoming a ridiculous politically motivated crusade across the entire project to belittle one article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
You're warm. The complaint is about use of Misplaced Pages for political purposes. The word is not part of English vocabulary, other than for political purposes. User:Fred BauderTalk17:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose as per NeilN, for the general public, CNN is probably a more reputable source than a porn site, a single porn site at that. --Death by fugue (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Support removal it's not even a neologism anymore as it approaches 10 years old without any hint it is getting more popular except on Misplaced Pages. It's a word fading in usage relevancy. The spat that generated the contest might be noteworthy but not the word. Not a dictionary. --DHeyward (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
weakly support removal It seems that this term is not that frequently used. The relevant notion isn't that relevant to many sex acts (as demonstrated by the fact that it wasn't even a defined term until a few years ago). I am however uncomfortable strongly supporting removal since the apparent inclusion for this template is very broad, and as a term, its existence is described in more reliable sources than many of these other terms (for example, there are apparently many fewer sources for "rusty trombone"). Does someone want to make a general set of criteria for what should or should not be on this template? If we do that, it may be easier to figure out if this should be included. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
That argument has no ground when people try to push in AfDs for keeping articles about words they made up. I could easily make up a new slang term and add it to the template. A discussion ensuing would not be a reason to keep to it in the template. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
All words are made up by someone: most of the terms in the template are made up words. Is it your assertion they should also be removed? And the fact is, Santorum (neologism) is on the list and has been for some time; the argument that must be made is why it should be removed, not why it should be retained. As for deleting the article, it has been challenged -- several times -- and it has always been found to be sufficiently notable and sufficiently well documented to merit inclusion. "I don't like it" is not a valid argument. TechBear | Talk | Contributions17:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Fucking Sanity Support; who are you trying to kid? There exists ZERO human beings who have ever used "santorum" to designate what the word is pretending to designate without the intent of making an attack on Santorum . That the word may be in "use" as part of a concerted attack on Santorum is pretty much undisputable (and may well deserve an article). Calling it "sexual slang" is an outright lie: it's not slang, it's not used for its literal fake meaning, and it is not used in a sexual context. — Coren15:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
