This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anthroponymy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Some of the eponyms assume an understanding of British-centric terms such as "ladybird" (under the "Mary" entry) and "googly" (in the corresponding A-K list). These terms could be better described for non-Britons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
it seems some editors are disputing whether santorum (neologism) belongs on this list, and are undoing each other. i have restored the material, and hope that the parties can come to a consensus here. -badmachine 11:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't see consensus for it. Dreadstar☥ 01:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
It looks like the opposition is mostly due to editors who do not believe that "Santorum" is recognized as a word by any authority, such as a dictionary. I do see that Lewinsky (neologism) is on the list. Will Bebacktalk 04:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
In the absence of consensus the neologism should be deleted. So I did so. I'm not a censor as my edits in Merkin and other articles clearly show. In addition to principles found in WP:NOT and WP:NEO you must consider WP:BLP. Trilobitealive (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Note in my original deletion comment I did not include a link to WP:BLP. This was because I was first of all considering the issue of having a neologism on the page which merely linked to the history of attempts to create it. However, upon reflection, the ethics of how we treat living persons in our encyclopedia appears to require the deletion even more urgently. This is despite my general personal opinion that most politicians and most media personalities are (expletive deleted), since we should not insert our personal points of view into Wikipedia.Trilobitealive (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)