Talk:Campaign for the neologism "santorum"

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by APatcher (talk | contribs) at 17:57, 1 August 2014 (→‎Entirely Inappropriate for Wikipedia). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeCampaign for the neologism "santorum" was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 19, 2006Articles for deletionKept
December 25, 2006Articles for deletionNo consensus
October 2, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
October 23, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
December 19, 2010Articles for deletionKept
June 12, 2011Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
June 20, 2011Articles for deletionKept
June 21, 2011Deletion reviewEndorsed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Search engine results

A quick Google just now yielded this very article as the first result, the WP article about the senator as the second, the Urban Dictionary definitions (first the neologism, then the senator), and the spreadingsantorum page fourth. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm...thank you? Is there a point you are trying to make Orangemike that I am missing? Is this about the notability issue?
Nope, just a datum. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okey dokey.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And some editors worried we were contributing to the campaign. Seems like we superseded it. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely Inappropriate for Wikipedia

This article is: (1) Outdated (2) Infantile (3) Not encyclopedic (4) A personal promotion for Mr. Savage

It needs to be deleted. If not deleted entirely, the personal promotion for Mr. Savage, (i.e., his picture) needs to be removed. 74.103.182.239 (talk) 07:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Just because you don't like it is not a legitimate reasoning to remove an image.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. We realize Rick Santorum is a homophobic fool. We get it. This was interesting and humorous when they first published it, but now it is irrelevant, incoherent, and not encyclopedic in any way whatsoever. Why does Wikipedia have to sacrifice its integrity by publishing things like this just because Santorum makes a fool of himself? Not only should the picture go, the whole article should go. Also, why would this be nominated for "good articles"? It could have been a great article, but the problem was it was never very good. APatcher (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]