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. There is overwhealming consensus that this does not justify a standalone article and while I considered exercising discretion for a merge over a deletion to try and take the keep arguments into account the bald fact is that the delete side has such a strong showing that it would be an abuse of discretion not to simply go with the numbers. So many people have not been swayed by the keep votes that the outcome is very clear Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lewinsky (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)

Nominating for deletion, for all reasons discussed here, and per consensus on that page that the article should undergo a full AfD. To summarize: The article was created, most probably, by a badhat sock to make a point about Campaign for "santorum" neologism. The article's sourcing is weak (see this discussion), in spite of having a lot of big name mentions, it doesn't seem to have more than passing discussion. There is already an article where this information belongs, Lewinsky scandal, or else as part of her biography. Again, read the full discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 2 BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion rationale from the deletion review, per nominator's request:

I make no recommendation as to deletion, merge & redirect, keeping, or moving this article to a new name. I am simply here summarizing the base concern expressed there. It basically boils down to those who wanted it to stay deleted feel like it's a pretty blatant violation of WP:BLP. Particularly, Dreadstar (the inital deleting admin) pointed to this quote from that policy:

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

Hopefully this can serve as the basis for a discussion regarding the ultimate fate of this article. Best, LHM 22:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note - there is no rationale for this AFD - it has been opened as a confirmation AFD - please do not comment here - this AFD is valueless and should be closed. There is clear support for this content, the AFD has been opened to strengthen it not to delete it. Speedy close as outside process, no deletion rationale confirmation nomination Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain calm. It accomplishes nothing to repeatedly blank this AFD, as you have done, and to now rail against it. The consensus at the deletion review was to overturn the speedy and relist. I read nothing there that would support your claim that "there is clear support for this content." LHM 22:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We shouldn't say "no" to having a discussion, and the DRV discussion clearly shows heated contention rather than unified consensus. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I amn not suggesting "unified consensus" - however there clearly is no consensus to delete. Without a deletion rationale any comment keep or delete is void. Off2riorob (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat what I said at the DRV: "I would like to remind everyone that this [DRV] is a discussion concerning whether Dreadstar's speedy deletion was carried out properly; it isn't a substitute AfD discussion." The consensus was to overturn Dreadstar's decision since the community didn't believe it was speedily deleted properly. It doesn't present a consensus to keep. I !voted to overturn Dreadstar's decision in order to have a proper AfD. The article shouldn't have been deleted without discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's a definition and an etymology. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC) A mention in Lewinsky scandal may be appropriate. 09:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Well this is off to a terrible start! The original nomination was not completed and did not include a real rationale. I had no interest in making this nomination myself but I did complete the process so it would be listed properly. Off2riorob repeatedly blanked the content, claiming this was a bad-faith nom from someone who does not actually want the article deleted. Whether or not that is true, blanking this page (and edit warring over it) was inappropriate but apparently will stop now. The nominator does need to include a rationale, and if they don't actually want this deleted then this never should have been nominated in the first place. That said, given the discussion at the DRV I would imagine someone would have nominated this eventually. This note marks the end of my involvement here because, well, it just does. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah thanks bigtimepeace, I have learnt something from you "The nominator does need to include a rationale, " I am surprised but hey, I am surprised here every day, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping, I had to leave the computer at an inopportune time, and couldn't finish things (and not used to the process). BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Weak Transwiki, and UNBLOCK KIWI BOMB. The article is essentially a dictionary article. I've recently transwikied one (Camel toe to wiktionary:cameltoe) which I thought had some remote potential to become an encyclopedia article as well; this seems just a little less than that one, basically a list of attestations. Wiktionary currently lacks an entry at all, which should be modified. From the deletion review it sounds like the sources need double checking to sort over some details. However, I do not support deleting the article in the event transwiki is chosen, because it is better to keep the original contribution history and discussion - a soft redirect is good enough, no need to erase the history. But above all what we need to do is recognize, whether it was a good article or one better shoved aside, it was not a wrong article - it is not something that a newbie should be blocked for creating. I want us to come out of this AfD with a clear statement of that. Wnt (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  AFD discussions are not unblock discussions - if you want a statement/declaration of that you should go to WP:ANI - this is not the place at all. Off2riorob (talk)

When I say "unblock Kiwi Bomb" I'm using a shorthand - what I mean is that the discussion should make clear that the article per se is not improper; and the article is all he had a chance to do. This is very important to me because I actually do think it can be transwikied, but I don't want that to be taken as meaning Kiwi Bomb should be blocked - the article is near the boundary between encyclopedia and dictionary definition, and new (or old) editors should not be penalized for sticking it in the wrong spot. Wnt (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak keep There may be nothing more here than a DICDEF so we should consider that as a strong reason for deletion. However I strongly contest the unsupported allegations that the article itself is an attack page of that the mere mention of "Lewinsky" is some BLP violation so gross that the editor creating the article be blocked without discussion and the article speedily deleted. We need to slow down and have a calm discussion of the merits of the subject and the article. Protonk (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also have no real problem with merging this to an appropriate parent article. Protonk (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A list of sources that start with a quote from an announcer for professional wrestling is not a good sign. Oral sex had been around for a great many years before Lewinsky became infamous; it doesn't seem quite fair to tag the young woman with a label a few clowns have tossed around.

1. Agreed that this page is a horrible mess, but I don't think anyone has done anything worth blockage. Loud chiding might be in order. PhGustaf (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I was on the fence for a while but after reviewing the sources in the un-deleted article I now think that it meets the relevant guideline (WP:NEO), however distasteful the subject may be. Qrsdogg (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Disgusting and distasteful article topics are not problematic. There are clearly enough reliable sources about the word itself that we can reasonably have an article here. Since source discuss the history and use of the word, transwikying is suboptimal. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- reliable sourcing exists for the article. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a dictionary definition of a non-notable neologism. A few joking uses of the word do not constitute "significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources." Edison (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete already covered elsewhere, and not sufficient notability for a stand-alone article per WP:NEO policy. Most of the sources are primary sources, i.e. sources using the term, rather than secondary sources discussing the use of the term in primary sources. Also BLP concerns. --JN466 00:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Where else on Wikipedia is it covered? I don't see it mentioned in either Lewinsky scandal or Monica Lewinsky.   Will Beback  talk  01:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right, Will, thank you. I thought someone said it was covered in these article, and upon checking I find it isn't. Adding a paragraph in Lewinsky scandal will be the best solution, rather than having a standalone article. --JN466 01:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, there's reason for a paragraph, not an article. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • And yet no one has added such a paragraph.   Will Beback  talk  11:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Monica Lewinsky is only notable for a single reason, the scandal surrounding her affair with Bill Clinton. This would be a third article dealing with her and the aspects of that scandal. Its a BLP violation to have Monica Lewinsky only notable for this sex scandal to be featured in three stand alone articles. If this neologism, is deemed either appropriate or significant enough to be noted in Wikipedia, a line in one of the other two articles is enough.(olive (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete, and merge any useful content into a short paragraph into a parent article, per concerns raised both here and at the deletion review regarding WP:BLP issues. There's simply no reason to have an article that identifies a person's name with a sexual act. Even the similar "santorum" article (which presents much different concerns) did not survive as "Santorum (neologism)" but was renamed. LHM 02:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge I think this meets WP:NEO and WP:N quite nicely. However, from an organizational viewpoint I think a merger to the Lewinsky scandal page with a short paragraph of coverage there would be workable and maybe even the best solution. I do oppose deletion. That is I don't see a point to delete and merge (in addition to the attribution problems, there just isn't a point here). Hobit (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated, S Marshall's arguments that other than the definition there really isn't anything to do here that isn't on the scandal page. Rather than redoing that on this page, a merge makes a lot more sense (yes, I know he got delete out of that, but A) I don't see a BLP violation here as it's all quite well sourced and B) I think a merge addresses the problem better than deletion.) Hobit (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:BLP calls for the removal of unsourced or questionably sourced material about a living person. This article is impeccably sourced. Summoning a BLP violation here is best described at our essay Wikipedia:BLP_zealot: As the policy says, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced" must be removed. The BLP zealot would take this to apply to all contentious material, no matter how well sourced. He would remove a statement like "Roman Polanski was charged with having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl"^[1][2] under this policy. Wiwaxia (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you really comparing a 22-year-old intern, who was seduced by the president to Polanski, who was charged with molesting a 13 year old girl? LHM 04:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Interestingly enough, you have exposed the principal problem with broad enforcement of BLP. Where we are normally supposed to be supremely agnostic about the subject of the article, a liberal interpretation of BLP would force us to distinguish between those two cases. We should be just as suspicious about unsourced allegations in both articles. Note I did not say (nor did Wiwaxia) that sourced allegations be scrubbed from both articles. You would also be hard pressed to find literal policy which would force us to do the scrubbing. And yet here we are. Protonk (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the stand alone article and merge summary of content to Lewinsky scandal. My76Strat ^talk 05:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Edison. Petty name calling without any impact on the English language. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Appearing on Law and Order and in the New York Times is good enough for notability for me. HominidMachinae (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Lewinsky scandal. Unfortunately, it appears in concise Partridge (Datzell's edition, 2008). And it seems to have entered the English language. Also, unfortunately, it has enough material to prevent a move to wiktionary via WP:NOTDICDEF. Similar to Gerrymandering, which is based in Elbridge Gerry. As JN466 says "[it lacks] secondary sources discussing the use of the term in primary sources" (apart from 3 sexual slang books), so it could merged to the scandal article Most of the article is original research on how the primary sources use the term, and it could be trimmed during the merge. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The difference between the Lewinsky (neologism) and Santorum (neologism) is that in the Lewinsky case, the word itself hasn't attracted controversy or coverage. There wasn't a campaign to elevate "Lewinsky" to a word, and there was no controversy about that word. This is why it's entirely self-consistent to argue "keep" for Santorum but "delete" for Lewinsky.

  Now that we know we're not being inconsistent, it remains to consider the Lewinsky case in detail. There are two things the article might discuss: the word itself (as a dictionary definition) and the way the word arose (for which see Lewinsky scandal.) After you subtract (a) the dicdef and (b) the things that belong in Lewinsky scandal there isn't anything left. Delete this negative information about a living person per WP:BLP, and do it now, not later.—S Marshall T/C 11:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Used once or twice, over a decade ago. Not remotely encyclopedic. Not a definition, not anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelobet sei (talk • contribs) 12:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We don't need an article on every neologism in the English language. This one is old, trivial, and barely worth a mention. I might weakly support a merge of one sentence about it into another article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Somewhat similar to the "santorum" retardation, this is not a real word; it has been utilized...sparingly...as a crude joke, that is all. Reliable sources that make mention of this could be used in the Lewinsky scandal article to note how some have mocked her last name. But it is not an actual word, just as a certain NFL player's name that was used amusingly for a time at WP:BOOMERANG isn't one, either. Also ,please re-indef block the article creator, the quacking is practically deafening. Tarc (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If you want to request a block of the user, please do so in the proper forum.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I will comment on blocks where and when I choose. Kindly mind your own business. Tarc (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I am the creator of this article. The word "lewinsky" as a slang term or euphemism for oral sex continues to be widely used as I have tried to show by my selection of sources. Many of the sources not only use the word but also mention that it has become part of the lexicon. It has been included in multiple slang dictionaries. I believe that its popularity derives from the fact that it is seen as an acceptable euphemism for a subject that would not otherwise be mentioned. The Lewinsky scandal gave rise to public discussion of topics that would previously not have been addressed by the mainstream media. See The Nation: The New Scandalisms; It Depends on What Your Definition of Linguistic Trend Is from The New York Times for example. KayBee (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Disgusting, Wikipedia has become a place where everyone can read about the sexual slang byproducts of someone's mistakes. I wonder how Jimbo would like it if I used the terms "pulling a Jimbo" to refer to chatting about sex? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or renaming a decade as a "full Jimbo" as in the length of time between divorces. John lilburne (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that editor revulsion at a subject was sufficient reason for deletion. Protonk (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean—the revulsion is at allowing this page to exist, not the action of oral sex. BLP is about protecting people, not further associating them with something undesirable. Now, this doesn't mean all negative content should be removed, of course, but we shouldn't be hosting pages purely about someone's name equaling oral sex. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge (carefully and judiciously). A number of policies and issues intersect here, and (pending a more complete review of the sources) the case could be made that this satisfies WP:NEO and as a well-sourced article about an (unwitting) public figure is thus out of WP:BLP territory. However, I am also a firm proponent of WP:SOCK, WP:DENY, and WP:POINT. Assuming that's how and why the article was created we shouldn't reward a disruptive editor who happens to have found a viable policy argument the fruits of their mischief. Further, stepping way back from all of this, as an encyclopedia I think we should mention this pop culture phenomenon -- the English language and its evolution being an important topic well worth covering in the encyclopedia -- briefly as a side issue to the scandal article, not as a stand-alone article. That's what's best to inform the reader, our primary mission here. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a dictionary and especially not a dictionary of obscure slang. I'm now of the opinion there should be no neologism articles. Any new words should be a section of the event that created the word. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Don't get me started on the fiction that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See, e.g., that and either. Sorry, just venting.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, please vent. However, that and either articles are about grammar and logic and such articles are appropriate. I'll grant it can be hard to know where to draw the line. Some feel there should be no articles about words period. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It fills a necessary void. (M.Twain) JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to scandal article, after condensing substantially. The cited material doesn't show enduring use of this neologism, just a burst of use in the immediate wake of the events. Most of the cited later uses are from partisan sources and targeting commentary, no more than ordinary political invective that lacks independent notability. Perhaps a better case could be made for more general usage, but without one the article can't stand alone. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Wikidemon. -- Khazar (talk) 04:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, even though I appreciate Wikiedomen's argument. This does not rise to the level of notability required for something relatively extraordinary, and the lack of proper sourcing is indicative. That a Wrestlezone commentator needs to be cited suggests this lack of notability, as does the plethora of primary sources. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete here per wp:NEO and merge partly into Lewinsky scandal. KayBee Good point to mention it and bringing it to Wikipedia, but best destination is there. Standalone article? Why? Reo ⁺ 07:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete per S Marshall, without prejudice to merging anything relevant. Yes this is a delete-and-merge recommendation. The redirect is useless. We can preserve attribution through edit summaries or talk page notes. Gigs (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, leaving behind a short mention in the Lewinsky scandal article. I reject the reasoning stated in the nomination; there is no BLP violation here. The reason to delete is that there's nothing here beyond the dictionary entry. New words enter the language all the time. It's not like Gerrymandering or Boycott or the like because those articles are primarily about the thing itself, with a mention of how the thing came to be described with this word. We should and do have an article on oral sex. It's not like Campaign for "santorum" neologism because there's no campaign here, and no sources indicating any political impact. The purported notability is simply indication that the word is being used, which is enough for a dictionary but not for an encyclopedia. Although I disagree with KayBee's "keep" rationale, I see no blockable offense here. JamesMLane t c 14:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well put. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A flash in the pan. The only current sources using the term are political commentators who live to beat dead horses. The rest are painfully dated. At most this deserves a sentence or two in the scandal and biography articles about a short-lived eponymous piece of slang, that has not been picked up into the language. I'd suggest Campaign for lewinsky neologism except that Rush doesn't have an SEO-savvy following of word-users outside of Urban Dictionary (result #3 on Google as of 11:09 EDT 2011-Jul-5). And the other one will, I think, last much longer than this one did. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 15:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; not even counting that this article is a textbook example of why BLP1E exists, it has been clearly created in order to make a point about another unrelated article. — Coren ^(talk) 16:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Lewinsky scandal. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, we are not UrbanDictionary. Add the bare bones (i.e. that the word "Lewinsky" was briefly regarded as a synonym for fellatio) to the main article on the Lewinsky scandal. JFW | T@lk 18:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Poor lady has had enough without it becoming a wikipedia page. Drop it. BTW, Santorum is a deliberate public figure. So the analogy is bad. Jewishprincess (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What part of WP:NOT or any core policy is "the poor lady has had enough"? That's the thing here, there are *NO* policy-based reasons for deletion. BLP covers unsourced material, not things sourced to the New York Times, BLP:1E doesn't apply to words. HominidMachinae (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I worded my objection incorrectly. I was merely saying it is time this discussion is put to bed. There are myriad reasons for deleting this article, many of them detailed here. I pretty much agree with all of them. Jewishprincess (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete, my way of thinking with BLP is that if an entire article exists on something that should just be sentence in a section of another, the very size and scope of the standalone article makes it a BLP violation. At the very least redirect it, but I don't think there are sufficient sources for a standalone article or even a redirect of this purported neologism. the current sources fail miserably. Dreadstar ☥ 02:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, upon a second review I still don't think this is a malicious BLP violation. With that said, I think there is undue weight given to the neologism given the sources available, so I think a merge to the scandal article to cover the coining of the word (thouroughly referenced, of course) is the best way to go here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Merge Merge - non-notable neologism bordering on BLP vio. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge; article is really straining to get this to a standalone topic, and the content fits a lot better as a paragraph in the Lewinsky Scandal. There are a lot of sources in this article but many of them are simply uses of the neologism, which are then mentioned in the article (in some detail, I add). That basically amounts to an "in popular culture" section. All this content should be removed till secondary sources can be found to support it. The remaining sources do, yes, raise this as content we should be adding - but not to the level of a standalone article. The neologism was relatively short lived and relates to the wider story of the scandal more than anything else. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or merge) for the same reasons I expressed at the Campaign for "santorum" neologism discussion. The entire concept is a WP:ATTACK on a WP:BLP. It's a WP:FORK and WP:COATRACK. My view also has grounds in many areas of WP:NOT. Simply put: This is not what an encyclopedia, regardless of how extensive, should be documenting in all juicy lurid details. The funny thing is, I won't be surprised a bit if this gets deleted, and the santorum one gets kept. But I'm starting to get used to the complete lack of consistency in this project. — Ched :  ?  13:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• on a side note: I am somewhat puzzled by the nom's desire to keep and work on the santorum article, and yet feel so adamant that this one should be deleted. However, I'd be a bit surprised if he was the only "keep santorum" and "delete Lewinsky" editor here. The funny part is ... I've actually heard people use the later term. Dial Ripley's Believe it or not. — Ched :  ?  14:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There's really no inconsistency. One article describes a current ongoing campaign, the other a word that is not currently in notable use. If/when the santorum campaign folds or people stop talking about it the way they've stopped talking about lewinsky, I'll !vote to merge santorum too. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete, now please. This article is almost a violation of BLP by its very existence. We do not need to treat living people like this. I thought Santorum (neologism) was bad enough (an article which inexplicably still exists), now people want to create more like that? No, let's stop this silliness here. In this case, a brief mention in Lewinsky scandal may be appropriate, but I cannot agree that this is such an important word that it needs an article notwithstanding the obvious BLP issues. Robofish (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JakeInJoisey causa sui (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both this article and Campaign for "santorum" neologism. Or keep them both, as long as we're consistent. They are of equal notability/importance to share the same fate. Peacock (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A handful of allusive references do not a neologism make. Sources that characterize a joke among college kids and attention seekers as a neologism, rather than a protologism at most, are expressing a fringe view. Even as a protologism, there is nothing encyclopedic to say about it, just an etymology and some use cases, titillating though they be. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Judging from the age of the references, it looks like it was briefly used as a word but didn't take. A couple of contemporary jokes don't add up to current usage. Nor is this an odd linguistic phenomenon like Santorum worth documenting. Perhaps a paragraph in her article or in whatever appropriate Clinton scandal article. Gamaliel (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a reference: Don Van Natta Jr. (1999-10-17). "The Nation: The New Scandalisms; It Depends on What Your Definition of Linguistic Trend Is". New York Times. NBC said Lewinsky was used "many times on TV". Dick Wolf refused to apologize for using it. So there's some legitimate notability to the word as a neologism, and some content that doesn't really fit into a dictionary article. Wnt (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak keep per WP:BARE. It was once notable, and used for about ten years, then a new generation used "brain" instead. I looked at the sources and was surprised at how good they were. The other, santorum, has been attested for a longer time. If this one were deleted, I would not be unhappy, but agree that we should be consistent. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to a newly created List of sexual neologisms. Easy to populate such a list. Should have been done with whatever we're calling "santorum" now. Merge other sexual neologisms into the list as they come to meet the tests of notability and verification. Create redirects from all such into the new parent. This should provide reasonable coverage without offering undue promotion to one single neologism. BusterD (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletion wouldn't be a bad option. The problem is these are minority uses of the word, which of course is not actually a word, but a surname. Even when used as this article purports it is used, there is not actually word usage there (this applies to "santorum" as well) but rather invocation of an idea that requires thinking about—first one has to think about the Lewinsky scandal and then one can conjure up the image intended by the speaker's linking to that particular historical incident. So, no, there is no topic for an article here. In fact there should not be a dictionary definition for the terms lewinsky or santorum. There is no way that anyone could argue that these are words that have entered our language. At best we can describe usages of surnames as references to particular inflection points that are confined considerably to historical points in time. My prediction is that the point will come, in the not too distant future, when these two references will be dated and will adversely reflect upon any user, and any further use will mark one as from a previous era. At that point the only possible use will be the recreation of historical settings as in writing and filmography. The briefest of mentions of both of these terms should be confined to articles on wider topics, as these terms definitely have not entered our language, but merely are references. Bus stop (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A "handful of allusive references" (Ningauble's excellent term) does not warrant an article. Neutrality^talk 01:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Lewinsky scandal, where a one-sentence mention of this phenomenon may be appropriate. There's really no need to repeat all instances where a word has been used. —Kusma (t·c) 22:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the neologism is documented in dictionaries and a number of other reliable sources that discuss the term rather than just using it in passing. Quigley (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - limited usage and limited note. Off2riorob (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BARE. Binksternet (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete THIS and this one while your at it both are attacks on living people and should be deleted promptly. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 16:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this article on a humdrum synonym for blowjob. True, it's impressively tricked out, but it's merely a longwinded dictionary entry. And examination reveals that it's less impressive than it first seems. Example: In 2009 on popular wrestling site [[Wrestlezone]], announcer Jim Ross opined that "most know what a 'Lewinsky' refers to".<ref>((cite web|last=Boone|first=Matt|title=Jim Ross On WWE/Denver Incident, RAW Announcing, Tag-Teams|url=http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/article/jim-ross-on-wwedenver-incident-raw-announcing-tag-teams-77475|publisher=[[Wrestlezone]]|accessdate=2 July 2011|date=22 May 2009|quote=Most know what a "Lewinsky" refers to so I wonder if arena scheduling issues might be referred to as "Kroenke's" in the future?))</ref> -- there's nothing there, or in the source, to say that "Lewinsky" means blowjob as opposed to intern of the preferred sex, intern selected for looks, sexually available intern, curvacious person, person who's the butt of jokes, person whose "15 minutes" elapsed some time ago, etc etc. ¶ There is little parallel with the neologism santorum, which by contrast was created and has been popularized for a political purpose. -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - At best, a non-notable neologism. At least as likely: a POINTY retort to the Campaign for Santorum Neologism piece. Stacking three footnotes on the first line in the lead to "support" a highly arguable subjective statement is the tell-tale red flag for me. Footnote stacking is often a sign of tendentious editing... Carrite (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Carrite and Hoary directly above. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as others have said as a non-notable neologism. Mtking (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a neologism that hasn't been itself the subject of signficant coverage. The article justs lists everytime the phrase has been used in the media, without giving any sources which discuss the broad reception of the term. ThemFromSpace 02:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable as a neologism. Yaksar (let's chat) 07:38, 11 July 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.