Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saddlebacking

Saddlebacking

Non-notable neologism. Merge to Dan Savage or Savage Love. BJ^Talk 14:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dan Savage has precedent for defining and setting new sexual terms, see Pegging (sexual practice) & Santorum (sexual neologism), and his regular advice column has been deemed notable enough to have its own entry as well. It is probable that relatively quickly the term Saddlebacking will itself have gained enough notability and independent references to validate an entry. --RedHillian | Talk 15:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Savage Love article has an entire section dedicated to neologisms he has coined, from what I can tell only one has been deemed notable to date. The article is so short no content will be lost in the merge and can always be split later. BJ^Talk 15:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both Pegging & Santorum have articles, and that's the two neologisms he's coined so far. --RedHillian | Talk 17:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Santorum and Pegging are neologims coined by Dan Savage that have taken a context beyond him and do now require their own page. There is no reason to believe Saddlebacking will not do the same. When someone questions, "What is Saddlebacking?" the answer is not "Dan Savage." --70.91.82.131 (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expand an article and stop browsing reddit, admin. 75.64.247.79 (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Admins? Doing work? Surely not. BJ^Talk 15:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I vote to merge it into the Dan Savage article with a new section in that article which mentions neologisms as a tool for social awareness, and redirect both "saddlebacking" and "santorum" to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.38.107 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Savage Love already has such a section, seems like the obvious place to merge. BJ^Talk 18:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to the article on Savage. Wikipedia is not a mirror of every term Savage coins. Referenced only to Savage. As for predictions that the term "will be come well known," WP:CRYSTAL is thataway. Edison (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either Delete or Improve. You can't reference the notability of the other Savage neologs to bolster this one; they have decently long entries and a lot of non-Savage references already. Maybe Saddleback merits it now, but if so, it would need an article on the order of the other two terms. Otherwise, we're just violating WP:CRYSTAL, as Edison noted. Jcderr (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as-is if the term picks up traction, otherwise redirect and merge to Dan Savage. A redirecting to B can mean that B conceptually contains A, not just that A == B. Gracenotes^T § 20:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Gracenotes. This term was just coined and a little time will do it good. I'm going to try and expand the article a little bit anyway. Smackheid (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to Dan Savage. It's fairly likely, given Savage's track record, that the term will become independantly notable - but it isn't, yet. Until it does, a brief mention in Savage's article (after the section on "santorum") would probably be best. After there's something to say about it, and it's been picked up by the media, it can be spun out into a standalone article. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this as-is or expand to include more detail on the social context that gave rise to the neologism, which was actually chosen by a vote of Savage's readers due to a broader social concern (the unintended consequences of abstinence-based sex education) and a particular religious institution's stance on that issue (i.e., the Rev. Rick Warren's Saddleback Church). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.131.36 (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is no less notable than Santorum (sexual neologism). As evidence that it's notable, it's been mentioned in The Economist. Spotfixer (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No less notable? That article has 30 citations. BJ^Talk 04:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's as notable, but not as old, so it's going to take more time to get more citations. That's precisely why we are not going to delete it now. Spotfixer (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So it's notable, but the citations don't exist yet... M'kay. BJ^Talk 04:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's notable, but there are only three citations so far. For an article that's one sentence long, I think that's a fair number. Spotfixer (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2/3 of the citations are primary sources. I'm not doubting the article is verifiable but that's not the same thing as notable. BJ^Talk 04:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your summary is outdated, as more references have been coming in. As for the idea that it's not notable, this has been refuted by The Economist. If a reliable source judges something to be notable, we are in no position to prefer our personal opinion over its professional conclusion. Finally, if you really doubt its notability, google "Saddlebacking anal" and watch the flood roll by. Spotfixer (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Aardhart (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While we're discussing whether to keep the article, two people are trying to orphan it by removing mentions from the two articles that definitely MUST reference it. Spotfixer (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted this while checking the links. BJ^Talk 04:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did the right thing. The term is "saddlebacking", not "saddleback", so the latter should not redirect to the former. We may want to add a disambig to the top, though. Spotfixer (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you are referring to. I don't think those removals have much to do with the AfD, even if the article was merged I could see a case for keeping the text. I can also see a case for removing the text if the article is kept. BJ^Talk 04:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, once this article officially survives AfD, we can safely shorten the text in Rick Warren and Saddleback Church. Spotfixer (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a term coined ONE WHOLE WEEK AGO is not appropriate subject matter. This is silly. The so-called external reference in the Economist doesn't even know what the word means because Savage hadn't decided on the definition yet. There's no way this should be an article. --B (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - Dan Savage, as good a writer as he is, is not sufficient in and of himself to justify adding this as an article to Wikipedia. Delete it, or merge it back to the Dan Savage article until such a time as the term gains widespread usage, and such usage is reported in and discussed by multiple, extensive, reliable sources. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong consideration of keep if the Economist has an article. The Economist is the world's most prestigious newsmagazine, even more than Time and Newsweek. We should re-write the article to the Economist slant, not the religious slant.Ipromise (talk) 06:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not every slur that Mr. Savage invents is notable. - Schrandit (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The single independent reference doesn't even know the definition of the term. If it becomes ubiquitous after several months, it might merit a page.--Lyonscc (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, elaborate that Savage conducted a contest for the purpose of embarrassing Warren, and add textual explanation of links to Rick Warren and Saddleback Church. JamesMLane t c 08:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. To Santorum (sexual neologism) with time this may be as notable as the Santorum neologism and that article is a good example of what this one would need to be. If the notability reaches the same threashold then add notability content and sourcing. It may just be too new for now. Here are the RS's I could find:

Strong Delete Non-notable political attack neologism. Offensive (would be deleted if it were a Template etc.). WP is not a repository for slurs. A neologism chosen "for the purpose of embarassing" someone would not be a rational entry in any encyclopedia. Collect (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A neologism chosen for the purpose of embarrassing someone is no more or less appropriate for an encyclopedia than a neologism chosen for the purpose of extolling someone. A deletion argument revolving around the idea that the subject matter of an article is offensive isn't that useful. Notability, though, is a useful consideration. Gracenotes^T § 23:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When it's gained as much traction as "Santorum" then it can have its own article. Mike R (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete until strong evidence of notability can be found. Powers ^T 16:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If enough wish, I would like to see its soulmate sites listed in external links. (

http://truelovewaits.com/ http://silverringthing.com/ www.purityrings.com www.abstinenceproducts.com technicalvirgin.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alakshak (talk • contribs) 17:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Savage's reputation for creating neologisms and Internet terms is enough to warrant an article. Gary Seven (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge This article can easily be recreated if the term becomes notable. See also: WP:CRYSTAL and WP:INN. -Neitherday (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A google search reveals usage is rapidly picking up. Keep it, as is with appropriate additions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnr2 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for best or Merge for second-best. About as notable as the drivel we get from college students who invent drinking games. Smells to me of either self-promotion or promotion by an underling. Is the practice this purports to describe really prevalent, and does it need a word to describe it? Is this fellow a Shakespeare to be creating lasting new wordings, or his he just good at PR? Peridon (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I heard about it at least 10 years ago. It is also thought by some people to be important information to pass on(site active since at least 2002), though others tend to disagree[1]. Butt seriously, the medical profession says it sees too many anal problems and STDs in these kids and they need to be more careful[2][3][4][5]. As far as the existance of a need for a word to describe it, that's not for us to debate... we only report. NJGW (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment already getting votes for "keep" from single-contribution accounts. Collect (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I personally think it likely that it'll become notable, and we can re-create it then. In the meantime, we should delete it. Pseudomonas_(talk) 00:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Virginity pledge for now. Let me explain my thought process. So, perhaps we have decided that the term is, as of right now, not supported by enough independent, third party sources for its own article. However, there are plenty enough sources to qualify it for a mention, with due weight, in this article. Fundamentally, the term will be dealing with this subject when it does become notable. More so than it will deal with Rick Warren and Saddleback Church. They relate to its origins while the construct of a virginity pledge is what it deals with functionally. Mention of this has been removed from Rick Warren, and may be fully stricken from Saddleback Church as well, because the term doesn't deal directly with the person/org. Well, virginity pledges are what it deals with directly. Eventually, it will become its own article, but for now, a notable event shouldn't be whitewashed away from every article. SMSpivey (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yea, merge it with Dan Savage and Savage Love as well. Duh! SMSpivey (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to point out that Spotfixer is wrong. The proper name of the article is Saddleback (sexual neoligism), so of course it must be added to the disambiguation page when it becomes notable, which it will. Keep lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.150.54 (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think we need the addition of the text in parentheses here only because we don't need to disambiguate it from a person's name. If it were called warrening, however... but it's not. Spotfixer (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge information on the practise to Virginity pledge or Abstinence-only sex education#Criticism and information on the term to Dan Savage or Savage Love. The practise has been documented enough for to be included in the correct context but I do not think this particular neologism has received the kind of coverage that warrants an article on the term or to be the title of a separate article on the practise. Guest9999 (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term is a specific reference to Rick Warren's church. It has little to do with the virginity pledge, and only slightly more to do with abstinence-only sex education. It is fundamentally about religious views that lead to an emphasis on technical virginity. Because it needs to be well-cited and linked to from at least two other primary articles, it cannot be successfully merged in with anything else. Spotfixer (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that the hardest thing about getting more reliable sources isn't a deadly silence, but a flood of references. As Digg shows, the term is already popular, and it's in many, many blogs. Of course, with a few exceptions for the ones written by already notable people, we can't use blogs. We already have a solid primary source, from the article in The Stranger, but that's syndicated and is now popping up all over the place in newspapers that are reliable sources. The term is, in other words, both notable and new, which is a hard combination to document. This is precisely why we need to give it a safe home here, where it can grow references over time: we know for a fact that any mention of it in Rick Warren or Saddleback Church gets viciously attacked by those who want to censor Wikipedia, until the articles are Protected. Spotfixer (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up an earlier thread, the mention on Pharyngula is notable because it's not a typical blog; it's the top-ranking blog written by a scientist, who is himself notable enough for a non-stub article. For that matter, the blog is also notable. Unlike some random person's soapboxing on LiveJournal, this is a reliable source and evidence of notability. Spotfixer (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect into Savage_Love#Saddlebacking. A single incomplete reference in the Economist is insufficient for the term to get its own page. The editors who believe the term will become notable enough to get its own page, as santorum did, are probably right, but notability must be determined retrospectively rather than prospectively. Wait a year and someone will surely try creating the article again, and by then the term's use may have burgeoned.--Atemperman (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither pegging nor santorum required a year, and neither does saddlebacking. Spotfixer (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, wait six months then, or however long it takes for saddlebacking to achieve the currency that santorum did. Santorum (disambiguation) was created to point to the sexual term on 21 November 2003[6], half a year after Savage announced the neologism in his column[7]. Consensus on Wikipedia to have a separate page for the term took over three years[8]. Saddlebacking has only been out there for three days--we can be patient.Atemperman (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you're only proving my point. Those who are offended by these words clearly fight hard to censor them, and while they tend to lose in the long term, they succeed by artificially dragging out the approval process. They're filibustering what they cannot defeat. Spotfixer (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure who you are referring to but I'm not offended by the term in the slightest. Wikipedia is not a news source, an (urban) dictionary nor the The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. It was defined less than a week ago, has only been used by few remotely notable sources and hasn't had any impact or generated any responses. BJ^Talk 22:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]