Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toothing (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. (Non-admin closure) -- Explodicle (T/C) 19:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Toothing
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a non-notable internet hoax. It fails to establish notable with multiple, independent, published sources. The first nomination (from 2005) did not establish a consensus and the community standards have evolved much since then. The sources cited are as follows: (1) The Triforce, a blog that is neither notable nor reliable; (2) a Slate article which is not sufficiently independent because the author of the article claims to be the exposer of the hoax; this has never been published in print, and is really more of a human interest story than anything else, no facts cited from that article could establish notability; (3) a (dead) external link to a Reuters story, which again is more of a human interest story than a news story. I believe none of these to met the criteria established at Notability (web). One non-independent web-only source, and one human interest wire service do not make a web meme notable. There are simply not enough facts that can be cited to reliable, independently published sources to write a real article about this topic. Four years after the fact, it seems safe to say there is nothing new on the way. Savidan 23:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

*Delete Can't find any reliable sources, not verifiable, notability is not established. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. It's impressive that it survived the first time.-- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  23:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You really need to take a Google course at a community college if you cant find any references, seriously. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that ^^^ didn't sound sarcastic at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Finding sources that vouch for somethng's existence is not the same as finding sources that establish notability. Savidan 05:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." If it was only found in a dictionary, or in a list of words, it would "exist". There are now 10 references, including a book published in 2007. Please, try and perform some due diligence before you nominate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because someone printed a story about it doesn't me someone feels the coverage was notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Reuters may be a WP:RS, but they are a wire service that prints pretty much anything. A trivial article here or there isn't notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They don't print "everything", if they did I would have a biography at Reuters, and I don't. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't know someone was going to get pedantic about the word. Let me rephrase. They put stories that can be of minimal, almost local, interest that lack notability on their wire. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We are writing a reference work, correct and exact meaning is everything. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Accuracy in the article is important. Perhaps it escaped your keen attention, but this is a discussion about deletion, not an article. We are not writing a reference work here. We are discussion whether it is notable enough for inclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Once notable always notable. If gone it will leave a gap in understanding. It has been defined in La Nación just last month: "Toothing: Este procedimiento consiste en dejar el bluetooth encendido para ver quiénes están conectados a menos de diez metros de distancia. Después del saludo inicial, se lanzaba la pregunta: ¿quieres toothing? Se dice que en España e Inglaterra aún es usado para encontrar fugaces parejas sexuales."--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is a translation of the article Richard mentioned. I am inclined to characterize it as a "trivial mention". I agree with the premise that notability does not decay, but that presupposes that it was ever established. Savidan 05:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Appearing in a list of words would be "trivial". Being defined in Spanish 5 years after the English language phenomenon is ne plus ultra. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

*Delete nothing has been done to suggest or prove any reason for maintaining this article doktorb wordsdeeds 05:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There are ample reliable and verifiable sources about the phenomenon establishing notability, and the fact that it's a hoax is no different from the tooth fairy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansohn (talk • contribs)
 * Keep Notable hoax. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Are these supposed to be Delete votes? doktorb wordsdeeds 16:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No. These are keep votes. The hoax is notable and has received substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. It's not a fake article, it's an article about this hoax that was pulled. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

When your at the point where there are 10 references and ample coverage in a book by Craig Silverman the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I hope the closing nominator realizes these "keep" votes are WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ILIKEIT with no weight at all. There are absolutely no reliable sources, no matter how much you tell me "But, but, but, it's notable! Really! Trust me!" Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am assuming good faith, so if you can't find any sources using Google on this topic, you might want to take a course at a community college to learn how to use Google. It may be helpful. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you point out which of the nine below you consider unreliable, and explain why they are unreliable for Wikipedia, yet reliable enough for the Google News archive? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) ^ "Sexting, toothing y upskirting" (in Spanish). La Nación. May 31, 2009‎. http://www.lanacion.cl/prontus_noticias_v2/site/artic/20090530/pags/20090530183343.html. Retrieved on 2009-06-24. "Toothing: Este procedimiento consiste en dejar el bluetooth encendido para ver quiénes están conectados a menos de diez metros de distancia. Después del saludo inicial, se lanzaba la pregunta: ¿quieres toothing? Se dice que en España e Inglaterra aún es usado para encontrar fugaces parejas sexuales."
 * 2) ^ "No Teeth in Toothing Craze". Wired. 2005. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2005/04/67137. Retrieved on 2009-06-24. "Dozens of news organizations, including Wired News, have been duped by pranksters claiming to be practitioners of "toothing" -- anonymous sexual encounters organized through Bluetooth devices."
 * 3) ^ "Tuned in, turned on". The Independent. April 21, 2004. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/tuned-in-turned-on-560634.html. Retrieved on 2009-06-24. "Bluetooth mobiles have a novel and unintended use: facilitating anonymous sexual encounters. And that's just the beginning, says Charles Arthur"
 * 4) ^ "Sex with strangers, courtesy Bluetooth". Infosyncworld. 23 April 2004. http://www.infosyncworld.com/news/n/4874.html. Retrieved on 2009-06-24. "The latest craze in England, "toothing", uses high-tech gear to find the oldest form of entertainment."
 * 5) ^ a b "Journalist confesses to Bluetooth sex hoax". The Register. April 5, 2005. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/05/bluetooth_sex_hoax/. Retrieved on 2009-06-24. "Remember 'toothing'? Last year the BBC, Reuters and (inevitably) Wired all reported that Bluetooth phones were instrumental in a wave of casual sex sweeping Britain."
 * 6) ^ a b "Biting into the new sex text craze". BBC. May 7, 2004. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/3673093.stm. Retrieved on 2009-06-24. "Seedy text messaging has hit the headlines recently with claims about the private life of a world class footballer but a craze called Toothing may soon make that look very tame."
 * 7) ^ Silverman, Craig (2007). Regret the Error. Sterling Publishing. ISBN 1402751532. http://books.google.com/books?id=nPWuVkgl-S0C&pg=PA138&dq=toothing&ei=vblBSvDePI6yzASEy8Bc. "Toothing — which was spurred on by an online message board filled with posts ... The only hitch in this international story was that toothing didn't exist. ..."
 * 8) ^ "Toothing". The Triforce. http://www.thetriforce.com/newblog/?p=53. Retrieved on 2009-06-24. "In March of last year two of us were idly messaging about the Stan Collymore dogging scandal, and how this stupid sexual buzzword had (apparently) come from nowhere."
 * 9) ^ "How I stopped an Internet sex hoax". Slate. August 1, 2005. http://slate.msn.com/id/2123673/. Retrieved on 2009-06-24. "I discovered that WookieFetish was the planning ground for a massive hoax. It seemed like the ringleaders, who went by MadChad41 and Halcyon, were trying to match the success of 2004's "toothing" scam. A guy named "Toothy Toothing" (later revealed to be a British magazine editor) sold gullible journalists on the idea that British teens were initiating anonymous sex acts by typing "toothing?" into their Bluetooth-enabled cell phones."


 * Comment/question - I found some sources on Google News that are not used in the article (,, , and ). Can they be used to establish notability?  The Le ft ori um  17:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Keep - I have rewritten most of the article and added more reliable sources. I think it meets Notability now.  The Le ft  ori um  14:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment That seems like an adequate number of links to me to establish notability (significant coverage). The article looks good and seems very informative. Full disclosure - I was notified of this discussion by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ).--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and close per easily meeting the inclusion criteria of WP:GNG and with noting that notablity is not temporary (an article "does not need to have ongoing coverage from news sources"). The article survived a 2005 deletion nomination as no-consensus keep, but guideline does not mandate that such keep had to be the result of snowball keep in order to avoid be renominated. Additionally sources have been offered to support notability through the diligent efforts of editors User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and Theleftorium that can further solidify notability.  It was and remains a well sourced article about a notable topic.  With respects to the nom, age has not lessened the notability established and properly sourced in 2005, and your concerns have been further addressed with NEW sources easily found "four years after the fact". Its a pity that these were somehow missed, but kudos to those that found them. Nice job.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep If nonsense becomes notable, it belongs here. I don't necessarily hold with the GNG, but using some sort of guideline based on sourcing seems the only sensible way to handle material of this sort, and it therefore qualifies. How else can we decide-- conceivably we may ctually be the experts on  stupid intent stories, but it really does depend on what catches the popular imagination as judged by those who cater to it.  DGG (talk) 04:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Richard proved that it's notable with reliable and verifiable sources. The article meets the criteria of WP:GNG. --T.F. ☎ 06:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I just found some references. Theleftorium did a complete rewrite and took what was a confusing, poorly written stub of an article and created a smoothly written version worthy of the front page of Wikipedia. He also added information on the concept as a sociological phenomenon and added images. I wish I had his skills in writing, if Henrik isn't a professional writer he should be. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Re-written article is much more informative than earlier version (though I don't share Richard's admiration of Theleftorium's writing - I think there's still some style issues that could be tidied up). Topic is clearly notable. PollyWaffler (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with that myself. The current version was just put together in a few hours. :-)  The Le ft ori um  12:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep due to improvements. Good job!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per excellent re-write. Futhermore, I wish the remaining opposers would come back and check out this article, rather than making drive-by votes. There's no way a delete vote is justified now.  Artichoker [ talk  ] 16:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep due to the inclusion of secondary sources backing up that this hoax is notable.--Gloriamarie (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I have striked my original vote. This article has been improved and validated following its nomination doktorb wordsdeeds 16:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. -MBHiii (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability and sourcing added. Good job on the rewrite. -- Banj e  b oi   23:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable and extensively sourced. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.