Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blooth

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 of the debate was Redirect to Bluetooth WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 02:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Blooth

Neologism. <500 Google hits for "Blooth bluetooth" r3m0t ^talk 22:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, this is my first article so still learning =) In fact, after people asked me about 'blooth', I did first do some google research. All instances were some form of typo, and therefore there was no directly citable source. Should I cite a specific usage? google? or general typo? Since there were so many indpendent 'mis'-usages, it would seem to be a relatively stable neologism. On the other hand, perhaps is doesn't belong in -pedia anyway, and should be in dictionary or urban-dictionary.

  I don't mind deletion, but a more verbose explanation would allow me to be a better contributor! Thanks! ektoric

  • More verbose it is:
    1. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Articles in Wikipedia are about the people/concepts/places/things/events denoted by their titles, not about the words in their titles. An article entitled Blooth would be about Blooth, or Blooths, whatever they are.
    2. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We don't have multiple articles just because there are multiple words for the same thing. See theatre/theater, color/colour, squash/marrow, chav/charva, and gasoline/petrol. If Blooth is the same thing as Bluetooth, then we have one article about the one thing, with the alternative titles as redirects.
    3. Having individual articles for individual words is what a dictionary does. See theatre/theater, color/colour, squash/marrow, chav/charva, and gasoline/petrol.
    4. For a redirect from an alternative name in the encyclopaedia, reliable evidence has to exist that that really is a widely accepted, or an authoritatively documented, alternative name. A handful of people making a typing mistake does not constitute a credible alternative name. Our Wikipedia:No original research official policy prevents us from proposing new names for things, moreover.
    5. For an alternative spelling to be listed in the dictionary, the word has to satisfy the dictionary's attestation criteria.
  • If people ask you about the word again, point them to blooth in the dictionary. ☺ Uncle G 01:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• No it's not a neologism. But this isn't what the word means. See the Wiktionary article for where the redirect should point. ☺ Uncle G 01:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bluetooth if it's got currency. Stifle 13:02, 7 January 2006 (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.