Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bluesnarfing (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. east.718 at 00:40, 11/4/2007

[edit] Bluesnarfing

Bluesnarfing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Procedural nomination on behalf of User:71.99.106.188: "firstable this is a myth! secondable no sources for almost a year(check a tag) this is nonsence article lets get (finally) rid of it." No opinion. Someguy1221 07:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep?: the term may be valid: Google found "about 142,000" uses. For example, http://www.bluejackq.com/ includes "... Heard about bluesnarfing and bluejacking in the news recently? Don't get the two confused - bluejacking is legal and fun, whereas bluesnarfing is illegal. Read bluejackQ's bluesnarfing article. ..."". Anthony Appleyard 09:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep:Unregistered user seems to be some sort of minor troll TruthCrusader 14:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism - unless non-trivial mention of the phenomenon can be found in independent sources. No need to transwiki, since Wiktionary has an entry - although it is subject to deletion if sources aren't found soon. Hmm. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Based on the following "reliable sources" it is not a hoax as claimed in the nomination. (But the nominator could change my mind by providing sources for the claim that it is a hoax.)
  • http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3642627.stm
  • http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/10/25/glossary/index.html
  • http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/
  • http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/02/movies/oscars/02leak.html?ex=1267419600&en=ad4f3884fa663340&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdmkolbe (talk • contribs) 04:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Oh, but if there are reliable sources calling it a hoax, then it's a notable hoax and only needs a rewrite. Someguy1221 05:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Mdmkolbe, clearly notable. Someguy1221 05:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I do not trust the IP who proposed deletion of this article at all. I have had many dealings with him/her at Czech Republic, an article frequently vandalized by 71.99.106.188 (and related IPs, some of them already blocked for vandalism). Tankred 03:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Based on the infamous gtest, this is not a neologism anymore, but the word to use. Greswik 18:58, 3 November 2007 (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.