Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toothiologist

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. JohnCD (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toothiologist

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Non-notable neologism pertaining to a single sketch by an Irish comedian role^player 15:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this is a REAL PROFESSION and I have given enough references so you can check the very existence of the professional at stake. There is no other English word to describe this alternative medical profession other than calling him a Toothiologist.

And YES, the irony is that the term was first used in a sketch of an Irish stand-up comedian. This however shows the irony of this professional.

So is there a "better" term to describe alternative medicine therapists working in the dental field? I challenge you to find me a better one that this one! --DeTandarts (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube is not a reliable source and the other two references provided don't mention this word once. I have checked Google and can find nothing substantial to show that this is in any way a valid term. If this is a real profession, then there should be information about it easily accessible. Please provide it. -- role^player 15:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube is a reliable source as to the fact that Dara O'Brian uses the term, and considering the fact you can't find it anywhere else, it's the first use of it! Reliable enough.

On the other point, you haven't answered my question: What would a better name be for a toothiologist, as my references clearly show that this is an existing profession (unfortunatly) ? Give me another name for an alternative medical therapist working in the field of dentistry, not being a dentist.... Preferably in one word!

--DeTandarts (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're actually saying is that you have made Dara O'Brian's term fit a profession that you have identified exists? Because Jacob Brandsma doesn't even use it himself. Wikipedia is not for things you made up. -- role^player 15:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with those "practitioners" is also that they try to hide / blend in, using terms like "dental practitioner" (this is how Jacob calls himself... having no dental background). Which in a matter of fact they're ABSOLUTELY NOT and it only confuses the general public. The bottom line is unfortunately that there is no better term describing these people and their activities as "Toothiologists" ....and I'm sorry I didn't come up with that word but Dara O' Brian did. --DeTandarts (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't "made anything up" and I'm not writing any fiction here. The term exists, is clearly used and describes perfectly a profession which I've showed to exist. The one making things up is a "dental practitioner" without dental background, and I asume there must be more of these....errrh, yeah, again, how do you suggest to call it differently than a Toothiologist: I can't find anything else putting a name to it.--DeTandarts (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the argument can be easily settled with the following: We keep "Toothiologist" for "alternative medicine therapists working in the dental field, without any obvious dental background"(which clearly exists and IS a profession). The moment you or someone else finds a better term, we' ll use it! (I'll change the article accordingly)--DeTandarts (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the way this works. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means it references only things that exist and are notable. This word only exists in the real world in a comedy sketch by an Irish comedian. Therefore it's not notable, and should be deleted. Until someone feels the need to name unqualified dental practitioners with any other name than "Unqualified dental practitioner" I think we can survive without an article on it. -- role^player 16:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing reliable to back up claims to being a real profession and as the nominator says appears only to be used in a single sketch. noq (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I just Googled it myself and there are lots of references to the word, all being used in this sense. So do you first want to wait for the Oxford Dictionary or the Britanica to pick up the word or are you going to leave the topic alone: https://www.google.nl/search?q=toothiologist&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:nl:official&client=firefox-a — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeTandarts (talk • contribs) 16:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.rotorburn.com/forums/showthread.php?192168-Help-on-Back-Injuries/page2 If by default you close your eyes, than ofcourse you won't see the use of this word anywhere... --DeTandarts (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would not call around 100 lots of hits - especially if you discount the ones that relate to Dara O'Brian. Instead of posting a google search, which particlular links do you think help to establish this as notable? noq (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So now you want to make a math equation out of it? Something like: Not enough for Wikipedia < 100 - Dara O'Brian > Enough for Wikipedia

Or must this be divided by the square root of the number of times your name is referenced?

The point I Clearly made is that the term is being used(first point), originates from a sketch, and describes (second point) what I wrote down it describes (or change it accordingly). And if you find a better term, or, in time the term stops being used, only than delete it and I'll even be most supportive.--DeTandarts (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the time to read up on Wikipedia's general notability guideline and reliable sources. -- role^player 16:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read it and it only supports why this article should stay. Thanks for the link though! --DeTandarts (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Having read the policy therefore please say how this meets the general notability guideline, and provide some reliable sources to back up your claim. Note: you haven't answered either of these questions yet. -- role^player 16:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where is the significant coverage in WP:reliable sources? A few random hits on a google search is not a reliable source. A forum discussion is not a reliable source. As I requested previously, show me what you consider to be a reference that shows notability. noq (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability guidelines, particularly WP:NRVE: "there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. ... No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists" (emphasis mine, of course). HMman (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that the word is widely used. No evidence that Jacob Brandsma has ever been described as a toothiologist in a notable publication. You can contrast this term with a similar neologism, truthiness, which has caught on. --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The word is a neologism which has not caught on. The article's claim that Jacob Brandsma is an example of a toothiologist amounts to Original Research unsupported by any Reliable Source. Either way - WP:NEO or WP:V - this article's got to go. --MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Straightforward delete, non-notable neologism. Hairhorn (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, MelanieN, Colapeninsula, et al. It exists as a new word to describe alternates to dentistry, but it is not yet notable. Bearian (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2012 (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.