Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enoughness


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Enoughness

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Essay-like. Mysterytrey  talk  22:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - An essay about a word that doesn't physically exist (appears to be bollockspeak describing a new type of feeling about something) equals an article that we don't need here. Send it to Wiktionary and see if it passes there, which I doubt. BarkingFish  22:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not Delete?Hi all, Marcus Barber here. I've added this given the increasing number of uses of the word in the past year. When I first used it it wasn't in any lexicon and I admit that it's still new and far from being in widespread use. Although I first used the term back in 2008 at no time have I considered it worthy of a possible addition to Wikipedia until recently when another book made specific reference to it as a concept. I accept it is a new term and also suggest that it will be a term you will hear much more of following the uses in the books, one of which is written by a Professor at the University of Houston (Andy Hines). If everyone feels that it's too new or not widespread enough, I'd understand. And I suspect that at some point Wikipedia will have an article on the idea that could (doesn't yet) represent a different movement towards consumption. Just my thoughts. Marcus MarcusBarber (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a word for this in the English language already, it's "contentment" - a feeling or acknowledgement of being content with what you have. We don't need this. Much less an invented word. It's a dictionary definition that doesn't even appear in a dictionary. I say we kill it with plenty of gasoline and fire, or send it to Wiktionary for them to do the job for us.  BarkingFish  23:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or Move (content to Wikitionary): WP:NEO, WP:POV and WP:COI issues - article apparently created by person who claims coining term. Also asserted dates and info do not appear in cited references.  Neologism not in general use, appears to possibly duplicate content at Simple living, especially Reducing consumption, income and possessions. Like the writer says above, though,...maybe later. Shearonink (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or hard redirect to Small is Beautiful . I was the one who nominated it for deletion.  The first thing I noticed about the article was that it looks like an essay.  It's also not notable.  It raises COI flags that you referenced yourself.  Looking at this site, it claims that enoughness is made up:""I came up with the term Enoughness in late 2008...""


 * I read on and it seemed like the term was coined for raised sales:""...as a result of some research I was assessing looking at emerging consumer behaviour.""


 * This PDF showed it like that even more.  Mysterytrey   talk  00:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Enoughness of this foolishishnousness that allows usnotme to arbitrarilarily remodifimakeup newnesses wordses. Just becauseness you didn't findeo mynous newie worddie inuh dictionariness doesnotiness makeitnotusefulness whenie I usie itness.  Oh please.  Ebonics didn't work out real well either.Ren99 (talk) 05:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as Non-Notable Neologism (at best). Urban Dictionary is thattaway... -> Carrite (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NEO --Artene50 (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Enoughness is a neologism that isn't notable. I wasn't able to find any reliable sources about it, either, but even if I was able to, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ha  dg  er  19:21, 29 July 2012 (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.