Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enturbulation

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. Mangojuice^talk 05:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enturbulation

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and it's doubly not a dictionary of obscure Scientology terminology Crabapplecove 20:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I see no real possibilities to expand this beyond a definition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ginkgo100 (talk • contribs) 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wiktionary if they will take it. Yomangani 23:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I see this as more than just a definition. --Tilman 06:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Enturbulation (or Enturbulate) is not a word to look up in the dictionary. As a matter of fact, Webster's,Oxford, and www.dictionary.com do not have a definition because the word was created as a byproduct of Scientology. It's not a "normal" word in the english language; therefore, it should still be included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.189.189.93 (talk • contribs) 1 August 2006 (UTC) (Note: User's only edit to Wikipedia. -- H·G (^words/_works) 06:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)}
• Transwiki to wiktionary per Yomangani; the fact that other dictionaries don't list the word has hardly been an argument for its exclusion from wiktionary before. As it stands, the article is dicdef and scientology cruft--we can't define every obscure term from scientology. -- H·G (^words/_works) 07:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This isn't just a one-sentence dicdef of a word, it's four paragraphs devoted to a concept. Not the same thing. And it's not obscure to those are aware of Scientology's workings, for better or for worse. wikipediatrix 21:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - the "four paragraphs" are really only five sentences; one of these defines the word, and three others very briefly describe the term's use in one book. Is the term more significant than this implies, and if so, can the article be expanded upon? -- H·G (^words/_works) 08:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Tilman and Wikipediatrix. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:50, 3 August 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.