Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enturbulation (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 Delete. Chetblong^{T C} 03:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enturbulation

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

Article is a dictionary term already transcluded to Wiktionary, dictionary entries have no place in Wikipedia, propose delete and link to Wiktionary out^boxing (work • yada) 17:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: The AfD template was inserted by an IP address - that was me, I thought I was already logged in. out^boxing (work • yada) 17:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and link to wiktionary, per nom. Cirt (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and link as per the above. John Carter (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and link Agreed. --GoodDamon 18:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I might also add that this word is used by only a very limited group of people: Scientologists, 50,000 - 100,000 at the most, and Scientology critics. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per all the words that have already been said.richjkl (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete offers no explination of anything other than the definition of the word, and who made it up. to put my view into perspective, Thomas Jefferson created thousands of words, but we don't have an article for each one of them (and historicly he was arguably more influentual than hubbard)Coffeepusher (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, will not argue with that. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. For the above reasons, and that there is no attempt at an assertion of notability (isn't that grounds for a speedy delete?). Remy B (talk) 08:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. It is nothing more than a definition. Not encyclopedic in itself.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2008 (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.