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. The consensus below is that the sources cited are not enough to establish notability for this neologism. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enoughism[edit]

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

Neologism that lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There are piles and piles of Google Books results for starters. When you looked over them, what was found lacking? ╟─Treasury Tag►voice vote─╢ 21:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are only two pages of results (not piles and piles), half of which are constructions like "good-enoughism", rather than referring to Naish's theory. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine those two pages of results were actually books (such things do exist) and were stacked against a wall. I could go on with this metaphor, or you could stop making dumb semantic points and accept that while the article may not be well-written, plenty of sources exist for the concept. ╟─Treasury Tag►Regent─╢ 22:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And 5 hits here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "books stacked against a wall" is not a useful metaphor because it doesn't account for whether the coverage in the books is significant. Can we imagine words stacked against a wall? Because that would be a very small pile - see, for instance, Ferraris for All, in which "enoughism" is mentioned in a list of "related terms" and that's all. (Also, as Sarek notes, almost none of the hits you're getting are actually in reference to this concept. One has to look beyond the numerical result and see if the coverage actually attests notability for the subject of the article.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. So please feel free to link to any three of the Google Books results and explain how they don't constitute significant coverage. ╟─Treasury Tag►high seas─╢ 08:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I already explained it above, but...
http://books.google.com/books?id=VIQB82XN8_IC&pg=PR11&dq=%22Enoughism%22

http://books.google.com/books?id=nUzrbV_68asC&pg=PA326&dq=%22Enoughism%22

http://books.google.com/books?id=79f6AQ6IpsQC&pg=PA140&dq=%22Enoughism%22

And that was just in the first 8 links. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep poorly written and new topic but it is not a neologism if it has significant coverage that concerns this topic primarily.Thisbites (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient evidence of notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We already have standard English words for the concept such as satiety and repletion. And if we want a modish neologism, there's downshifting, which appears in the OED, unlike enoughism. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From the article itself: "The term does not appear to extend beyond the ideas of anti-consumerism and simple living, but perhaps has the advantage of being shorter." So therefore, add in a blurb in anti-consumerism about Enoughism then delete this repetitive article. It's already barely long enough to be its own article, and could be better explained in the context of the bigger concept of anti-consumerism. Falconerd (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable, lack of coverage in RS --Reference Desker (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while we have kept articles on such many newly created 20th Century words that have been describing things for a while (such as chaos, sisu, velleity, etc.) we have deleted most neologisms. In my four years here, a lot of words younger than a decade have been deleted. Don't blame me; I am an inclusionist. Bearian (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable neologism of sorts. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:26, 2 May 2011 (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.