Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enthusiasm sauce

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 of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enthusiasm sauce

Possible hoax, no references on google. Somewhat amusing, but definitely NN Irongargoyle 19:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete I know chef lingo, and this isn't part of it. - Kookykman|(t)e

• Delete. Hoax? Neologism? Either way, it oughta go. -- Captain Disdain 19:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete balls. --djrobgordon 20:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Absence of a reference on Google is not proof of something's non-existence, nor is it likely that "chef lingo" would overlap with that of student cooking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chile Nose Jam (talk • contribs) 20:24, 15 June 2006.

Even if it's real, it belongs on urban dictionary, not here. --djrobgordon 20:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I am entirely aware of the fact that Google's not always the best way to prove that something exists, but I find it a little hard to believe that widely used chef lingo would not surface on any public site on the net and get spotted by Google. As it is, I have no proof that "enthusiasm sauce" is being used anywhere, at all. -- Captain Disdain 20:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete hoax, neologism. Check of several recipe sites show no references, despite article's claim the stuff is a "staple". Note that despite the overt questioning of where this comes from, writer has not been forthcoming with any sources or references. Tychocat 21:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete very dumb hoax. Danny Lilithborne 22:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• A somewhat worthy BJAODN candidate. TheProject 23:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per all above. -- Scientizzle 23:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

And someone appears to think that the way to refute arguments against the article's deletion is to delete the arguments. Nice idea of "rational debate" there.

To recap and hope that it won't get deleted this time: it's not likely to appear on any recipe sites, since the recipe is "chuck a load of stuff in a saucepan and cook it", nor is it "widely used chef lingo". I'm aware that I haven't given any references - that's because I doubt there are many, since it is primarily a colloquialism and not likely to occur very frequently in published material. In case any of you were wondering, I did not invent the term myself, nor is it particularly new: I initially came across it in the early 1990s, in a book which was probably published some years before that. Unfortunately I no longer have the book in question, and am thus unable to cite it as a reference. I'm intrigued by its categorisation as "very dumb hoax" and "BJAODN", apparently solely on the grounds that those making the comments haven't heard of it. It may well not meet standards of verification, in which case it is likely to be deleted, but if it's a hoax then you must all be hallucinating, since you've read an entry written by someone who's been living for the past year on stuff that apparently doesn't exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chile Nose Jam (talk • contribs).

WP:V is extreemly important. ---J.S (t|c) 16:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:V. ---J.S (t|c) 16:03, 16 June 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.