Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blagadoush

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 03:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blagadoush

Seems to be a neologism. Delete, unless verified. Flowerparty ^talk 21:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge information here with Baba ganoush, perhaps? Boxclocke 21:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Well that would seem sensible if the information was verifiable, but it doesn't appear to be. Blagadoush gets nothing from Google. Unless it's a genuine term it's not even worth a redirect. Flowerparty ^talk 22:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

SAVE I order blagadoush every week at Ali Baba's on Macdougal Street in NYC. This is definitely a word. If you don't believe it you can go to the restaurant to see for yourself. As for Michael Smiley, I cannot say whether or not he has anything to do with the discovery of the word. I do know that the description of the food is on point though. *****SAVE!!!****

I don't know who the Smiley fella is, but I'll also atteest to the veracity of the word. My best friend is Ethiopian and personally told the owner of Ali Baba's on Macdougal to list "Blagadoush" next to the Babaganoush entry on the Main Menu at the restaurant. I don't know why so many people are incensed by this though, it's not really a big deal, but most NYU students invoke the new term now too....Thanks.

• Strong delete Not a single hit on Google. --PhilipO 23:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - if it even smelled of being verifiable (and catching a plane to New York to check out Ali Baba's is a bit of a stretch for me to verify <grin>), I'd vote to merge to Baba ganoush, but without a source, that's asking to add non-verifiable info to another article. -Satori 23:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn/unverified. Never heard of it and I'm an NYU student, but only part-time... ;) --Etacar11 00:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: You know, it just dawned on me... how exactly does one "discover" a word that is already in use? I suppose in the same way that Columbus fellow "discovered" America (rolleyes). Boxclocke 03:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Reply: The thing is, we're not here to "discover" anything. That would be orginal research. See Wikipedia:No original research, our policy on that topic. To be included in Wikipedia, a subject must be verifiable. If the word comes into common usage, a google search should show results. And yes, just as that silly European "discovered" a place that other people had live in for millenia, Wikipedia only includes topics that are already known. An encyclopedia collects knowledge, it doesn't produce knowledge. That difference is the essence of the no original research policy. -Satori 23:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

well as an impartial observer i think it's safe to say that blagadoush should remain or be merged with baba ganoush. the evidence has spoken for itself. (Unsigned comment by 216.189.188.67 (talk · contribs), fifth edit)

What evidence?? No it hasn't!! Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:31, 24 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.