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.
Stifle (
talk) 19:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Weak keep Not referenced, but as the nom is contesting this article simply for what it is (i.e. notability is not being questioned), this is not a problem: it's explaining the history of the phrase and its uses, going far beyond what a dictionary would do. No way that this is a dictionary entry.
Nyttend (
talk) 21:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)reply
From
WP:DICTDEF, articles that belong on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia, are about "the actual words or idioms in their title and all the things it can denote. The article octopus is about the word "octopus": its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth.". That is what this article is about, referenced or no, so it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.
Mintrick (
talk) 03:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep – I did a quick check on some of the claims in the piece and have to say, they can be cited from
Scholarly sources. Likewise, there looks to be enough information from secondary – reliable – creditable sources to meet inclusion criteria, as shown here
[1], and expansion of the piece. I’ll do some inline cites and a little rewrite, but overall, I believe the article has earned a place here. ShoesssSTalk 21:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete. This is nothing but a discussion of the phrase's etymology. Etymologies belong in a dictionary.
PowersT 00:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, WP:NOT a dictionary. There seems to be a misguided notion that if a dictionary definition contains an etymology then it somehow isn't a dictionary definition any longer. WRONG.
JBsupreme (
talk) 06:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete. I have no objection to words and phrases being listed in Wikipedia as long as the articles have some sourced encyclopedic content, but this doesn't. Without sources for the etymology, it can't even be transwikied to Wiktionary (which has an entry for
pay through the nose, but without etymological information). —
Angr 07:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - Article is now referenced - sourced and cited. ShoesssSTalk 13:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom: even sourced, etymology belongs at wikt.—
msh210℠ 18:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment – I respectfully disagree. As defined in
Wikipedia is not a dictionary only after copying, the final disposition of the article is up to Wikipedia and only after the article cannot be
renamed,
merged, or
rewritten into a stub encyclopedia article about a subject, denoted by its title, only then should it be
deleted. I submit that the article is at stub status and therefore meets the requirements for inclusion. Thanks for listening. ShoesssSTalk 18:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)reply
The article as it stands right now consists of a) a definition, b) a series of possible etymologies, and c) other idioms that use the word "nose". None of that is encyclopedic; the first two items belong in a dictionary, and the third is irrelevant.
PowersT 18:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment- My day to be contentious :-) My contention is that though
Wiktionary contains the phrase it does not contain the etymology of the phrase, as it does not with most phrases/idioms.
Wiktionary does link to the etymology of the separate words contained in the phrase but not to the idiom itself. That is what
Wikipedia is for, to expand on and offer more in-depth explanations and definitions as covered by
Wikipedia is not a dictionary states, as I mentioned above. ShoesssSTalk 19:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)reply
My reading of that policy is that encyclopedia articles should discuss the concepts that lie behind certain words and phrases, not the words themselves. Depth of coverage is explicitly not one of the differences between a dictionary article and an encyclopedia article. I quote: "A full dictionary article ... will contain illustrative quotations for each listed meaning; etymologies; translations; inflections; links to related and derived terms; links to synonyms, antonyms, and homophones; a pronunciation guide in various dialects, including links to sound files; and usage notes; and can be very long indeed." Only if, after we remove the etymology and usage notes from this article, there exists something worthwhile to say about the concept of paying through the nose, should we have an article on it here. And no one has really provided any sources that we could use to write such an article.
PowersT 22:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Likewise, my personal view of a
dictionary, shared by many people, is that it does and is used to offer all the examples mentioned in your comment such as; meaning, etymologies; translations; inflections; links to related and derived terms; links to synonyms, antonyms, and homophones; a pronunciation guide in various dialects. However, I look to a
dictionary for a word. On the other hand, when a phrase - quote or idiom is used my first thought/reaction is to look to a
encylopedia and not a
dictionary, Maybe I am showing my age :-). However, either way it goes, it kept me busy today. ShoesssSTalk 23:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Definitions belong in a dictionary.
Truthanado (
talk) 03:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - There are
680 limited preview and full preview books, going back to 1785
[2], that have this term. In the right hands, this certainly is enought reliable source material from which to develop a Wikipedia article well beyond a dictionary definition. There might be reasons to delete the article, but meeting
WP:N doesn't seem to be one of them. --
Suntag☼ 22:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Mere usage of a phrase is not demonstrative of notability (to an encyclopedia, at least; it is to a dictionary). We need sources about the phrase.
PowersT 02:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - I thought that was provided in the references and inline citations, on the page itself, with regards to the actual phrase. Or have I misinterpreting what you are asking for? Thanks ShoesssSTalk 02:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)reply
The only references and inline citations I see are for the other "nose" idioms.
PowersT 15:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete--and frankly, I don't understand some of the arguments from the Keepers. Dictionaries aren't just for words, they are also for phrases (think "instead of"), and, as is applicable here, idiomatic expressions. The poor quality of the entry is easily proven by a quick look at the OED, which has 1666 for its first occurence--one simply cannot have an article like this that doesn't correctly cite the OED, it's the ultimate authority on the topic. And oddly enough, the article is really like that entry, but with some flowery narrative thrown in. And what does 'nosebleed' have to do with anything? No, this is strictly idiomatic, and belongs in a dictionary.
Drmies (
talk) 04:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment: I've done some editing. The sources for some of the claims were problematic, to say the least. But I stopped short of a full overhaul--the next thing to do is deleted the other 'nose' idioms (of which there are dozens more, BTW). And then, what you have left, is the following: "'Pay through the nose' is an
Englishidiom which means 'pay a very high price for an item.' The first citation appears in 1666, according to the OED." Now, if this article had been more strictly edited, would this even have made it to AfD? (Seriously, look carefully at the earlier version--it's full of unverified bull-crap...)
Drmies (
talk) 05:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Note--I don't understand the reference you added: it presents the result of a Google search, not a source that explains the meaning of the phrase.
Drmies (
talk) 03:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - as stated, this isn't wiktionary. Grsz11 05:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete Clearly a dictionary entry. No information that one would not expect to find in the OED. RJCTalkContribs 17:02, 29 November 2008 (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.