Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pay through the nose


 * 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)

Pay through the nose

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Violates WP:DICTDEF. Mintrick (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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, 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. ShoesssS Talk 21:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is nothing but a discussion of the phrase's etymology.  Etymologies belong in a dictionary.  Powers T 00:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Comment - Article is now referenced - sourced and cited. ShoesssS Talk 13:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom: even sourced, etymology belongs at wikt.&mdash;msh210 &#x2120; 18:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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. ShoesssS Talk 18:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.  Powers T 18:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.   ShoesssS Talk 19:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.  Powers T 22:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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. ShoesssS Talk 23:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Definitions belong in a dictionary. Truthanado (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - There are 680 limited preview and full preview books, going back to 1785, 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)
 * 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.  Powers T 02:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 ShoesssS Talk 02:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The only references and inline citations I see are for the other "nose" idioms. Powers T 15:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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 English idiom 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)
 * Comment - And as such should the idiom Tilting at windmills also be placed in AFD. Pun intended. ShoesssS Talk 05:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Delete - as stated, this isn't wiktionary.  Grsz  11 ''' 05:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly a dictionary entry. No information that one would not expect to find in the OED.  RJC  TalkContribs 17:02, 29 November 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.