Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Put your money where your mouth is (idiom)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Put your money where your mouth is (idiom)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Wikipedia is not a dictionary: see Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Battleaxe9872 Talk 21:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. From Wikipedia is not a dictionary: "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, phrases etc., should be used (but it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to discuss how a word is used.) This article discusses how the idiom is used, not how it should be used. Piano  tech  21:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The context referred to isn't the dictionary item itself. The 'but' means: if an article about some event mentions that the phrase was used, it ought to be explained. So, do we have two or more articles that need to refer to such an explanation? —Tamfang (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete My understanding to the "not a dictionary" policy would exclude articles explaining the meaning of words or phrases. Exceptions are made when there is some interesting history to report, although even then perhaps they should not be. In this case there is nothing more than an explanation of the meaning of this expression. Wiktionary is there for these. Wolfview (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete low quality dicdef. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Question - Why was this placed in the "Places and transportation" category? --Oakshade (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I presume it was a good faith mistake by the nominator. Claritas § 12:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  01:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - not enough non-dictionary coverage for it to meet WP:GNG, and as pointed out, WP:NOTDIC is an issue here. Claritas § 12:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment First edit by a new contributor, and welcome to AfD. We have had cases where things like this have survived, such as with Don't Count Your Chickens Before They Hatch, but usually not without sourcing.  The Wiktionary entry isn't that great either (they say that this is a verb, making it the longest verb I've ever seen).   I can't see a keep, but I enjoyed the G version ("act on it rather than just talk about it") and the PG version ("mean what they propose to do rather than just bullshit about it").  Don't worry about it if it gets deleted, that's happened to all of us. Mandsford 15:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. In my opinion, this is a clear case of WP:NOTDIC. Encyclopaedias are not the place to discuss idiom unless it is within the context of a notable event. Eddie.willers (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Edison (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Out of scope.  I'm a little troubled, though, that "non-dictionary coverage" might convince some people to keep an article on this topic.  Powers T 20:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - unlike some other phrases, I am not assured that a full article could be created. I have found some decent sources, see here, but even those may not be enough. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Seems right for when a famous politician utters it in a debate. Almost ready for an article. Spevw (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2010 (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.