Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Posh

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 keep. There was no consensus for deletion. Further, I find the keepers' arguments more persuasive. The bar that has to be crossed for a page on a word to be encyclopaedic, rather than just a dicdef, is for the article to be able to say something substantial about the cultural significance of the word and posh crosses that bar. I find the comment, in the AfD, that the extensive debate, on the etymology, adds to notability to have validity. It is not just in the UK that the origins of this word is debated as this article in the NY Times shows. Whether this page should be split and renamed, as also suggested, is a matter for post-AfD talk page discussion. TerriersFan (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Posh

Posh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

WP:NAD. This article includes only two sections, "Etymology" and "Other Meanings". The current article resembles a dictionary entry. One editor, 75.74.156.42, is currently stating that "posh is an element of fashion", but provides no sources or further information. I can't find a concept, practice or school of "posh" that would substantiate this claim and so merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Howfar (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Given just how many times I've seen articles both asserting and debunking the supposed "Port Out Starboard Home" etymology, an encyclopedic article can definitely be written about the subject. (Seriously, I think I've met that in just about every book about words I've ever read.) —Quasirandom (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  I'm not sure the fact that this word is the subject of an oft-disputed folk etymology makes it encyclopedically notable in and of itself. The article on fuck, probably the other most famous acronymic misattribution, devotes only a few of its many lines to "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge" and its variations. What do we add to Wikipedia (that should not be covered by the Wiktionary) by giving a separate article to every well known false etymology? Could the material be incorporated into Backronym, for example? I do see the point of creating articles about folk individual etymologies, but I wonder whether it would be the best way of achieving our collective aim. Would we call it "posh" or "Etymythology of 'Posh'", or "False Etymology of Posh", or what, really? There are fascinating articles to be written about folk etymology. I just don't think that this is a good candidate for a standalone encyclopedia article. Howfar (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  That the etymology is noted pretty much is the definition of wiki-notibility. This one gets bandied about more than most -- possibly only OK gets more debate. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Transwiki to dictionary. B.Wind (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • wikt:posh already exists, so transwikiing is not a reasonable option. —Angr 09:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, in that case, delete as a dicdef. B.Wind (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki/Soft redirect Doesn't seem like there would be much to write beyond a dicdef. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • wikt:posh already exists, so transwikiing is not a reasonable option. —Angr 09:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll elaborate- transfer anything not already at wiktionary, then soft redirect. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Quasirandom.--Berig (talk) 06:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as this is a notable cultural construct in British English, compared to just being an occasional adjective ("posh quarters") in American. (As an aside, I am struck that we have no Social class in the United Kingdom article, a place where class for good or ill continues to matter, but do have one for a place where it notoriously doesn't.) The etymology can be in there but it's hardly the most interesting thing to write about. --Dhartung | Talk 08:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Posh has notable cultural significance in British English, yes. But so do the words "Rich", "Wealthy" and "Loaded". In wikipedia the first two redirect to "wealth", and the third is not mentioned in the context of wealth. JSTOR only turns up one tangential reference to posh, with "talking posh" being used to refer to a set of cultural assumptions about speech. I don't see any research of the type that we could use to extend this into an encyclopedia article, for instance devoted to the significance of posh as a cultural concept. Is there stuff I'm missing? JSTOR seems to think that the "Siah" and "Safed-Posh" of the Hindu Kush are more significant uses of the word than its cultural significance in British English. (In response to your aside, my experience of the countries suggests that social class matters in both places in different but significant ways. I would substitute "purportedly" for "notoriously" in your link title. I suspect that the article that would have been useful to you is Social structure of Britain, which discusses social class. And while Wikipedia cannot be a source for Wikipedia, it might be relevant to mention that posh does not appear there, either.) Howfar (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I've heard "Port Out Starboard Home" a lot of times, and I think the term has some pop culture uses (e.g., Posh Spice), which could be elaborated upon in this article. Obviously, sources are needed, but the article has potential. --Eustress (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I think that the case has yet to be made that a well-known misattribution is sufficient to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. To respond to your second point, Scary and Sporty (the other "Adjective Spices") are disambiguation pages, Baby redirects to Infant, Ginger refers to the actual spice, not the Spice Girl. The fact that an adjective is applied to a notable person does not make that adjective notable in itself. Howfar (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

More comment and less sarcasm. Please review WP:Civility and WP:Etiquette. --Eustress (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm in two minds about the etymology section, but the "other meanings" section seems to be a clear-cut violation of "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". If consensus is that the etymology of "posh" is a notable and encyclopedic topic, I would suggest removing the other material and possibly moving the article to Etymology of "posh". EALacey (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Another note. Dictionary.com lists eight meanings for the word, with the notation of the acronym mentioned above is "without foundation," according to the American Heritage Abbreviations Dictionary, third edition. Tony can be considered a synonym for one of the meanings of posh. B.Wind (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Given that a lot of people think that the false etymology of posh is notable, which seems fair enough, I personally agree with EALacey's suggestion to move the etymology material to Etymology of "posh" or something similarly named. Posh would presumably then disambiguate between Posh Spice, Peterborough United, Etymology of 'posh' and any others. I think that solution avoids creating a dictionary entry, reserves plenty of space for notable information about the P.O.S.H. etymology (including development, variations, relation to other folk-etymologies etc.) and usefully helps people to search for information related to the word "posh". Howfar (talk) 22:42, 13 May 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.