Talk:in tears

Request for deletion

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Only under the humanity-abandoning, machine-serving "component polysemy" argument does this warrant inclusion. DCDuring TALK 17:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Not better than in agony, in pain, in distress. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Passes the lemming test. And FWIW, I'd consider creating entries for in agony, in pain, and in distress (but not to be annoying, out of genuine interest) --Rising Sun talk? 21:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

What's the lemming test? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"Other dictionaries have it" (as lemmings are said to follow one another even over a cliff edge). Not Wiktionary policy. Equinox ◑ 17:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately my spleen may have gotten the better of me. Three OneLook references have it. What is probably idiomatic about this on is that it uses the concrete term "tears" metonomously instead of the emotional/experiential terms "anger", "agony", "pain" and their ilk. keep DCDuring TALK 17:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of another noun used in this way. "Dissolved in giggles" is different, I think, though I can't put my finger on how it is. Weak keep.​—msh210℠ 19:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, there's no definition under in that fits this expression. If one were to exist to explain the abovementioned phrases, they'd be a stronger delete argument. --Rising Sun talk? 18:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• kept per consensus - and also because one can't be sure which "tears" is referred to - rips or the tear gland tears. Maybe we can get a pronunciation section here. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 00:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)