Talk:trash drawer

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.

---

trash drawer

“Drawer for trash”

It's not defined by being in the residential kitchen—my local laundromat has trash drawers, people's workshops and garages have them, restaurants have them, factory floors have them. Some drawers have integral trash bins, so adding a bin or bag doesn't define this either. This is just an SOP term, with some unnecessary, specific description added to make it look includable. —Michael Z. 2010-06-07 18:14 z

Ridiculously strong delete per nomination. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete as it stands. I believe BD intended this to be an obsolete synonym of "junk drawer", but it has ended up being defined as something quite different (I'm guessing this was due to difficulty finding cites for the "junk drawer" sense). As currently defined this is clearly sum of parts. -- Visviva 20:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That is correct, this is the current sense. There is some indication that there has in the past been a sense of the trash drawer being used to mean what junk drawer is now used to mean, but that meaning has been superseded (obviously, that one would be idiomatic because it incorporates an unusual sense of "trash"):

• 2002, Alison Comish Thorne, Leave the dishes in the sink: adventures of an activist in conservative Utah, p. 71:

  Today's generation of young mothers also believe the trash drawer is a good idea, but terminology changes and they call it the junk drawer.

There is also an archaic use specific to jewelry-making:

• 1866, The Popular Science Monthly, Vol. 188‎, p. 160:

  The jeweler's apron slides out below the trash drawer. This is a shallow drawer with a canvas bottom. You pull it out when working with small parts...

I have not yet had time to research these other uses. However, if either one should be confirmed, the purportedly SOP sense of a tall drawer used to contain a trash bag or bin should also be kept, so readers will not be misled into thinking the regular use of the phrase is towards a drawer of regular dimensions. bd2412 T 14:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Here are additional citations to the junk drawer meaning:

• 1999, Bret Lott, Jewel, p. 124:

  Of course I stood, left the room for Annie and Billie Jean's room, went through the top drawer of their dresser, what Billie Jean called the trash drawer, and got one of Annie's red pencils.

• 1993, Lawrence David, Family values: a novel, p. 240:

  ...colored sweaters, corduroys and cotton blouses sit on the floor of her room alongside a short pile of Sesame Street albums found lining the bottom "trash drawer" of her large dresser.

Not quite sure where this fits in:

• 1983, 100 things you didn't learn in dental school, p. 22:

  We save used wax from models in the trash drawer to use for this purpose.

bd2412 T 16:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this and junk drawer, if we were proposing the etymology for deletion, youd win hands down. Unfortunately we're proposing the entries for deletion because of their meanings, not their etymologies. And you seem unable to justify that at all, simply showing us citations. Since it's sum of parts, of course there are going to be citations. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The citations are, I think, intended to support the proposition that "trash drawer" has been used in certain restricted senses, with specific implications for the nature of the drawer and its contents, rather than as a simple collocation of trash + drawer. This would make this a fried egg. I am still a bit dubious of this, but what is striking to me is that three of the four cites BD has found for the "junk drawer" sense are set off in some way, either implicitly or with quotation marks, which does suggest that this usage is considered distinctive and unusual by those reporting it -- that at least to them, it did not appear to be sum of parts. It is possible that a more thorough review of usage would show these to be statistical noise, but for now I think this passes the reasonable doubt threshold, and should probably be a keep. -- Visviva 13:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Err on the side of keep. --Dan Polansky 10:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Striking as no consensus for deletion. For deletion: Michael Zajac, Mglovesfun. For keeping: Visviva, bd2412 (although without a boldfaced vote), Dan Polansky. The number of people involved is rather small, but this nomination has expired months ago, so it gets closed. --Dan Polansky 10:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)