Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summarizing in Abridged Quotation

Summarizing in Abridged Quotation

Summarizing in Abridged Quotation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nom & ...

• ... opine Del, as Non-notable and OR; plz note that the ProD tag stating the concern

Non-notable, even if pub'n in "a free content undergraduate journal" were an answer to OR, since there are 30, count'em, 30 Google hits on "Summarizing in Abridged Quotation".

was removed by the primary ed'r w/o the edit-summary, and -- under any reasonable construction of of this diatribe -- w/o the tk-pg rebuttal the tl requests.
--Jerzy•t 04:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Jerzy, as I said on my talk page, the tag said I could remove it. Pluse it was wrong--I checked and Google only has 2 hits for Summarizing in Abridged Quotation. Where did you get 30 from? You can't count every hit unless it's an actual hit.
Jfeen (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The primary editor of the nom'd article, before their routine removal the ProD tag, twice edited the stated reason for removal (tho they had not placed the tag and clearly favor retention); for the sake of completeness of the process, i address those changes here, as if they had been appropriately offered as arguments in the previous (ProD) forum:

1. The 2nd contiguous portion of User:Jfeen's 04:06 edit on the 7th to the nom'd article may be simply an objection to the # count of "30" that i provided, since "30, count'em, 30" was replaced simply by "2" (and i decline the pitfall of trying to respond to any unstated objection to my emphatic wording). I'll stick my neck out to the extent of observing that while the current result of G-test on "Summarizing in Abridged Quotation", which reads:

   In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 27 already displayed.

   That count of 27 differs insignif'ly from my earlier outcome of "30",. And the current outcome of "About 206 results", produced when "repeat the search with the omitted results included" is selected, is in the same ballpark with what i recall being promised when i searched (generously ignoring the fact that "Page 7 [out] of 61 [total] results" marks the end of that broader search). Thus "2" may be a typo for 200, 206, or the like. (If "2" was intended, we can defer comment until we hear why "2 Google hits" would be favorable.) Even if those 200, or 206, were not mostly copies of the 30 or 27 (probably made automatically and without credible judgment on the accuracy or significance of the content), they would be insignificantly closer to demonstrating either notability, or status as established knowledge, than are the 30 or 27.

2. (We may for now safely ignore the 1st contiguous portion of that edit: it which seems simply to reflect, at the expense of replacing my wording with an ungrammatical and ambiguous one, that colleague's conviction or fear that "prof'l" -- after "secondly" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Summarizing_in_Abridged_Quotation&diff=prev&oldid=360656351 in yet another edit -- and "pub'n" are ambiguous.)
3. Their edit 15 minutes later (besides changing the body of the article) destroys the direct quotation from them that i was responding to (made in an IP contribution of 21:33, 5 May 2010, which User:Jfeen as of 04:03 on the 7th now claims to have made -- tho mis-timing it at "11:59"). Perhaps they failed to recognize their own words, construed my direct quote as something i hypothesized they might say, and preferred to blame a hypothetical ProD-nominator for offering a different -- and still more hypothetical -- justification.

If i've missed the point, we clearly need to hear a lot more clearly what the point is.
--Jerzy•t 04:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Jerzy, as stated previously, and as I said on my talk page, your "30" count is not only wrong--I checked and Google only has 2 hits for Summarizing in Abridged Quotation (you can't count every hit unless it's an actual hit)--but it is also superflous; what does 30, let alone the actual 2, hits have to do with anything?
Jfeen (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment It looks like WP:OR with no notable google hits or google book sources. I don't quite understand your list btw, might be broken formatting.--Savonneux (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Savonneux, yes, it does look like that, but it looks like that because it was published in an undergraduate journal. cf. my response to Deor below.
Jfeen (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the critique. The insurmountable formatting problem flows from the fact that having indented within a point on the numbered list, you can't out-dent back to that numbered point's same level, without ending the list or going on to the next numbered point -- so sometimes, as here, it looks as if the starting graph w/in a numbered point is an unfinished paragraph. I reworded some, adding cues that may help make the syntax a little clearer.
--Jerzy•t 10:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. The article lost me in the first sentence when it said: "A Summary in Abridged Quotation or Summarizing in Abridged Quotation (SAQ or SAQing, i.o.)--similar in appearance to block quotation--is a protologism ...." If the article admits that it is naming the subject by a protologism, we don't need it. If this is a legitimate topic, then don't call it a protologism. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Metropolitan90, I was informed that calling it a "protologism" was a misnomer; I changed it back to "neologism". Also, why would Wikipedia not need it? Everything in academia is a protologism until it becomes a neologism and then, finally, a "technical term".
Jfeen (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks to me like personal instructions for misquoting people—and an extraordinarily bad idea. Deor (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Deor, firstly, this talk page isn't for you to discuss the merit of the ideas discussed in the article but rather the merit of the article qua article; secondly, in defence of his idea, it is explicit instructions on how to not misquote people--you must have gravely missed the point; it eliminates all possible bias. If you'd like to read the article where this is actually discussed, I think you can find Mr. Feenstra's article on Grand Valley State University's Philosophy Department homepage in .docx format, but I checked and it is not there, so just asked to be sent it from feenstjo@mail.gvsu.edu. I am in the process of converting the journal it was published in to .pdf in order to deal with the WP:OR and notability tags.
Jfeen (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)