Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quote mining

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. FeloniousMonk 17:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quote mining

Quote mining (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Briefly: recently-coined neologism that seems to have limited use, in Internet forums, and only in the context of the evolution/creation debate.

This useful and evocative phrase deserves wide use. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but my strong impression is that it is a neologism and that it is used in a very limited context: it is used primarily in certain forums and Wikis, and it almost exclusively used in the context of discussions of the theory of evolution. It has not gained enough traction to appear in published sources that meet reliable source guidelines.

Perhaps the strongest evidence I have for this is that a Google Books search on "quote mining returns only five hits, of which three are irrelevant, one is a 2004 book entitled "Creationism's Trojan Horse," and one is a 2007 book entitled "The Counter-Creationism Handbook." A similar search on "quote mine" yields similar results: 48 hits, all but one of which are irrelevant ("And again I quote : Mine inspections and enforcement of State and Federal law and working codes in themselves are not enough"). The single relevant hit is again "The Counter-Creationism Handbook." 35,000 Google Web hits are harder to analyze but seem to follow the same pattern.

The online American Heritage Dictionary does not define "quote mining," "quote mine," "quote-mining" or "quote-mine."

Online search of The New York Times from 2000 to the present shows no occurrences of the exact phrases "quote mine" or "quote mining."

Note that my objection is not that it is confined to evolution/creation debate, although if I'm correct about this the article should explain this—but that it is not in widespread use and cannot be described or defined by references to reliable published sources. (P. S. I'm not a creationist, and I believe creationists are one (among many!) groups that is fond of the tactic of making collections of misleadingly out-of-context quotations.) Dpbsmith (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

P. S. Earliest USENET hit in Google Groups search is a 1997 posting Creation VS Evolution in alt.religion.christian, and it seems to be very widely used in talk.origins. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

P. P. S. If the article doesn't explain that the term is used almost exclusively in the context of the evolution/creationist debate, then the article isn't accurate. But if the article does explain this, it needs to support the statement by citing a reliable published source—and I don't think one can be found.

It is no longer used exclusively in that debate. it also appears with respect to global warming : http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=229, http://www.arunn.net/scienceblog/2006/06/06/greenhouse-defect-in-new-zealand/feed/

and antisemitism: http://reddit.com/info/137ak/comments/c137dj

and politics: http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-151147.html, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_08/009300.php DGG 01:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per phenomenally well researched nomination. This is a useful phrase that certainly describes a common phenomenon, but it just doesn't have the notability yet. Natalie 15:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Lurker ^oi! 16:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• keep We document the real world, which includes such publications. It is not OR to describe what is in front of our eyes. — Preceding comment was added by DGG along with the links above. -- Jonel | Speak 04:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep First of all, it looks like the American Heritage Dictionary is copyright 2000, so lacks some important recent items, e.g. Taliban Second, just because the term is used primarily online doesn't mean that its not notable. Third, its linked from the articles Contextomy and Misquotation and even has a small section in Creation-evolution_controversy. The National Center for Science Education has used the term in its news section. [1] As an aside, this request for deletion was precipitated by me adding Quote mining into Conservapedia [2] -- Limulus 11:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• I'm unconvinced by the rationale in the now, per Limulus. Coverage is books is not a criterion for something not being an unestablished neologism. In addition, changing the search term to "quote mine" increases the hits in google books to 48 - many of which are Francis Bacon quotes. Anyway, I think the term is well established enough and notable enough for a Wikipedia article, so keep. Guettarda 13:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the term is "notable." The issue is whether there is enough material to document its usage, based on published sources meeting reliable source guidelines. I think the biggest issue is the one mentioned in my P. P. S.

The present article is inaccurate, because it implies that the term is used generally to refer to quotations out of context. For example, in presidential campaigns it is not uncommon for party A to distribute collections of out-of-context quotations, attacking party B's candidate, that were made by that candidate's primary rivals. ("Look! Even his own party thinks he's despicable!") But they've been doing that for decades, and it is never called "quote mining."

The phrase is not used generally. It is used specifically by... let me narrow it even more... non-creationists, with reference to argument tactics used by creationists. (And perhaps, I'm told, in some blog postings about global warming).

If the article doesn't properly explain how, where, and by whom the term is used, its inaccurate. But if it does include these details, it needs to have a published source meeting reliable source guidelines, and I haven't found one. It's such an evocative term that I think there will be one eventually, and when there is we can have an article. Basically, you don't write articles about neologisms when they're still neologisms, even if you can see the shape of things to come. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, the presence of inaccuracy in an article isn't grounds for deletion. As for it being a neologism - there are reliable sources about the term - the Quote Mine Project includes a section about the term, as does an NCSE document[3]. Berkeley science review reports on the meaning of the term [4]. So I'd say that there are quite a few reliable sources about the term. Guettarda 16:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Incredibly common term. Tag for sourcing or cleanup if desired, but "not sufficiently sourced at this time" is not grounds for deletion, especially when the nominator concedes The issue is not whether the term is "notable." then states the article is not well sourced enough and is possibly inaccurate. That's cleanup, Dpbsmith, not grounds for deletion, you know that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The question is whether this article can be well-sourced enough at this time. If it clearly can be, it's a candidate for cleanup. If it can't be it's a candidate for deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think finding suitable sources is real issue anylonger: [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] 151.151.73.169 19:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

These are sources that use the phrase "quote mining," usually without explanation. I've never denied that it's used. My issue is that there are no sources that discuss the phrase itself and there's no way to write about the phrase except to look directly at how it's used and draw conclusions; that's original research. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup - extremely well-discussed creationist strategy. TalkOrigins is widel agreed to be an RS, so we can use that. And five minutes' searching will find many more, for instance, page 7 of Barbara Forrest's Creationism's Trojan Horse. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • ???? What? talk.origins is widely agreed to be a reliable source? How do you get that? It is a USENET newsgroup; the guidelines say newsgroups are considered a self-published source and "self-published material is largely not acceptable." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dpbsmith (talk • contribs) 15:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
• Keep Very commonly used term. Even if it isn't used much in books yet, it's so very common in online discussions that I think it deserves a page. --Robert Stevens 22:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The arguments to delete this page are simply unimpressive ... and wrong. •Jim62sch• 22:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The phenomenon is discussed in secondary sources as nominator states, Creationism's Trojan Horse for one does have meta discussion on it, its VERY notable, widely used, and an important term. Its really valuable information and even if it doesn't reach the letter of the policy it fits the spirit of the policy WP:IAR Tmtoulouse 23:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wants to close this now as a "keep," I have no objection. I've made my point; but the community disagrees. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2007 (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.