Talk:redeconvolved
RFD discussion
edit
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.
No google books hits, 8 general google hits (counting us). I'm not sure why you'd want to deconvolve something after you've already done so. RJFJR 17:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, someone or something might reconvolve it or it just might up and reconvolve itself. It is only through the triumph of engineering over theory that we don't have any significant usage of "reredeconvolve". DCDuring TALK 18:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as protologism. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. It gets enough Google Scholar hits to warrant a full RFV period. (For it to meet the CFI, attenstion-wise, only one of those hits needs to be from a peer-reviewed academic journal. I'm not positive, but it looks like two are. Plus, despite what you say, there's actually one Google Books hit — I'm not sure why you don't see it — for a total of probably three durably archived cites.) —RuakhTALK 22:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry. When I saw the one entry I misread it as a near miss that google was offering for a related word. RJFJR 01:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Gone to RFV', see WT:RFV#redeconvolved. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry. When I saw the one entry I misread it as a near miss that google was offering for a related word. RJFJR 01:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
RFV discussion
edit
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.
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.
(from WT:RFD#redeconvolved) No google books hits, 8 general google hits (counting us). I'm not sure why you'd want to deconvolve something after you've already done so. RJFJR 17:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, someone or something might reconvolve it or it just might up and reconvolve itself. It is only through the triumph of engineering over theory that we don't have any significant usage of "reredeconvolve". DCDuring TALK 18:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as protologism. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. It gets enough Google Scholar hits to warrant a full RFV period. (For it to meet the CFI, attenstion-wise, only one of those hits needs to be from a peer-reviewed academic journal. I'm not positive, but it looks like two are. Plus, despite what you say, there's actually one Google Books hit — I'm not sure why you don't see it — for a total of probably three durably archived cites.) —RuakhTALK 22:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry. When I saw the one entry I misread it as a near miss that google was offering for a related word. RJFJR 01:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Gone to RFV', see WT:RFV#redeconvolved. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry. When I saw the one entry I misread it as a near miss that google was offering for a related word. RJFJR 01:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Carry on chaps. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Cited verb (not one but two peer-reviewed academic journal uses). The only adjective cite is basically like a reduced passive ("redeconvolved trace" meaning "trace that has been redeconvolved"), so it's probably safe to fail the adjective. —RuakhTALK 17:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Since no one objected:
RFV passed: verb.
RFV failed: adjective.
—RuakhTALK 13:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)