But since we have no clear standards on what's considered a rare/common mis-/variant spelling, the three cites I provided suffice might allow hisown through RFV.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a hierarchy of "laws": constitution, law, regulation/rule, precedent, and practice. Legislative intent sometimes figures in. The interpretation of what is a valid piece of evidence is in the realm of precedent and practice. On a typographic matter the mixing of spaced and solid versions of the same two-word terms seems dispositive to me. Do we really think we have veteran contributors who are so obtuse as to miss this? DCDuringTALK 18:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
We hope not, but we don't know for certain.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Did anyone doubt this would happen? Ha. - -sche(discuss) 05:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Entry made using purported cites. As the issue is whether the term is spelled solid or not, it is essential to have access to an image of the page. For one cite, there is no such access. For the other two cites, the solid spelling is mixed with the customary spelling, suggesting a typesetting error. DCDuringTALK 03:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with DCDuring's assessment that two of the citations are insufficient, and the sufficiency of the other cannot be verified. OTOH, Usenet... - -sche(discuss) 18:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
From what little poking around I've done online looking for this term, it does look purely like a typo where the space gets left out -- I have seen no difference in meaning between examples of hisown versus examples of his own. I'm not saying the hisown page shouldn't exist, but rather questioning whether the current definition is accurate. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I can assure you that I saw an image of the now-invisible page with the third cite. I hope that I have earned your trust to this extent. (It is now invisible to me also, though.) However, I did not check, or do not recall, whether his own appeared with a space in the same work. In any event, I agree this is a typesetting error: delete as a rare misspelling.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Fwiw, the three cites we have are worth 15 points if any. (None because we don't accept rare misspellings: but if we accept those cites, then they're worth fifteen.)—msh210℠ (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I've started citing this from Usenet. - -sche(discuss) 00:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Can we confirm that all given citations were really written with the single word, and are not just typos/scannos for "his own"? This seems like a situation where we need to be sure. Equinox◑ 01:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
They're not typos or scannos, but that doesn't rule out the possibility of a printing error. Just how much space a printer places between words is highly variable. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Moved from RFV, per the consensus there. The question is: do the citations in the entry attest this word, or are they better analysed as typos etc? I repeat what I said in RFV: "This one was a bit of a stretch, I admit, although it's the only one I created which was such a stretch, and I found several more quotations of it than I added, both in books and on Usenet, leading me to think what I thought at Talk:haĉek: "we never have, to my knowledge, had a good way of telling misspellings (which we generally exclude, even if they are one-fifth as common as the usual spelling), especially hapax legomenon misspellings, from alternative spellings (which we include, even if they are only one-five-thousandth as common as the usual spelling)". Thus, I argue that except by assuming bad faith / bad typing skills on the parts of the writers, we ultimately cannot know whether this is a misspelling/typo or an intentional spelling, especially in the Usenet posts in which it is the only nonstandard word (refer to my comment on hapax legomena)." I created this, in other words, out of a perhaps unwarranted good faith in the writers of the citations, some available in the entry and others available on Usenet, in which it is the only nonstandard word. I presume the consensus here will be to delete. - -sche(discuss) 20:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete both as rare misspellings.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete. "Phrase"? Nice try. Equinox◑ 20:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete himand. I just looked through the four cites given for it, just out of curiosity. None are valid.
The 1980 Mary Higgins Clark cite is from an edition with a lot of missing spaces; I'm sure it didn't appear that way in print. (It looks like the publisher gave b.g.c. an electronic version based on faulty OCR, so the image that b.g.c. displays is not a faithful image of the print book, but rather a re–laying out of the scanno-ridden e-book. I note that the 1991 edition, which b.g.c. has in Snippet View (so is presumably an actual scan of the print edition), has a line break between "him" and "and".)
The 2007 Usenet cite is quoting from (a version of) this document, which has "him and". I note that the Usenet cite also has "peoplewith" instead of "people with". Since the Usenet cite is in the subject of a posting, not the body of a posting, I suspect that it's the result of copy-and-paste from a source that had line-breaks; either the software dropped the line-breaks or the human did (if any human was involved at all; the posting looks a bit spammery to me), but in either case, (s)he/it failed to insert spaces in compensation.
The 2008 Shreve Stockton cite is from an edition where all apostrophes and quotation marks seem to have been excised; it's from the same publisher as the Higgins Clark cite, so I take it to be the same kind of garbage. The edition that Amazon.com lets me search inside has normal punctuation. Amazon.com won't show me the specific page in question, but if I'm parsing the sentence right, it's missing em dashes, so our "himand" is actually supposed to be "him—and".
The 2010 Anne Brontë cite is from a digital publisher's b.g.c. edition. Note that two centuries of editors have used a comma or em dash between "him" and "and" in this sentence, and I cannot believe that this digital publisher made any sort of intentional decision to drop it.
But my delete vote is independent of those specific cites. Even if someone presented three cites that are not so extrinsically dubious, I would reject this as a clear misspelling.
I don't think you could say the same about hisown, though. In two of the citations it's used multiple times, which would at least indicate the spelling to be deliberate. Can we keephisown but deletehis own? —This unsigned comment was added by DAVilla (talk • contribs).