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 Speedy delete word-for-word repost of deleted article. Just zis Guy you know? 09:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Corvino on Homosexuality[edit]

There are a number of very significant problems with this article.

1. This article appears to be nothing more than a detailed summary of a copyrighted work. I am concerned that it is not a fair use of Corvino's copyrighted essay.
2. This article contains zero links to other articles. It is unsuitable for inclusion Wikipedia in its present form.
3. Only two articles link here, one created in response to an edit war on Homosexuality, and one link from Homosexuality also in respose to the edit war.
4. The article appears to be written from a non-neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), summarizing and quoting from Corvino in an attempt to create an article to advance a position.

Wikipedia already contains numerous articles discussing social, religious, and other objections to homosexuality and responses to those objections; those articles suffer from none of the above concerns, and additionally cover the topic in much greater detail.

Related articles for deletion[edit]

The following two articles are essentially exact clones of this one. The three should be deleted together.

• Homosexuality: a philosophical consideration
• John Corvino's defense of homosexuality

--Ptkfgs 20:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete all per nom. -- Steel 20:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete All These articles are copyvios, original research, or violate NPOV (or pick-and-choose a combination. It's fun, and accurate!). As such, all three should be deleted. EVula 20:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The other two are already covered in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Corvino's defense of homosexuality. The author of this one clearly created this copy after the other AFD's result was clear, which seems to me a gross abuse of process. There ought to be a category to speedy this as soon as the other AFD concludes. Fan-1967 20:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• On second thought, as a process matter, Speedy Close this AFD and bundle this article into the AFD for the identical articles. Fan-1967 22:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article was created in *response* to an edit war on Homosexuality. I did not personally know about any previous AfD. WP:AGF A summary is not a copyright violation, summaries are clearly allowed under copyright law. The majority of what we do here as editors is summarize. Also, summarizing is not WP:OR. And summarizing what someone else said also does not violate WP:NPOV, you are stating what *they* said, not what you are saying. That John Corvino has many publications to his name is evidence of his own notability. I had originally included this content on his own wikipage but some people didn't like that either. I have no particular personal need to keep it, I was only trying to stop the edit warring by creating it as a seperate article. Wjhonson 20:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The edit war has been resolved for the time being, via semi-protection of Homosexuality. A summary of a copyrighted work is a derivative work and in this case I am skeptical that it is one allowed by fair use. Regardless of your intent in posting the summary — which I understand was simply an attempt to cool the edit war — the article as written appears to be a position paper. --Ptkfgs 20:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not convinced it's over, the anon seemed pretty agitated by the numerous repostings. It will probably crop up elsewhere at some point. The other issue, is no a summary doesn't violate copyright law. There are many examples of this. If your summary of a 100 page book, is itself 100 pages, that probably is a violation. But if its 10 pages, you're fine. I mean, just imagine an article in the New York Times, not being able to state what the summary of a book was. They do it all the time. On you point that it's a position paper, that's the point. That's why the article is "John Corvino" on Homosexuality, instead of "a bunch of people" on Homosexuality... Are you saying position papers, or dissertations, don't belong on wikipedia? Wjhonson 21:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment That is an oversimplification of the issue. I honestly do not feel that I even need to read Corvino's essay after reading the summary (it's a pretty exhaustive explanation of his arguments). To me that says that the summary is using the "heart" of the work, and is encroaching upon Corvion's potential market. Additionally, I don't think the summary is commenting on Corvinos essay or using it as part of a larger work. It is merely a summary, and the purpose of the summary appears to be merely to convey Corvino's arguments to the reader. If you examine the four fair use considerations at WP:FU, I think my concerns about the severity of the derivation are warranted. Secondly — a position paper is a text which advocates a particular position; that is exactly what WP:NPOV aims to prevent. A dissertation (in the academic sense) is necessarily original research. Neither of these are permissible under current Wikipedia policy or guidelines. --Ptkfgs 21:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Everything is original research at some point. Relativity was original research when Einstein did it. That doesn't prevent us from having an article about it. This isn't an original essay published on Wikipedia. It's coverage of work published elsewhere. There's a big difference. Ace of Sevens 21:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Wikipedia is a Tertiary source. -- Fan-1967 23:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge John Corvino himself is notable enough to have an article and this article is mentioned there, just not linked. The lack of wikilinks to and from is just because no one has added them, not an inherent problem. This seems to be significant information about soemone who is notable enough for inclusion, so it shoudl either be moved to the John Corvino page or kept where it is. Ace of Sevens
  • Comment - Corvino's article is also up for deletion, so I'd suggest that hardly proves notability (my gut feeling looking at the article is that he may not be notable). Further, the fact that a person who has written something is notable doesn't make everything he's written notable. Strong delete this for showing up again and again and have a good long look at Corvino's own article into the bargain. BigHaz 23:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete them all per Ptkfgs. It's all original research that keeps getting re-created under different titles. ... discospinster _talk 23:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete all per nom. Crabapplecove 03:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as per nom. (Think I got logged-out there) Dlyons493 Talk 12:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment AFD on the other copies has been closed as Delete. As an identical copy of the same material, this should be deleted as well. Fan-1967 15:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.