Deletion of John Corvino on Homosexuality

Comment: This article was created in *response* to an edit war on Homosexuality.  I did not personally know about any previous AfD.   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 .  And summarizing what someone else said also does not violate , 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:OR||WP:NPOV)

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 , I think my concerns about the severity of the derivation are warranted. Secondly &mdash; a position paper is a text which advocates a particular position; that is exactly what  aims to prevent. A dissertation (in the academic sense) is necessarily |original research. Neither of these are permissible under current Wikipedia policy or guidelines
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Non-free content (WP:FU||WP:NPOV||WP:OR)