Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Corvino on Homosexuality
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
— User:Ptkfgs, 21:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:FU||WP:NPOV||WP:OR (Wikipedia:Non-free content)