Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Independent advocacy

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 03:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Independent advocacy

The page appears to be original research. Additionally, it offers advice and makes POV suggestions. Chairboy 22:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Chairboy 22:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This is interesting. What's your definition of independent research? This is based on well established work, which thousands of people around the world are engaged in, and it most of it is written in a style typical of the field. There has been a request for an article on this subject (see the advocacy discussion page), and I am employed as an expert. The last two sections are slightly speculative, but I have informed the independent advocacy community about my post and it would be good if the experts could make these sorts of decisions and tidy the article up.

• Therefore I have to say Keep Visctrix 22:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: The valid criticism would be of original research not "Independent Research". I think that "Independent advocacy" is a Scottish term and not the term used to describe the same thing in other English speaking parts of the world. Hyacinth 23:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• I have published original research under this definition in an advocacy magazine published in London as well as other places. This article is not original research. Most of it is copied directly from published information that has been produced out of a consensus of the eight advocacy projects I support. These include branches of national organisations including Mencap, Barnardo's and Age Concern. I am also a committee member of the (English) National Advocacy Network and I know this article fits closely with common practice across England and Wales as well as Scotland. They also have this sort of advocacy in Scotland, where it became a statutory requirement for each local authority to commission independent advocacy schemes in 2001 - hence the references published by the Scottish Executive in the same year. This is despite the potential confusion with, and in addition to, the Scottish solicitor-advocates you find in every town. Visctrix 23:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment does the statement above that Most of it is copied directly from published information make this a copyvio? In other words, was the "published information" available under GFDL? Tonywalton  | Talk 00:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Does the fact that my organisation published the information save me from this, or does it place me back in the error of original research? Visctrix 00:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Nothing to do with OR. Copyright violation (copyvio) depends upon the criteria under which the informaton was published. If your organisation claims copyright (and this is independent even of whether you put the information there in the first place - even if you did so personally you did so under the copyright of that organisation) and you have copied that information elsewhere you are in breach of that copyright, unless the copyright holder has specifically authorised such release . I would advise you to see [1] and be aware that anything on Wikipedia is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, so effectively if you put anything on WP you are stating that the copyright holder is willing to license the material freely. For what it's worth I'd vote 'keep' for your article, though with some NPOV cleanup, but if it's violating someone's copyright it has to go. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• • If you are the original author, or one of the original authors, copying from your own publication with authority to release this under the GFDL, it is not a copyvio. It would help to cite the sources where this work and similer work was published in the article, see Wikipedia:Cite Sources and Wikipedia:Inline Citation. If the info was originally published in reputable primary publications it is not original research in the wikipedia sense. Such a citation would help significantly, IMO. No Vote pending provision of citations. DES ^(talk) 01:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, but I'm concerned that the author stated "my organisation published...", which might well make it not his own publication Tonywalton  | Talk

On re-reading, he also states "I have published...in an advocacy magazine". Again, if any of the material in the WP article was copied from there, is this breaching the copyright of that magazine? Tonywalton  | Talk

All of which is why I said If he is "copying from your own publication with authority to release this..." then it was ok, as to a magazine it denpends what their deal is, but most only buy "1st serial" rights from authors, the author retains the copyright and the right to publishe elsewhere, possibly after a stated delay. We need more info from the submitter here. DES ^(talk) 03:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• My main concern, and the concern of my employers, is that I support independent advocacy, which includes making our work accessible for people to use. Hence this contribution to Wikipedia. There are no copywrite issues with any of the material here, and certainly not if the article is left online as it's free distribution will be guaranteed. Visctrix 21:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

VfD issues aside, copyright is a bit more complicated than that. The original owner of the text must release it to the open license, and you realize that it will not stay intact, right? The text will be edited by others, extensively. This does not change the fact that this article appears to be non-encyclopedic and would require an extreme rewrite. - Chairboy 22:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Since there appears to be little clarity about the copyright status of this, and per Chairboy (and come to that, myself) this needs POV editing that doesn't seem to be forthcoming from the author, I vote Delete. Visctrix, it might be good if you could sort out:
  • The potential copyright issues (and "we're putting it on here so a lot of people will see it and it can be redistributed" is not enough, as Chairboy says)
  • The POV aspects of the article - that's "Point Of View" - articles on here should be NPOV; "Neutral Point of View", not, to coin a phrase, advocating a POV. Your statement that "I support independent advocacy" above says that your article is placed in a spirit of advocating a POV (once again, pun unintended). Wikipedia specifically prohibits such advocacy. Tonywalton  | Talk 21:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• I'm doing my best, and I've just deleted the final section before the references which I admit was somewhat speculative. I have asked members of the advocacy community to contribute to this debate and to the article, but clearly this hasn't happened yet.
  • I'm a bit confused as to what you think is POV in the article. There was one place in the deleted section that said 'in my experience' but that is all I can see. I'm left wondering if you think that the initial sections, which are carefully written to be understandable by people with little literacy and are therefore in the second person, count as POV. Can you give me any more specific pointers?
  • I've read Wikipedia:Copyrights and I can't see anything on that page, nor am I aware of any other reason, why any of the text of the article may constitute a copyright infringement.
  • This subject is very topical in the UK. Two major pieces of legislation have just been passed that will extend the importance of advocates (see Talk:Independent advocacy) and I have provided links to three national advocacy organisations and networks as well as to publications of the Scottish Executive. I can provide more links later on in the week. Historically there have been advocacy organisations working in the UK for 20 years, and in the US and Germany even further back. The UK Government seems to have problems with the lack of clarity surrounding advocacy work in a similar way to the people calling for this page to be deleted - but the thousands of people who benefit each year from working with advocates have no such qualms. I am very surprised and disappointed, as a new contributor to Wikipedia, that my work, in good faith, on a subject of such significance, could simply be deleted after 5 days. I'm certainly happy to continue working on this article, and others, but I need more time for this, and I think there are issues that need more debate. Visctrix 23:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.