Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parten's classic study of play


 * 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The result was   Keep Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Parten's classic study of play
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article is a close paraphrase of a section of John W. Santrock's Child Development (p. 508), and may be a breach of copyright as the work is not public domain.Claritas (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep (assuming it is not a copyvio). GPrint has only snippet view, so I am having trouble checking whether it is indeed a copyvio. Assuming it is not, I'd rather vote keep, as the subject seems notable (we need an article on Mildred Parten - I'll stub now). Note that we have a subarticle on one of the types of play described in this article, the Parallel play. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a direct copyvio, but it's a very close paraphrase. I'm not really sure whether it actually breaches WP policy. Claritas (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment - Yes, I am afraid that the article is a clear copyright infringement of Child Development: An Introduction by John Santrock, taken from pages 519-520 of the paperback version. I was able to look in the Amazon.com version -- not only is there close paraphrasing, but some of the sentences are copied directly. I have tagged the article for copyright violation. That starts a 7-day period during which the article may be rewritten using original language if anyone is so inclined. But if there has been no rewrite by then, than it will need to be deleted. — Cactus Writer |   needles  06:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll stub a temporary replacement then. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll make a note at the CP entry to check the temp page. — Cactus Writer |   needles  19:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep -- with the proviso (as stated above) that the article text is revised to remove any copyright infringement. A quick search of Child Development journals reveals the topic itself is definitely notable enough for an article. — Cactus Writer |   needles  19:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -the article should probably be named Parten's study of play, not Parten's classic study of play, so I suggest that the replacement stub should be created there. Claritas (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, stages of play would be the best name, I think. Or Parten's stages of play - but I am not sure if such a disambig name is justified (yet...?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I just think that as we're going to remove all the content of the article, and create a stub under a different name, it's probably more efficient to delete and recreate, as the page history isn't particularly substantial. Claritas (talk)
 * I have rewritten the article (Talk:Parten's classic study of play/Temp) - it should be good enough for a DYK. I tend to prefer old edits to stay in the history, but I am not sure what we do in case of rewritten copyvios. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

NOTE -- I have deleted the older version per WP:CP procedure and replaced it with the new non-copyvio version that was written by Piotrus in Temp space. @Claritas, if copyright infringement was the only concern for deletion, than that has now been resolved, and you may wish to withdraw this Afd nomination. (The renaming issue is not a criteria for Afd and should be resolved by talk page discussion.) — Cactus Writer |   needles  19:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Nomination withdrawn - as per the suggestion of Cactus Writer | . Is it appropriate to bring pages which are copyright violations to WP:AFD, or is there another project page I'm not aware of for dealing with them ? Sorry, I'm relatively new. Claritas (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is - see if Copyright_problems answers your questions. If not, CactusWriter can probably explain this much better than me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I'll do that in the future. Claritas (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2010 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.