Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attachment disorder

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 no consensus. Given that the nominator withdrew his nomination, then withdrew the withdrawal, the discussion is confusing to decipher, but there doesn't appear to be consensus to do anything. --Core desat 01:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attachment disorder

First of all, major copyright infringement. Bulk of article is a copy-pasted copyrighted article taken from here. It was sort-of covertly added here. There has been no assurance Dr. Becker-Wiedman has released this article under the GFDL. In addition, this article is written in a non-encyclopedic tone, and advocates a specific pro-Attachment POV in many places. I think it would be better to just start over from scratch as this is such a controversial topic, and both sides seem quite entrenched. --Dwiki 01:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete copyvio. Nardman1 01:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I've reverted the article to the original, non-copyvio one.--TBCΦtalk? 02:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per TBC. Dwiki, how could you look into the history and find a "covertly added" copyvio and not simply revert? As for the remainder, AFD is not for solving content disputes. Please follow appropriate dispute resolution processes. -- Dhartung | Talk 03:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point. I like the reverted version, and I admit I had not closely looked at it. I'm going to archive the talk page with an explanation of the infringement, and cross my fingers that people will just start editing this new one rather than trying to resurrect the behemoth. Nomination withdrawn.--Dwiki 07:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The article has been though many edits and revisions and is an important subject in Psychology and mental health treatment, as evidenced by the many citations and professional peer-reviewed references. Furthermore, the talk page does show that the material that was considered copyrighted was used with the permission of Dr. Becker-Weidman. There has not been any content disputes is quite some time and the various editors appear to have reached a consensus that is reflected in the current article. DPeterson^talk 13:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep No copyright violation exists. From the archived page the hold of the copyright stated,
The material previously deleted was not "stolen" as it is covered under fair use provisions of the copyright code. But, more to the point, I hold the copyright to that article and I am allowed to use it as I see fit...although I have edited it some here. Dr. Art 22:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
JonesRD_talk 16:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not because of the copyvio which isn't one as said above. The copyright-owner has given permission to use the text which makes me inherently sceptical, because of WP:COI. As the nominator puts it : this article is written in a non-encyclopedic tone, and advocates a specific pro-Attachment POV in many places.

In addition to that: Attachment disorder is a term that borders on neologism and original research. The term is in use, but many times it is used short for Reactive attachment disorder, which really exists as a medical diagnosis. Attachment disorder can also be used as a pov term to describe Attachment theory. (The findings of attachment theory are usually described as attachment styles, not attachment disorders.) Since articles on Reactive attachment disorder and Attachment theory do exist I think this article is redundant.--DorisH 18:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point, that, too. This article is sort of a cluster-f and there seems to be a group that wants to enforce the status quo. I can't exactly explain why I experienced such a sinking feeling when I encountered this article, but I will admit my impulse was "burn it! kill!" as it hurts my brain in so many ways to think about all the issues that encumber it. As the article remains essentially the same as when I first encountered it, I have to say, I reinstate my desire to see it gone.--Dwiki 20:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article may benefit from some editing. I fail to see the POV...it currently represents a consensus built after extensive wrangling and the use of advocates, RfC, and mediation. The term is a broad one, without the specificity of the clinical diagnosis of Reactive Attachment Disorder (DSM-IV-R). However, it is a term that is used extensive in literature, on the web, and in various publications. As such, the term does deserve an encyclopedia article discussing the various issues involved in its use, lack of clarity of defination, etc. It is not a POV term for Attachment Theory; that is a completely different term. For these reasons it should stay.DPeterson^talk 20:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep For all the reasons stated above. It is a term used (do a google search) and so should have an article here. JohnsonRon 21:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is certainly not copyright violation if copyright has not been violated. Note also that the original holder, by editting the material on wikipedia has also given implicit consent to it's use under the wikipedia copyleft. It seems to me that the so called 'copyright violation' is being used as an excuse for getting this article deleted. Note Also: Someone has been editting the article and has clearly removed large sections of content. This content should be restored immediately. --I 03:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I was the one who removed the content, at it was a copyvio of this article.--TBCΦtalk? 05:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - 'Comment'You are incorrect. The archive page shows that permission was granted for use of the material. DPeterson^talk 12:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment See diff [[1]] DPeterson^talk 11:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close (again) as nominator has withdrawn.[2] -- Dhartung | Talk 06:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The nom seems to have withdrawn his withdrawal.--TBCΦtalk? 08:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article describes a term used widely. The fact that there is controversary about its use adds to the importance of having an article in Wikipedia about it.RalphLender^talk 15:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and rewrite "attachment disorder" certainly is a real term. Possibly redirect to reactive attachment disorder per DorisH. JuJube 02:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kep the page As the above person says, "attachment disorder" is a real term and so deserves an encyclopedia article. It is different that reactive attachment disorder, the DSM-IV diagnosis. SamDavidson 15:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite - The use of an entire article copied and pasted into Wikipedia from a single source on a controversial issue must surely be questioned. It's amusing to see people saying "someone has been editing the article" as if that's a bad thing. Just because someone copies and pastes a huge textblock into an article doesn't mean that text can't be edited, nor does it mean that textblock is appropriate for the encyclopedia. FCYTravis 02:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Editing can be an improvement. But wholesale editing is not productive and will only provide conflict as has happened before on this article. Rather than merely deleting the entire passage, it would be better if you worked to improve it by editing the material you are concerned about. DPeterson^talk 12:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP for all the reasons previously stated. The article could use some editing. In the mean time, it should not have large sections of it blanked as some editors have done (See diffs: [[3]] [[4]] MarkWood 15:38, 16 March 2007 (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.