Testwiki:Articles for deletion/Gauge gravitation theory

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. no comment on plagarism/copyvio MBisanz ^talk 03:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Gauge gravitation theory

Template:La (delete) – (View log)

Cut-and-paste of Template:ArXiv. Probably a copyvio of the journal reference obtained from ArXiV: Int.J.Geom.Methods Mod.Phys., v.3, N1 (2006) pp.v-xx. It is quite possible that the author User:Gsard is the author of this published article, but unless the author retains all copyrights, the rights would need to be licensed under the GFDL by the publisher in order to appear here. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

*Comment. Closer examination reveals that only the first 21 or so words are directly lifted from the source indicated above. Still not sure what to do, especially given that there is a reasonable likelihood that the original author is also the author of the article. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

More examples of copy-pasting are given below. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to keep this article, although it will need work. By presenting the historical and current attempts to describe gravity as a guage field it balances Kaluza–Klein theory, which attempts to describe gauge fields as part of gravity with higher dimensions. It's a well established research program and deserves an article. We might also consider a merge and/or partial inclusion with MacDowell-Mansouri action. Scientryst (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• There's a note on this AfDs talk page from User:Gsard. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Concept is legit and I don't see what the copyvio is.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The sentence "The first gauge model of gravity was suggested by R. Utiyama in 1956 just two years after birth of the gauge theory itself." appears word-for-word on the first page of the linked article. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The sentence "At the same time, given a linear frame ${\vartheta }_a$, the decomposition $\theta ={\vartheta }^a\otimes {\vartheta }_a$ motivates many authors to treat a coframe ${\vartheta }^a$ as a translation gauge field." appears word-for-word on page 4 of the ArXiV article. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This would not appear sufficient to rise to the level of copyright violation. By the way, the ArXiV publication is not an article but the preface to a special journal issue on gauge gravitation theory. It addresses the geometry underlying these theories. The article under discussion here presents an introductory overview of these theories in general, not just from a geometric pov--although the latter appears in the last paragraph. If the editor is the author of that preface (Gennadi A. Sardanashvily), his participation on Wikipedia should be encouraged. 88.234.1.171 (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The quotes are unattributed. Is there some rule governing the number of words that can be copied directly from a copyrighted source under which the plagiarism is not considered a copyright violation? I fail to see what the rest of your post has to do with the substance of my objection to this article. Also, I have provided two examples of ostensible word-for-word copying. It is difficult to find these, and I have no doubt that there are more of them in the article. How many more words are necessary to establish copyright violation? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Two more sentences are substantially identical: "General covariant transformations are sufficient in order to restart Einstein's General Relativity and metric-affine gravitation theory as the gauge ones." and "These sections are treated as classical Higgs fields." A few more sentences, although reworded, show a strong commonality. I am not an intellectual-property lawyer, but considering the factors mentioned under Fair use#Fair use under United States laws, I am convinced this is all well on the safe side. If not, it should be easy enough to tweak the wording of these three sentences; in any case, AfD is not the best process for dealing with this. If the authors were different persons, this might be considered plagiarism--an entirely different issue--but apparently they are not. 88.234.1.171 (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

if the sentences are of particularly important wording, we would normally quote them, & that would be fair use. They do not seem to be, so the obvious course is to rewrite them somewhat--they are in legal terms fair use, but we usually none the less avoid it. As for plagiarism, even if one is quoting from one's own previously published works, they must be attributed. There have been some other instances of this, where people have republished their textbooks or papers on WP--sometimes where no copyright is involved, because the books have been PD or GFDL-equivalent. Usually the writing style for a scientific paper -- or for a textbook--is not really appropriate herein any case. DGG (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The article, of course, needs much work. However the topic itself is legit, supported by the large body of scientific literature, and, hence, notable. Ruslik (talk) 12:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Your !vote of keep fails to address the substance of the reason for nomination, which is that the article was copied substantially from another source in likely violation of the copyright owner. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• More copyvios. Portions of the article are also copied from G. Sardanashvily, "Classical gauge theory of gravity," Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, 132(2): 1163-1171 (2002). The paragraph:

"The idea of the pseudo-Riemannian metric as a Higgs field appeared while constructing non-linear (induced) representations of the general linear group $GL(4,ℝ)$, of which the Lorentz group is a Cartan subgroup. The geometric equivalence principle postulating the existence of a reference frame in which Lorentz invariants are defined on the whole world manifold is the theoretical justification of that the structure group $GL(4,ℝ)$ of the linear frame bundle $FX$ is reduced to the Lorentz group."

Is identical, apart from some trivial changes, to a paragraph appearing on p. 1164 of the above referenced article. Before the next keep vote, could someone please answer the question posed above: How many words can be directly copy-pasted into a new article, without attribution or fair-use rationale, before that article is fair game for deletion? So far we have four sentences copied from one source, and an entire paragraph from another. I thought that such blatant copyright infringement was grounds for speedy deletion (WP:CSG#G12). If not, I would ask that someone please point me to the place in policy that indicates that it is acceptable for a new article to contain wholesale unattributed cut-pastes from previously published resources. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

the rule of thumb for plagarism is seven consecutive words without quotation marks or attribution. I don't know of a hard and fast rule for copyright violations at the 'length of text' level. Wikipedia's rule for "copyvio" deletions (ones which go to Template:Tl) is that the text be copied almost in whole, in one edit and there doesn't exists a 'clean' revision to return the page to. For less clear violations (such as this one), Wikipedia:Copyright_problems is a good venue. AfD works as well, but copyright problems has some dedicated editors. Protonk (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2008 (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.