Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamic vapor sorption

:{{la|Dynamic vapor sorption}} ([{{fullurl:Dynamic vapor sorption|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamic vapor sorption}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Clearly a copyright violation, though I can't tell from where. My request for information from the initial editor has been ignored. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Yeah it looks like a copyvio, but I can't tell where from either. I don't want to say delete until I know where it is copied from.--Gordonrox24' | Talk'' 17:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Regardless of the copyright issues, it's a specialist essay rather than an encyclopedia entry. Hairhorn (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

::It is a specialist topic, the tone is a bit technical but that isn't a valid reason for deletion. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

:::Okay, total rewrite or delete, then. The current entry is not up to the job. Nowhere is the subject explained to a general audience. Hairhorn (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Topic is notable per [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Dynamic+Vapor+Sorption&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=IGJ&um=1&ie=UTF-8&oi=scholart many Google Scholar hits], and barring any proof of copyvio, it is possible that the author, {{user|Dvstechnique}}, is just very literate and knowledgeable about the subject, even if it seems to be a single-purpose account with a possible conflict of interest. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 18:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment, might be copied from an essay they wrote themselves. Is too short a summary to be copied from a review. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep if rewritten, which TimVickers has already started. The topic looks encyclopedically notable to me, and there are other sources. - Pointillist (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

::FYI the current en.wikipedia article might be a copyvio of the DVS Brochure listed on [http://www.thesorptionsolution.com/Products_Request_Information.php Surface Measurement Systems website], because when User:Dvstechnique originally pasted the text (on Wikisource [http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Dynamic_Vapor_Soprtion&oldid=1168902 here]) it said it was "by D.J. Burnett" who has published academic articles for Surface Measurement Systems (e.g. [http://www.aapsj.org/abstracts/Am_2003/AAPS2003-002231.PDF this]). The diagram referred to seems to come from Surface Management Systems research (e.g. it is credited to them [http://books.google.com/books?id=L08nhKTCZwYC&pg=PA246&dq=DVS+microcrystalline+cellulose here]). If an OTRS account-holder were to contact the company, they might release the text under cc-by-xx 3.0 anyway. The UK arm (global HQ?) is apparently run by Dr Daryl Williams of Imperial College[http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/people/d.r.williams/commercialactivity], and they make equipment that does DVS profiling automatically, so it is in their interest to release their text and indeed images. - Pointillist (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep for the moment, unless and until better evidence is found that it is a copyright violation. At present we have only a suspicion based on highly circumstantial evidence, but no known source. Yes, it looks like it was copy-pasted from a different format, but it could simply be that it was prepared in a word-processing package. Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Instructions for special cases suggests tagging the Talk page with {{tl|cv-unsure}}, not deleting. Qwfp (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Looks like a synthesis of several articles available on [http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Alinkinghub.elsevier.com+%22Dynamic+vapor+sorption%22&btnG=Search&hl=en&client=iceweasel-a&rls=org.debian%3Aen-US%3Aunofficial&sa=2 linkinghub.elsevier.com]. Thus likely original research. --Pgallert (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. We don't delete articles for being copyright violations without any evidence of copying, and not because they draw together information from many sources, which Pgallert seems to object to. The whole idea of an encyclopedia is that it synthesises information from various sources: the only problem is if the article claims conclusions that the sources don't support, and I see no evidence of that here. The arguments for deletion seem to be that the article is written in a scholarly style and that it uses lots of sources. They sound to me like very strong arguments for keeping. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

::Point taken, but in this case I suspect [http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Dynamic_Vapor_Soprtion&oldid=1168902 the original version] will turn out to be a copyvio of a piece of original research by someone in the marketing dept at Surface Management Systems, which wouldn't be a reliable source anyway. So IMO it is notable but we need someone brainy like TimVickers to drive a rewrite. - Pointillist (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

:::The editor has now joined in at Talk:Dynamic vapor sorption saying it is not copyvio because his colleague has released it. I've replied with advice on how to get it released under cc-by-sa etc. Could someone check that my advice is correct and fix it if necessary? Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello all - many years ago we at Surface Measurement Systems coined a phrase called ' dynamic vapor sorption' to describe a technique as described in the article. This term has now become widely used in many research and development industries. If you google the exact term you will see many scientific manufacturers now commonly use this technique. We have had many requests from different industries to define the term. My colleague wrote this article to help. It was written and pasted from Word as some have suspected. I am not an expert at Wikipedia and probably never will be. I originally posted it with my colleagues name but we thought we had better take it off in case we were thought to be promoting ourselves. Sorry if I do not keep up with everyone's comments but I still find it daunting to navigate around these pages. Tim has kindly offered to draft me an email which I eagerly look forward to receiving. I hope this whole affair doesn't turn out to be too complicated. We would simply like to share our knowledge. --MOBNMSMS (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

:I can confirm that I've now dealt with the copyright release and forwarded the e-mails to info-en-c@wikimedia.org. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2009 (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.