Talk:IAS Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention

Removed PROD
User:RayAYang proposed that this article be deleted, stating "per WP:NOT, calendar, etc. While an important conference, it's not nearly so overwhelmingly important that each iteration of the annual event deserves its own page. In that sense, it's much like most major annual academic gatherings."

I think this user misunderstood that this page was about a specific instance of a conference. In fact this is the name for a conference which happens every other year, and the reference states that it is the "most-attended open scientific conference on HIV/AIDS" in the world. I think that makes this conference notable. If iterations of this conference are to be described, then I think that all iterations should be described on this page.

I am removing the deletion template.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   01:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to society
A user proposed a redirect to the society which organizes this. This article is a legitimate stub which could be further developed. One argument for keeping it now is that it has a "medical conference" category which would not apply to the society which organizes it, and is only relevant to this conference article. See also Talk:International AIDS Conference.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   22:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As it stands, the article simply duplicates information already present in the article on the society. And I don't see why such a category couldn't be added to the redirect, if you think that is necessary. At this point, not even the article on the society (combining the info on the two meetings) has a single independent source. There clearly is, at this point, no material for 3 different articles. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The material exists for developing the articles on the two conferences, and I would presume it does for the society also. The conferences are premier international events. Still, the categorization concerns me. If there is a WP:BLP1E which is merged to an event, the event would not get the categorization of a biography or if it did, it would confuse a lot of people who saw the category. In the same way, if the society's name shows up in a conference category then it will seem misplaced.
 * It is difficult for me to readily propose ideal sources for either of these conferences. Despite them being covered internationally in multiple languages and repeatedly in scientific journals, usually it is in the context of the conference being an announcement vehicle for single scientific discoveries or for single announcements. It is hardly meaningful to add a few incidental facts about a conference when any of dozens could be used, and although I could post dozens of sources I do not feel strongly about developing them into the article at this time when the stub is useful enough. Thoughts?  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   23:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood what I said about the category above: it is completely standard to add categories to a redirect. What will be shown in the category is not the society name, but the title of the redirected article (in italics). At this point, the article on the society, even including all info on both conferences is just a stub. It contains all information that is in the articles on the meetings. I fail to see why any future article development would need three repetitive stubs and cannot be done in the article on the society. If, at some point in the future, that article gets so huge that it becomes cumbersome, info on the meetings could be split off again. The only other solution that I see at this moment would be to strip from the article on the society all info that is already in the articles on the meetings. We would then be left with three bare stubs, instead of with one more substantial stub, that is close to becoming a start-class article (as soon as it gets some independent sources). In short, redirecting the meeting stubs to the main article (leaving category info in the redirects) would seem to address your concerns as well as result in a more substantial article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is exactly what ought to be done.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   00:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll redirect again, this time maintaining the categories for both pages. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)