Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative AIDS origin hypotheses


 * 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The result was nomination withdrawn. MER-C 11:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

AIDS conspiracy theories

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

There is nearly no encyclopaedic value in this article, as firstly such things do not really belong in a separate fork of this nature; and secondarily it seems unclear to me how this article could ever be written in an informative manner as a factual piece. In fact, what it is covering is perhaps "non-mainstream theories" versus conspiracy theorism, and writing articles very specifically on generalised classes of such matters is highly questionable. Consequently, I feel deletion is the only viable option, as it is difficult to see how it could be written in an NPOV manner. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn - since it seems I hadn't really considered this very well, considering the comments below. Apologies for wasting everyone's time. Cheers, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Although I believe these AIDS conspiracy theories to be complete rubbish, it appears that there exist several experts who seem to believe that these conspiracies exist.  Like the 9/11 "Truth" Movement, no matter how ridiculous a conspiracy theory, if it is notable then Wikipedia needs to provide an article for it.  I will say that this article does need to be cleaned up a bit, though. Pablothegreat85 05:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perhaps a rewrite is warranted, but not deletion. This has potential to be a good encyclopedic article. Conspiracy theories regarding the origin of HIV are widespread.--Ezeu 05:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. If we can have articles on Holocaust denial (which I think it's obvious that we should), then we can have this. StaticElectric 05:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable crackpot theories can be covered in an encyclopedic, NPOV manner; see Flat Earth, Holocaust denial, etc. This "theory" is pretty widespread and there are plenty of sources asserting its notability; the article cites The Economist and a Johannesburg newspaper among others. — Krimpet (talk/review) 05:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Oh, OK, sorry guys, it looks like I must be wrong - I obviously didn't think it through long enough. Should I withdraw this or let it run? --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you withdraw, and the next admin who sees this should close it as "nominations withdrawn". Since it is uncontroversial, a brave non-admin could do it too. --Ezeu 06:23, 19 March 2007 (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.