Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative HIV viewpoints


 * 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   delete. Secret account 19:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternative HIV viewpoints

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

PoV fork of AIDS denialism - not a likley search target. Hipocrite (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  —Tim Vickers (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - POV fork of the classic sort. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is not a POV fork. This article falls within Alternative Viewpoints. The deletion is a form of personal attack for not sharing the same viewpoint. The information contained in the article is not a substrate of AIDS denialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuromancer (talk • contribs) 18:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowball delete. Yet another POV fork. These "alternative viewpoints" aren't even alternative viewpoints. Just one editor's synthetic article based on sources that are part of the normal scientific process. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge (ergo de facto delete) - easily handled by AIDS denialism. A loving treatment of rejected minority opinions is both unnecessary and inappropriate.  Alternative viewpoints is about notable views.  In scholarly circles, the view of AIDS deniers are not notable, not even a little.  The scientific consensus is that HIV causes AIDS, the only people who deny this are now ostracized and can get no credible venues for their views.  That's a tiny minority and going into each rationalization gives too much weight to the perspective.
 * Addendum - after removing all of the synthesis, the unsourced speculation, the outdated sources documenting veiws from the early 80s and the empty section headings, all that's left is a three-sentence, unsourced lead. The page was essentially a list of all the ways a false positive could have been generated, and a couple interviews in unreliable sources.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding any assessment of the content that the author included in the article, how can you say that there are no notable alternative viewpoints? The viewpoint that South African President Thabo Mbeki espoused was most certainly WP:Notable, written about in the mainstream press for years. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And is more than adequately covered in Aids denialism. Hipocrite (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto Hipocrite, and that's a political controversy, not the scientific controversy that this article purported to discuss. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - bad POV fork--Blargh29 (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - awful and intentional POV fork, of no merge value. The "alternative views" and "personal attack" defence isn't one I've seen before, and has no standing anyway. Verbal chat  21:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as yet another WP:POVFORK of material already covered in AIDS denialism. And should probably be convinced to stop creating these POV forks, though s/he has proven a bit resistant to outside input thus far. MastCell Talk 04:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I find it very difficult for a normal discussion to function if an article is converted from this to this. While I understand the need to remove information that isn't in line with policy, it seems a bit extreme to aggressively do that while the author has been blocked.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please review exactly what I removed previously, I think it very, very clearly becomes apparent just why the page was a bad choice. The sources aren't really sources - about 70 of them promoted the idea that HIV tests were unreliable and produced many false positives, with no context to show how reliable they are aside from these instances.  There was large amounts of unsourced text, some extremely old references to controversies which aren't controversial anymore because it's not 1984, and featured such delightful sentences as "There is a semi clandestine/censored debate regarding the isolation and purification of HIV" - no source.  There was a large coatrack about the steps to prove the HIV virus exists, sourced to the denialism Perth Group.  There was nothing worth keeping, but if anyone is curious, the relevant version is here.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand the need. I guess I'll just ask, for the courtesy to the closing admin, to indicate if there are largely different versions when discussions are going on.  However, since the discussions aren't much of a discussion, it's a moot point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think most of the comments are addressing the title and topic, which are independent of the actual content of the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: this stub adds no value to Wikipedia and is simply an impassioned defense of a discredited WP:FRINGE POV. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Content is redundant, fringe and essentially a recreation of a deleted article. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Duh-l33t for the obvious reasons. JFW | T@lk  21:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This article seems an attempt to bypass review by other editors at AIDS denialism so that the author could misrepresent the science without correction. Narayanese (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP Here is my issue... The article get changed to a forward before a discussion takes place. I revert it. Then it gets nominated for deletion. My understanding is that this is a seven day process. The article then gets whittled down to a stub. Then the edit history gets deleted. How this is accomplished is beyond me without an Admin doing it. Furthermore, the information presented is claimed to be out of date, and misinterpreted, yet there are no references as to why this is so. I understand that the information is controversial in nature. However, it is referenced, well written, well cited, and NOT an original synthesis by any means. To date, no one has been able to provide a reference as to why these citation are wrong, out of date, or misinterpreted. No discussion takes place, because no one cares to discuss. The information is contrary to what the regular editors of HIV AIDS denialism, and before anyone outside of that limited sphere of influence can even look at the page, it is deleted and forwarded. Then I get a 24 ban, and comments left on my talk page referring to a cabal. It is frustrating to say the least. Neuromancer (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You only get to vote once, Neuromancer. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that the content meant more than the votes... Neuromancer (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That doesn't mean you should add "Keep" more than once. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As others have hinted at, please use Comment in future if you have additional comments. I don't see any evidence the article was deleted, see for example and . Perhaps you're looking at the wrong page. You originally created Alternative HIV Viewpoints which doesn't follow capitalisation norms so was moved (the proper way) to Alternative HIV viewpoints and the edit history is there not  Nil Einne (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete. An obviously POV content fork. The article appears to be advocating AIDS denialism, which is very fringe and already has its own article. Fences &amp;  Windows  03:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Inoculate with deletion virus The article itself says "It is an alternative term for AIDS denialism" -- so at best, this would end up as a redirect to AIDS denialism. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, definitely a POV fork. JoeSmack Talk 06:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This isn't a POV fork. It's legitimate and verifiable information. The POV aritcle is actually AIDS denialism.  That article is written with same sort of misguided passion that labels Dambisa Moyo a genocidal maniac for recommending that Africa go cold turkey on finacial aid (though it should be pointed out that Moyo accepts the current HIV/AIDS model). --Firefly322 (talk) 07:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What part of the article AIDS denialism is POV, and where does the article Dambisa Moyo make her out to be a "genocidal maniac" or even indicate that anyone has called her one? —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Largo Plazo here. Perhaps the article only referred to her by her given name or perhaps it was oversighted but I searched every version of the article from 00:38, 28 October 2009 Nunh-huh onwards til now and found no mention of Moyo. I also searched a ~ month older version again nothing. In case Dambisa Moyo was the article that was problematic, I search for AIDS and HIV in all the revisions from October to now, again nothing. Nil Einne (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: POV-fork giving WP:UNDUE weight to WP:FRINGE views & an attempt to avoid documenting "the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - POV fork of AIDS denialism. I don't think there's any content here worth merging. Robofish (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Hrafn. You don't have to look far to realise that the content is as bad as the title "Some of these theories are far reaching, while others are pure conspiracy theory. Nevertheless, the bulk of these theories have been presented by scientists, HIV researches, Nobel Laureates, and medical professionals throughout the years" is the second and third sentence of the WP:LEDE. I.E. Nothing salvagable here for a merge. Nil Einne (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete AIDS denialist claptrap POV fork. Crafty (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, or if radically needed, merge with AIDS denialism. This is just a fringey POV fork, not matter what you say. Bearian (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipolicy requires at WP:NPOV that “All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.” It further requires at WP:YESPOV that “Article content should not be deleted solely on the grounds that it is "POV"" and that "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints.” Neuromancer (talk) 12:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't your summary of what it says at WP:YESPOV itself an example of cherry-picking? I think the context you've omitted in your selection of two sentences from that sentence is critical to understanding what they mean. You've fully omitted the section's focus on the relative weight of arguments: "... all majority and significant minority views must be presented fairly ... in rough proportion to their prevalence in source material", "content may be shortened or moved if it gives undue weight", "[an article] should explain ... which points of view are most common". Also, none of this justifies having two articles on the same topic. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it cherry picking? No more so that anyone who has cited policy against me. I am not trying to push a POV. I am trying to included notable information from the POV of that information. Isn't that the point? There obviously has been a debate, and the article in question brings to light the reasons for the debate. How can one sum it up by saying "There was a debate, and now there isn't." without providing the information that was debated over?  Neuromancer 03:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is cherry picking. Quoting part of a source to make it appear that it supports your position, while consistently omitting all the context that is pertinent to whether it really supports your position or that even contradicts your position. That's cherry picking. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I chose to include the relevant points for my argument. The point is that the information contained in the article is notable, referenced, and a topic under debate. Look at the new film House of Numbers. It is clear that there are those who dissent on many topics regarding HIV. Alternative HIV viewpoints is not intended to be a venue for AIDS denialism, but rather a place where information regarding the current debate over HIV can be presented in an encyclopedic manner. The fact that you many may not agree with the viewpoint of those who dissent, is not relevant to whether or not the information is notable. It is often deleted off hand, because people don't like to talk about it, and some feel that by talking about it, it gives it merit. Whether or not it is meritorious is irrelevant. It is. The information is real, it is published, it written about, films are made about it. How can this information be excluded from the WP simply because some people don't agree with it?  Neuromancer 08:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You "chose to include the relevant points to your argument" or you chose to include the points that supported your argument while ignoring the ones that didn't? That's the point. To the extent that the issue others have with the article is that it goes on and on and on about fringe views held by very few people, it gives them undue weight, which seems to be very relevant to the conversation. If you left them out because they didn't support your side of the argument, then you were cherry picking in your citation of that material in this conversation. If you don't understand that, then I can see why you might also not recognize what people are talking about when they say that's what you did in the article you wrote. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It's always great when someone understands NPOV as 'I don't believe N\y Point Of View is being given enough blind credence.' Nevard (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Though there was obviously a lot of effort put into this article, after reading the AIDS denialism page and this article I feel it is just an offshoot of the aids denialism page. Whether any of this information is worthwhile to merge I will not comment on; I did not review the quality of the references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 12:39, 10 November 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.