Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Stimpson


 * 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   keep. Potentially merge. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Stimpson

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Clear WP:BIO1E and apparently not even true. All mention of this guy completely disappeared not long after the furor in 2005 about him. If it was true, surely there would have been something more than just the initial, somewhat dubious reporting in 2005. At best, and it's a real stretch, this article might be merged into HIV test, in the Accuracy of HIV trsting section, since it seems his initial positives were false positives. Age Happens (talk) 09:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC) 
 * I don't think the merge to HIV test is such a stretch, but neither do I necessarily think it's.....necessary. Boy it's getting late. Delete or merge as WP:ONEEVENT dictates that we write about the event and not the individual. If it's determined that the event is not notable, then delete. If the event is notable, then merge. Nosleep  break my slumber 09:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Uncle G (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Uncle G (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and possibly Move/Rename with a redirect. I think merging to HIV Test would be too much of a stretch: I think it is hard to argue that the event is not notable:  is quite a lot of coverage, and there is discussion of both (a) the possibility that he recovered=us&hl=en&scoring=a] is quite a lot of coverage, and there is discussion of both (a) the possibility that he recovered naturally, and (b) the possibility that the first test came back false, and (c) controversy surrounding his threat of a lawsuit, and then the idea that he deliberately tried to make money from tabloids after changing his story.  Not only is this notable, it's highly interesting, and if all sourcable material were included in an article, it would be too big to put as a section of another article.  There's a rich story here...and people will likely be typing his name in as a search.  Cazort (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly WP:ONEVENT. It was never explained and there was never any follow-up after the initial news blast in 2005.  Any discussion of whether or not it was "true" or what was the cause or what-have-you is irrelevant but I can think of at least three very plausible explanations and would expect that if it were confirmed to be as reported it would have been written up in medical journals. At any rate he's not notable apart from these one-event news reports.Drawn Some (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ONEEVENT would recommend covering the event, which would suggest a move, not delete. Can you give any justification to delete rather than move/rename?  And there has been some coverage from later dates, it's just hard to find because google news often indexes dates incorrectly: 2007 article from a Chinese source relating a similar case in China to Stimpson:, same material in a French source: .  Also, if you want coverage in a peer-reviewed journal, you have it: ; his case is discussed in the context of false-positives for test.  And that was published just this year, in 2009.  Cazort (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep/expand per Cazort. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  —WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. If a relevant article makes sense then maybe merge but this would seem a reasonble article is possible here. Here's a book mention as the first person to be cured of AIDS. Here's about seven news bits from the Aegis (AIDS) archives. -- Banj e  b oi   11:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep While there have been anecdotal reports from Africa of people fighting off the virus, Stimpson's case was the first to have been medically tested. He is the first medically tested person who they can confirm was cured of the AIDS virus! That makes him notable!   D r e a m Focus  03:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/move to a new stub on various notable reports of [alleged] HIV recovery (if possible). This guy is definitely notable, but only for 1 event. It would be better to provide a place to add more cases like his, rather than accumulate more non-notable (non-HIV related) biographical info about him. Wikignome0529 (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that if there is much verifiable biographical information about him out there, then this would mean he was notable. But I haven't really found that so I certainly would not object to this plan.  Do you have other cases in mind?  Two of the articles I show hit on a possible case in China.  Cazort (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure there would be any verifiable RS cases to add for cases of HIV being "cured"... A better target for a move actually might be a stub to add any media-mentioned cases of HIV seroreversion (and the topic in general), since cases of people no longer being "detectable" (but without the claims of being cured) are not as unheard of. I am not an HIV expert, but it just seems like it would be more value to readers in covering more of the topic and not the person (since the BLP notability is based on the seroreversion, not on other aspects of the person) -- Wikignome0529 (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Violation of BLP1e - and possibly defamtory - says individual contracted HIV, which he may or may not have done. Requires deletion. Hipocrite (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As stated above by another editor, BLP1E would not necessarily require deletion. Article could be merged or refactored to cover the event or topic instead of being a biography of the person. Also, subject was covered in the mainstream media for having contracted/reporetedly recovering from HIV, presumably with subject's consent. Subject in-effect gave up keeping his HIV status private when he went to the media. Wikignome0529 (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand, it needs cleanup too. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to HIV disease progression rates. The case is very notable, and this is the most appropriate place I can find for including it. Fences and windows (talk) 22:07, 25 May 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.