Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Hooper


 * 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 redirect to Edward Hooper (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) Wugapodes (talk) 04:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Edward Hooper

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is not actually about Edward Hooper, it contains only his work on the refuted OPV AIDS hypothesis. It is a WP:COATRACK and per WP:BLP1E we should cover this at the article on the refuted hypothesis, rather than as a faux-biography of someone who appears to be known only for this. Guy (Help!) 00:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sad, I really liked his book, here's biography at his website, he spent 18 years studying and writing about the OPV/AIDS origins. Can an article be made from his website-biography? Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really, because it lacks independence. The problem is that he didn't actually study the OPV AIDS conjecture so much as spend years trying to find supporting evidence, mostly after the reality-based community had abandoned it as provably wrong. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

*Keep This book shall stand since it has been created.KingOfKingsTheAssassin (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Striking meatpuppet !vote JMHamo (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect (delete) to Edward Hooper (disambiguation) and any text of relevance left place in to OPV AIDS hypothesis article. This Edward Hooper stuff is way too refuted to it to have space in a wikicyclopedia. But his book and 'lifes work' does have some worldly effects which mostly came in the form of dead babies (Nigerian) so his contribution to health crises in real terms to be noted on the OPV-AIDS page. Gongwool (talk) 05:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Gongwool's suggestion. BLP-wise, there is hardly anything that would pass as a reliable source. - HyperGaruda (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect perhaps as suggested as I also hoped others would comment but this particular article is certainly questionable to keep as there's nothing convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  04:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - NN proponent of a fringe medical thesis. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2016 (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.