Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallo's Egg


 * 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   speedy delete, per CSD G12 (copyright infringement), although there were significant additional problems with this article including attacks on named individuals, soapboxing and attendant disruption to this AfD. EyeSerene talk 10:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Gallo's Egg
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is a copy and paste of a report on aids denialism - no encyclopedic content, unsalvageable, author removed prod Jac16888 (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Response to alleged copyright infringement: This article published the report written by Investigator Clarke Baker. The report has been published on a number of websites already and is not copyright protected. There is no copyright violation regarding this article and the copyright infringement notice should be removed.

[Links to various websites removed]

The report itself does not make any copyright claims that prohibit distribution on Wiki or anywhere else.

There is no copyright infringement. This report is an extremely important and controversial document that cannot be withheld from the public.


 * Response:This article is not a report in support of AIDS denialsm but was commissioned by Roland Chalifoux of Semmelweis International to investigate the integrity of Professor Duesberg and journalist Celia Farber. Both have been accused in the past to 'contribute to mass murder' for their alternative views with regards to the causative role of HIV in the development of AIDS. Investigator and former LAPD detective Clarke Baker decided to investigate Professor Duesberg and Celia Farber free of charge and to claim this report is not factual or biased or in support of Professor Duesberg or Celia Farber is incorrect. It is a factual report, copy right free for any one to read, available from Clarke Bakers website. Therefore this article is not breaching any copy right infringements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whereistheproof (talk • contribs) 07:24, Nov 19, 2008 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete Why delete this article? It has proper references and Clarke Baker is able to reference all the claims he makes. Maybe inconvenient to some, but I do not see why this should not be made available to the public unless Wikipedia wants to suppress important information that the public should have access to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gradhand89 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)  — Gradhand89 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Do Not Delete - I read the article and find the report of interest to the public. This report should be retained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avantya (talk • contribs) 08:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)  — Avantya (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete - as a rant/unsynthesized stream of consciousness/no evidence of notability. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete this article does not fall into the category of soapboxing. That would imply propaganda or similar content. This article is a factual report that does not have any political or religious message. The report can back up any of its claims and provide appropriate references. Soapboxing is not applicable here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whereistheproof (talk • contribs) 08:27, Nov 19, 2008 (UTC) — Whereistheproof (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete as WP:TLDR, both the article and the AFD response above, and for soapboxing. MuZemike  ( talk ) 07:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete- I do not agree with deletion of this article. I have been affected by HIV for many years and this is very interesting new and important information to any one living with this virus. Disagreeing with its content does not warrant deletion. The article should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quikfinish (talk • contribs) 10:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)  — Quikfinish (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete: I nominated this for speedy deletion. This is apparently copyright violation from a publication by a non-notable individual on a fringe subject, by a single-purpose account who seems to have appeared to disparge the discover of the link between HIV and AIDS. I'm not sure of any link to previously banned users- that would seem to be the only purpose this discussion could serve. Nevard (talk) 08:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete this article does not infringe any copyright and to claim it is a publication on a fringe subject is utter nonsense. Since when is AIDS a fringe subject? Since when is a report that uncovers fraud and the intent to cause harm to potentially millions of HIV+ people a fringe subject? Since when is suppressing the truth a fringe subject? This article cannot be deleted unless Wikipedia wants to be accused of providing one sided and biased information to the general public.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Whereistheproof (talk • contribs) 10:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC) — Whereistheproof (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete: I've actually listed to a lecture on AIDS recently and the lecturer, an expert in his field, postulated that inciting the immune system contributed to the development of AIDS, rather than the large viral load. This was supported by experimental evidence of primates or monkeys (don't remember which) not developing SIV despite being infected with the virus and several other studies. Nevertheless, the size and aim of this particular text makes it unencyclopedic. Any encyclopedic material should be covered in the articles about HIV and AIDS. Wikipedia is not the place to republish reports verbatim. - Mgm|(talk) 09:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: No assertion of notability. Reinstate the article if it gets attention from the press, but until then it seems that Wikileaks or Wikisource would be a better venue for this than Wikipedia. And it is almost certainly the worst formatted article I have seen - I'll swear I saw emails in the body of the article.  If the report does achieve notability the article will need a great deal of work.  Cheers,  This flag once was red propagandadeeds 10:21, 19 November 2008 (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.