Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global AIDS Walks


 * 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Global AIDS Walks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: Unambiguous promotion. TeenAIDS-PeerCorps (same author) was speedily deleted under G11, this article qualifies as well. The article is pervasively biased to the extent that we should blow it up and start over again. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 22:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I confirm that it is not apparent how this article meets WP:GNG or any other Wikipedia inclusion criteria for articles because the references both talk about the subject of this article and HIV/AIDS generally, so one can not easily see which references could establish notability, if any. For this article to be kept, one would need to find a few sources which are about the subject of this article but not published by the subject of the article. I cannot readily do this. The article is very promotional as it is now and if it could be kept, then I expect all but a few sentences of it would need to be deleted. I would prefer that this article could be cut to a stub, if it were found to be notable at all. There is no reason to delete it if in fact it is notable but with low-quality content.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the appropriate notability guideline is WP:EVENTCRIT (which itself relies heavily on WP:GNG). Also, while I'm in favor of deleting the article on promotion-related grounds, if we're going to keep some of the content then it should be merged into John B. Chittick (which, not surprisingly, suffers from the same promotion-related defects, though I have confirmed that the subject is notable). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)



Speedy delete Unambiguous advertising. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - This isn't an article about a charity, this is a love letter detailing the noble heroism of the "jolly, friendly, and funny" Dr. John B. Chittick (Ed.D.) with his "bright Hawaiian shirts", who is "deadly serious about the need to prevent HIV" and sends postcards to his doners "because a picture is worth 1000 words". The tone and content is so wildly inappropriate as to be irredeemable. No prejudice against an independently-written, reliably-sourced article about the organisation but this glorified spam needs to be nuked. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 09:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as promotional; this is G11 territory.  DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 20 November 2014 (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.