Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HIV and AIDS misconceptions


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

HIV and AIDS misconceptions

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article is more of a collection of information, presented as a fact sheet. All this information is covered elsewhere, and makes this "factsheet" redundant. It would require a significant rewrite to be presented as a neutral encyclopedic article and I don't think such a rewrite is possible. Thank you for your consideration. NonvocalScream (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment What exactly is the problem, that some interested editors cannot fix, which makes you feel this article needs to be deleted?---  Nomen Nescio  Gnothi seauton  contributions  14:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The consequences, prevalence, and persistance of misconceptions/falsehoods about HIV infection and AIDS is a notable topic in its own right. A simple Google search turns up several reliable sources that deal with the topic directly. Five quick examples (from the first 40 of 153,000 results of a Google search for misconceptions about hiv aids):
 * "The Top 10 Myths and Misconceptions About HIV and AIDS", WebMD
 * "HIV/AIDS Misconceptions Among Latinos: Findings From a Population-Based Survey of California Adults" Health Education & Behavior, Vol. 35, No. 2, 245-259 (2008)
 * "Common misconceptions about HIV increase discrimination" Yemen Times
 * "Association of misconceptions about HIV transmission and discriminatory attitudes in rural China" AIDS Care, Volume 19, Issue 10 November 2007, pages 1283 - 1287
 * "Ghana: Misconceptions About HIV/Aids Widespread" AllAfrica.com (subscriber wall)
 * There are ample scientific and popular media publications that deal with these misconceptions (many of them are in the 74 different currently-cited sources), therefore I think a Wikipedia article on this topic is justified. Perhaps some serious editorial trimming is justified as well--there's undoubtedly some WP:SYNTH violations in this article given its breadth and size--but I don't see a good case for wholesale deletion. &mdash; Scientizzle 14:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep It appears that this has never been written in the "encyclopedic style", which I credit more to one person setting the standard and everyone afterward being reluctant to straighten it out; however, fixing bad writing is not the same as insensitivity to AIDS sufferers. My bold prediction is that people will fall over themselves in the race to vote "keep", and recite nuggets of wisdom like "AfD is not for cleanup" or "this can be fixed" -- and the article will remain unchanged.  Not a delete, because it is well-sourced and it addresses a good topic.  But let's face it, it's a good article, but it's not a Wikipedia article.  Mandsford 21:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No... I agree, it is a good article.  But as above, I don't think a rewrite is possible, it would require a complete rewrite.  Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep afd is not for clean up, this can be fixed. do i hear an echo? seriously, the specific subject is highly notable, and thus should stay. however, we have to remain npov, and thus must be careful to either focus here on absolutely universally scientifically agreed upon misconceptions, or include more fringe theories and consider a slight tweak of the title, perhaps like "HIV/AIDS professionals responses to misconceptions". oh i dont know, cant find the words.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd add that I think that a rewrite is possible, provided that there's a consensus for that. As a rule, no individual person wants to act on their own to change someone's work beyond recognition, because it's perceived as an aggressive act, and in many cases, the changes are quickly reverted.  Bringing it to the deletion forum is more likely to get a consensus to support the way improvements go.  People can say that's what the article's talk page is for, but only those persons who happen to stumble on to the article would even know to look at its talk page-- and seriously, who actually looks at an article's talk page?  I think that concept dates from Wikipedia's hippie days where people were expected to sit around a bonfire just singin' and clappin' -- definitely a case where we might as well be walking on the sun.  Mandsford 13:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a notable subject, worthy of inclusion. (Yes, it does need clean-up.) Axl  ¤  [Talk]  10:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep needs rewrite, but worthy of inclusion. Maashatra11 (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we're all in agreement that we think it's a good topic, and that we're all in agreement that none of us, myself included, actually want to try rewriting this in an encyclopedic form. I'm betting that it will still look like this when it comes up for review again. Mandsford 13:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. A notable subject, interesting and well sourced.Biophys (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2010 (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.