Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HIV exceptionalism


 * 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 and probably merge somewhere. Even the nomination supports a merge, discuss on the talk page where to merge and redirect to. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

HIV exceptionalism

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Based entirely on one single source, seems like original research or perhaps a neologism. Either Delete or Merge to AIDS or an AIDS-related article. Spatulli (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I was getting ready to call this a Non-Notable Neologism, but I ran a Google search for the phrase and it came back with a number of reasonably impressive hits. So I will say: as it currently stands, this is written like a dictionary definition, and WP is not a dictionary, etc. However, it would seem that an article on this topic COULD be written, which would imply that this should be kept and not trashed. Color me neutral. Carrite (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Seems like much of the Google hits point to a single person called Ronald Bayer who apparently coined the term back in 1991 (see and ). IMO if this AfD is closed as kept the content should be merged or renamed as I stated in my rationale above. Spatulli (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and rename . While AIDS seems the most likely target, it could go to any general article on HIV/AIDS and public health. Sadly, my quick look for such an article or section came up empty. I found public health discussed in local-level articles, only. While there is enough material related to the term to make an article, the article (or section) should be "HIV/AIDS and public health" or some variant with the emphasis on the term "public health", not this neologism which appears in quotes in a number of the articles in which it is mentioned.Novangelis (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Question Can you please clarify your vote? It seems to me like you didn't actually mean to say "Merge" but rather "Keep and rename to HIV/AIDS and public health". Am I right? I agree, but then the problem with this is that the article will then have to be completely rewritten. Spatulli (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply No, my vote is for merging, at the present. Currently, there is not enough material written or a distinct enough topic to support a stand-alone article. This is an idea that needs a home, but not necessarily one of its own. I'm not sure that the term "complete rewrite" ever applies to a three-sentence article; we can build off of what is written, but the text has to be developed into a clear topic rather than a definition. Since this is about public health and there is a paucity of discussion, that might be a good direction to go. Ideally, we can improve the article such that I will change my recommendation to keep and rename. I'll also throw out the idea of another article to which it is related and for which public health is poorly discussed: Sexually transmitted disease. The article might develop to be a keepable article in a manner that I had not anticipated, so I don't want to commit to a name before the improvement.Novangelis (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it would be helpful if you could specify where to merge the article. But you can also generalize to say "Merge to AIDS or another AIDS-related topic" - it's legitimate too. But if you say "and rename", it's not clear what you mean. I think what you meant to say was "Merge or Keep/Rename". "Merge AND rename" is just impossible to make. :) Spatulli (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The goal of renaming after a merge is avoiding jargon; the obscure term should not appear in the section header, and, thus, the table of contents. If you saw "HIV exceptionalism" as a section header, would you have any idea what the section is about if you didn't already know the meaning of the term? The exact reword would depend upon the article. For AIDS, it might be "Special status in public health". While I listed AIDS as a default target for a merge, it is possible that there is a better fit and would support such if anyone can find it. My ongoing search isn't coming up with anything. I struck the "and rename" aspect out of my recommendation to avoid further confusion. This discussion should suffice.Novangelis (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - not notable - a phrase only mentioned once in one article 13 years ago. Bearian'sBooties 01:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It was in 1991. So 19 years, not 13 :) Spatulli (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, Bearian, do you see that "Find sources" at the top of this page? Maybe you'd like to click on some of those and try again.  I suggest you try the "books" and "scholar" links.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, OK, I was at a bad computer :-) Keep. 13:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not merge to AIDS? Wouldn't it be better? Spatulli (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  17:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is IMO a valid topic, but it's just a small piece of it. Specifically for HIV, there's a big push for exceptionalism, which results in odd behaviors (e.g., a legal requirement to "counsel" a sophisticated AIDS activist about the test, because he might -- after dozens of tests over the last decade -- still be as ignorant and panicky as a young teenager).  However, HIV isn't actually unique:  similar restrictions are put around other subjects, e.g., elective abortions and cancer diagnoses.  So I think there's a bigger article here, but I'm not sure what to do with it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This article and the similar stub, Genetic exceptionalism, could perhaps be merged to the general article Exceptionalism. I'm not sure that's the best option, though.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the disjointed replies. There's plenty of sources out there for HIV exceptionalism: , , , , , ,  (and many more).  There are also some on "Stem cell exceptionalism" , a current discussion on "Research exceptionalism" , and a fair number on Genetic exceptionalism (, , , , to name a few).  So I think this article meets the minimum threshold for notability, but I'm still not sure whether it makes more sense to merge it to a larger topic, or to leave it separate.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have actually found some "bigger article" where this can be, and is, mentioned. See Exceptionalism, where the subject of AIDS exceptionalism is discussed. Further, I think the main issue here is that this is a neologism that doesn't meet the notability requirements. If you can assert it is notable enough by expanding it with further content and third party reliable sources that prove it is an eligible subject, be my guest. We're talking about the current state of the article as it stands now, which is not worthy of keeping IMO, not about what may happen someday. I strongly support a Merge to another article, however, as stated in my rationale... Spatulli (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:N has nothing to do with the current state of the article. If the subject gets attention, then the article gets kept -- even if it currently cites zero sources, contains only a single sentence, has massive grammar problems, and other fixable problems.  Deletion is WP:NOTCLEANUP.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think this is a notable subject. Do you have sources that can prove me wrong? Even if it is, I think a merge would certainly be appropriate, at the current state of this article. Spatulli (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Click on "scholar" in "find sources". The first page includes articles from JAMA, Archives of Internal Medicine, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine. The subject has been covered in major sources—more than enough to establish notability. Because it is medical jargon, it should redirect. The only question is where.Novangelis (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest a merge to Exceptionalism and to AIDS as well. You're very right - the only question is where to redirect. Maybe there are other eligible articles but I cannot currently find or think of another one. Spatulli (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think a lot of good sources have been listed here. It's probably enough for a short article on HIV exceptionalism. I guess in an ideal world, we'd have an article like Policy responses to HIV/AIDS, or Public health response to HIV/AIDS, or something along those lines, where we could integrate this material into a more comprehensive scope. MastCell Talk 19:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Exceptionalism seems to go hand-in-hand with advocacy - it happens with many conditions to varying degrees. HIV exceptionalism is sufficiently notable to warrant specific coverage.  I agree with other comments here that the question regarding whether it warrants an article depends on how extensively this coverage expands.  Currently, it does not seem to need a free-standing article.  -- Scray (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete and merge the term into one of the more general articles. As it stands, I doubt that this term will warrant a separate article anytime soon. Nergaal (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This term is covered extensively in a number of respected medical journals    . Peter Karlsen (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But, is not notable per se. It should be anyway merged to AIDS. This has no place in a separate article. The only question is whether to merge and where, or delete. Look in comments above Spatulli (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. I've found a lot of WP:RS in the Ghits, but  I  do  not  feel  there is enough  material  for a stand-alone article. Prbably merging it with  Aids would be a net  benefit to  the Aids article which  IMO could use some expansion.--Kudpung (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SIZE for reasons why the AIDS article, at 129 KB, could certainly not use any expansion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is evidently notable and deletion will not improve our coverage of it. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I still think this isn't a notable subject per se. It is certainly part of a larger concept. The content can be kept but then should be merged to AIDS or another AIDS- related article. I don't say the article has to be deleted. The content can be kept, but not in a separate articleSpatulli (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Pointless made-up concept, probably from some tenured academic, or drug-industry funded activist, with nothing better to do. Bluehotel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep. The Google Scholar search helpfully linked in the nomination shows that this is clearly a notable, widely studied, concept. Merging to AIDS is out of the question, as that article, at 129 kilobytes, needs some more summary style splitting rather than further bloating. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is it out question? Can you explain yourself a little bit more please? Spatulli (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SIZE for the reasons why. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean it should be expanded? That's not the issue here. The problem is that it is not notable enough for a separate article and there's no evidence of it from the text in the artice either. If you can give more references and improve the article, ok. In the present state of the article a merge seems to be a good choice, and you still didn't answer my question, which was not why you said to keep, but why a merge is "out of question". Please explain yourself a little bit more. Also, why do you sugggest "more summary style splitting rather than further bloating."? I didn't understand that at all. What "summary style" has to do here at all?? I mean, the summary style page talks about huge articles, not about stubs, right? Spatulli (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you just make a habit of not reading comments properly before you reply to them? As I said above, AIDS is the "huge article" in question. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't notice it. Spatulli (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I still don't get the point. Do you mean that the subject of HIV exceptionalism should be under some section in AIDS? For the moment it's not even mentioned there.Spatulli (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you are saying that this should be under some section in AIDS, by your repeated calls to merge this article. I am saying that it should be kept as a separate article because of the clear notability shown by the sources found by the Google Scholar search linked right at the top of this discussion, which is supposed to be used by people commenting here to help inform their opinions, and because the AIDS article is already too big, so no more content should be merged there. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was confused by your first comment "needs some more summary style splitting". I thought you meant something else. Spatulli (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to AIDS. Although Bridger is correct that the AIDS article is already large (129 KB), the lone paragraph here isn't going to send it into critical mass.  Ideally, people will consider spinning out an article about society's reaction to AIDS; I'm surprised it hasn't happened already, but the lack of any other merger target and the considerable size of the article are both arguments in favor of making an article about the social aspects of AIDS, of which the "exceptionalism" described here-- i.e., treating HIV differently than one would other STDs-- is but one factor. Mandsford 23:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well said. :) Spatulli (talk) 23:51, 4 September 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.