Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High-risk heterosexual


 * 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.  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  00:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

High-risk heterosexual

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article continues little but an unsourced assertion that has been tagged since April 2007 as such, with virtually no edit history (creator, two bots and an user inactive since 2007). Is also an orphan. No article exists for high-risk homosexual. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No obvious evidence that this term is notable. Probably a neologism. WJBscribe (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete  Weak Keep  I'm somewhat hesitant to say this since I hate the term but there does appear to be some notability if you google it you come up with sources from NIH and CDC among others using it. Jamesofur (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * True and I appreciate that, having googled before proposing deletion, but the same sources also come up with the search phrase "low-risk heterosexual females". My suggestion is that the phrase itself is not inherently notable. Do we want to set a precedence for sub articles for "low-risk homosexual males"? -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough switching to Delete Jamesofur (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. csloat (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless anything more can be said on the subject. One sentence is not an article.  This isn't a stub, it's all that's notable about the subject.  --Simon Speed (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's likely to remain a dicdef. Bearian (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a neologism and per WP:NOT. Gosox5555 (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is nothing but a dictionary definition and is easy to cover entirely in the article about the disease. Kotiwalo (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Google News hits. Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as not even a dicdef. If we had an article on "Risk factors for HIV" or something, it could be merged there, but I can't find one.  --Alynna (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2009 (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.