Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of HIV-positive people


 * It was brought to my attention that this AFD was advertised offsite. Whilst this is not necessarily a bad thing, so long as it is done properly... for example, when I post on a mailing list that an AFD is running I will also post a note on the talk page of that AFD.  I'll post on the talk page the location of the offsite message, and how I worded it.  So; please do disclose where this AFD was advertised and how exactly the message was worded so I and the rest of the community can be informed.  Warmly, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I raised awareness amongst HIV positive people off-wiki about this discussion. You and teh rest of teh Community can find the details thereof on WP:ANI. MtD (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have left a message at the BLP notice board. Cs32en   Talk to me  16:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Closure discussion - moved as being off topic
Looks like the vast majority of editors here support deletion. What is the next step? Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't that clear-cut actually. In any case, this debate will remain open for another week.--Scott Mac 02:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As of this writing, there are 15 Delete votes (not counting the implied Delete vote in the nomination) and 14 Keep votes, so there's no clear majority for anything. Further, my (entirely subjective) assessment is that only 7 of the Delete arguments reference an existing Wikipedia policy or reason for deletion (with the rest largely being privacy concerns and complaints of unmaintainability), compared to 11 of the Keep arguments (with the invalid Keeps being largely "it must be fine because it's featured" arguments). It's heading for a No Consensus close, which defaults to Keep.  If it's Kept, I'll do a cleanup and remove the clearly invalid entries. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The privacy issue is very much part of our BLP policies, so you must count those !votes as policy-based as well.  And "unmaintainable", while not policy per se is an eminently practical consideration.  This encyclopedia is an ongoing proposition, and the set of people who maintain it today is not the same set of people who will maintain it 5, 10, or 15 years down the line.  A list which is inherently difficult to keep in line with BLP policies, and which relies on the concerted diligence of a small number of people to stop it from running amuck would clearly be in risk of violating policy once it falls "under the radar" as people move on and new people come it.  It would be irresponsible of us to keep a list that we know is extremely likely to provide inaccurate information about living people in the future.  Even now, when people are trying their best to maintain it, it fails to be well-referenced and accurate.  Think of how much worse it will get once the spotlight is off of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, since the nom made arguments for the deletion, and this clearly was not a procedural nomination, you must count the nominator as a delete !vote when you are counting heads. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that, just in terms of head counts, without evaluating strength of argument, there's no clear consensus yet -- it's pretty much even. But I'm wondering: what are you considering to be valid policy-based arguments for keeping?  The delete argument is based open various parts of BLP policy, what's the central policy argument for keeping? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not the closing admin, I've expressed a Keep vote myself, and I made the disclaimer that my assessment was entirely subjective. I don't think it would be productive to get into a meta-argument about the state of the debate, beyond simply drawing attention to the lack of a clear consensus, so can I just say that my count was made in good faith but isn't intended to be perfect, and that I respect your comments above and the closing admin should have regard to them?  :-)  - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely you can, and I agree that meta-discussion about the count is not particularly productive. I would still like to know, though, what you believe the policy-based argument for keeping is, since I'm not certain I'm seeing one.  (BTW, I do think that non-policy-based opinions can carry some weight too, as long as they aren't just "I like it" or "I don't like it", and they make a coherent point.  There are a number of valid arguments of that sort among the keep !votes, but I'm just not seeing anything that's rooted in policy.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Re "The privacy issue is very much part of our BLP policies". There is no privacy issue. The information is in the public domain. You can read about it in your newspaper. Where do you think we got the sources from? Hospital records? Colin°Talk 08:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we please keep the AfD discussion on the main page. Discussing closure is premature. Colin°Talk 08:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I am in the process of contacting everyone listed on the page and informing them of that fact. FYI. Libel has been committed on this page. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Where? I am for deleting this - but I see no libels.--Scott Mac 20:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Naomi Russell was placed on the list, as someone with HIV. However she doesn't have the disease, the source listed said nothing about her having the illness. She was on the page for two days. Saying someone has HIV when they don't is libel. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone added false information on Wikipedia?! You're shitting me.  Lugnuts  (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Joke about it all you want, but it is grounds for a lawsuit. And users are no longer protected online. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is that there are thousands of BLP articles on here, all with the potential to have mis-information in them. Your solution would be to delete them all, when all it needs is a little patrolling and reverting for anything that can't be backed up via a reliable source.  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If the information is false (and being unsourced doesn't mean it is false) then the person who posted it could be sued. That's between the subject and the person who posted it. There's nothing anyone else can do once it has been removed.--Scott Mac 20:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it should also concern us as editors. And trust me, wikipedia can be sued as well. They are providing the platform. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

And there is something we can do. Delete the article. It is prone to these kinds of false entries. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

And the story is false. It was based on an internet rumor. There isn't a single reliable source of information out there saying its true. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: has now been blocked indefinitely. Colin°Talk 22:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Note for closing admin
Without trying to influence the result in any way, I would request that you be careful to distinguish between people arguing to "Keep the list as it is", "Keep the list but remove people who are alive", and "Keep the list but remove people who are not significantly notable for HIV". They are quite different things. Thanks, Trebor (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Only in how they think the list should be changed by editing, not in whether they think deletion is the right outcome here. postdlf (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree entirely. A list is defined by its criteria for inclusion. The debate is about whether this list should exist, therefore it is over whether these criteria are appropriate. You can't class a very significant change to the criteria as mere "editing", or this whole discussion becomes worthless. To be specific to this case: a lot of the discussion is about whether it's right to include entries for living people who are not notable for having HIV. If this fact changes, a lot of the discussion is no longer relevant. Trebor (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Restricting inclusion criteria is an editorial decision, that is put into being by editing, and as such is not dealt by deletion. If lots of the discussion is no longer relevant, is because people tend to confuse problems that can be dealt with editing with reasons to delete. -- Cycl o pia talk  19:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If we changed this list to (for instance) remove living people or people who are not notable for having HIV, then it would essentially be a different list. It would have significantly different criteria for inclusion, and it would probably have to be moved to a new name. But even if you really think it is an editorial decision, this AfD has, for better or worse, become the hub for discussion on that decision. If this is closed definitively (in whatever way), it'll set a useful precedent; if it's closed as "keep but you can change the criteria in the future", any future discussion on the talk page is unlikely to get the same input. Trebor (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Order
Anyone objects to this moving one comment and deleting a duplicatie comment? One editor put his comment in the middle, and duplicating a comment of someone else ergo making it almost looks like I think adding an unsourced entry outing someone of having HIV is a small slip. Garion96 (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)