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. postdlf (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientists known for opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the cause of AIDS[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The list of scientists who both oppose the scientific and medical consensus – that HIV is the cause of AIDS – and whose opinions are intrinsically noteworthy enough for Wikipedia coverage (whether due to their stature as scientists in general, or because of particular prominence on this one issue) is quite short, and likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future. We already do a better job of covering these individuals by mentioning them – or their research – with appropriate WP:WEIGHT in the proper (NPOV) context of our parent article on HIV/AIDS denialism. Where sufficiently notable (currently only Duesberg clears this threshold) we would link from the parent article to individual biographical articles per standard Wikipedia practice.

Maintaining the separate list has potential BLP, SYN, and WEIGHT issues, caused by potentially over-emphasizing one aspect of a scientist's career and by discussing HIV denialism outside of the context and contrast provided within the parent article.

See also the related List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the thimerosal controversy, the associated discussion at WT:MED and corresponding AfD, for which many of the same arguments apply. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the strongest possible support for deletion. This is an entirely subjective list with no inclusion criteria discussed. The nominator says it better than I ever can, but I would emphasise most strongly that it almost certainly falls foul of BLP policies and should be removed as a matter of some urgency, in the interim it may prove sensible and prudent to remove the names from the page. Nick (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 26. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete a POV fork which gives some impression that AIDS denialism is in some small part respectable. Mangoe (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV fork. Hardly enough for a list anyway. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment The shortness of the list is not a good reason for deletion. It would be easy to find other names that could be added. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nom's rationale is incredibly well-founded and clearly stated. -- Scray (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not incredible, very credible indeed! Xxanthippe (talk) 05:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as a fork. Carrite (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Without expressing an opinion on whether the article should be deleted, I will say that some of the reasons given for deletion seem wrong to me. I don't believe that there is a significant BLP issue here. The potential BLP problems of this list are not worse than the potential BLP problems of HIV/AIDS denialism, an article that apparently no one wants to delete. I also don't believe it's true that the article makes the views of those who dispute HIV as the cause of AIDS seem more credible. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This kind of list needs to go extinct on Wikipedia. Project Steve shows why such lists are problematic. Now who is brave enough to go for the big one? jps (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If a scientist objected to the findings of a particular research paper related to the cause of AIDS, would they be added to this list? Or would that only happen if the scientist were known to "oppose" something more general? What? What criteria could be used? Lists like this are highly misleading because in a world of 7 billion, there will always be people who oppose anything. However, science is not a vote, and an article should not be an indiscriminate collection of information—merely something which appeals to an editor. Johnuniq (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nomination rationale. I am One of Many (talk) 07:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.