Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common misconceptions about HIV and AIDS

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 of the debate was keep. Ifnord 04:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common misconceptions about HIV and AIDS

This reads like an FAQ of sorts. I am not sure what to do with it (move, delete, merge) which is why I am putting it on AfD. However, as it stands it is unencyclopedic. There is nothing that shows how we judge what is a "common misconception". gren グレン ^? 10:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unencyclopedic guide, content is already covered in relvant articles.--nixie 11:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm not crazy about the article, but it has stuff that is not covered in the HIV or AIDS articles (not transmitted by mosquitos, not cured by having sex with virgins), and the articles would probably be too long if they did. It should be cleaned up and possibly renamed to be more encyclopedic. -- Kjkolb 12:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic. Crunch 14:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extensively sourced, well-researched. Important information that is too long to go in the HIV or AIDS articles. Powers 15:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Important, useful, and historically interesting. If there's not enough about why these misconceptions exist then be bold and add it. The fact it reads like an FAQ is fine by me as this is a topic that doesn't lend itself well to a non-sectioned article. 23skidoo 15:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The article was renamed by consensus from AIDS_myths_and_urban_legends to this current heading. Content is not covered in other articles such as mosquitoes and virgin cleansing. Also, the article has already survived a previous Deletion vote. --Bob 15:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopedic content, needs to be brought in line with WP style. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 16:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But here's the problem. What makes common misconceptions encyclopedic? I am not saying that the information is not worthwhile somewhere but what is the judge of what is a common misconception? How do we make this encyclopedic. Think of an article like Common misconceptions about Islam... it's just not an encyclopedic tone coming from that angle. The way it is discussed now makes this an FAQ. How can we make it an encyclopedia article with flowing prose and not a question by question basis? gren グレン ^? 17:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are ways to assess how common misconceptions are: one looks at the literature created by health educators, who document misconceptions in order to figure out how to combat them. Similarly the misconceptions are important because of their role in public health. I don't like the way the article is organised at present, but I don't think the article is a POV magnet in the way that a "Common misconceptions about (religion)" would be. There is a small WikiProject, WP:AIDS, that might be able to help with how to fit this article in with existing coverage. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 20:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is currently not done on a question by question basis, but on a misconception by misconception basis. --Bob 17:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, actually, the only thing that is probably missing is a source of the fact that these misconceptions are actually believed by someone, that is, the result of a survey. It could also benefits from changing headers from level 2 to level 3. - Liberatore(T) 16:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Could use better sourcing but the subject is well expressed, important, and highly encyclopedic. This is the sort of article that can actually save lives. Durova 17:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Highly noteworthy topic. The fact that it lends itself to a topic-by-topic analysis rather than "flowing prose" doesn't render it non-encyclopedic, nor does the fact that no one has drawn a bright line between common and uncommon misconceptions. Doctor Whom 20:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the misconception is notable, and it is documentable as a misconception (that is, it is clear that it is wrong), then it is definitely capable of being both encyclopedic and NPOV. Which is not to say that such an article would be easy to police (i.e. I can just imagine the pain that Common misconceptions about evolution would be.. there are common misconceptions about evolution -- orthogenesis, for example -- but the place would be a trolling ground) but there's no reason it wouldn't be incompatible with our guidelines, I don't think. --Fastfission 04:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic FAQ/list. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic. Stifle 18:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Very important topic, definitely encyclopedic.
Delete. Ambi 02:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move sourced AIDS reappraisal claim rebuttals (sections 12 through 24) into AIDS reappraisal#Mainstream Rebuttal. The Rod 04:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is useful in that it adds to the truth about AIDS by exposing falsehoods. That's encyclopedic enough for me. Atrian 06:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of reasons above, all of which I agree with. Essexmutant 09:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unencylopaedic why? Is this so different from the innumerable "List of..." articles? --Nephtes 17:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia is the perfect place for this sort of important, factual, well researched information. Dan, the CowMan 00:08, 31 January 2006 (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.