Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The AIDS War

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 redirect to John Lauritsen. Views were split between deleting the article entirely and merging some of its content, so a redirect (with no content) would seem to be a suitable compromise. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The AIDS War

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Twenty-five year old non-notable self published book that got it very wrong. There have been suggestions to Merge with the Author's article John Lauritsen, but honestly, why bother? Roxy, the dog. barcus 12:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Virtually a one line article with a couple of not newsy sources. No evidence of real or lasting notability. I would say merge, but what?Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the previous version of the article doesn't appear to meet WP:NFRINGE. The City of Friends reference is an incidental dismissal, Virginia Scholar was a self-published newsletter from an HIV/AIDS denier, Praxis was a self-published newsletter from HIV/AIDS denier Jerry Terranova, Townsend Letter for Doctors and Virusmyth.com are clearly fringe, The Cornell Review is profringe piece by "a sophomore in the College of Engineering" in an independent student newspaper, which leaves a review in The Bloomsbury Review. --tronvillain (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to John Lauritsen (first choice), or Delete (second choice). I agree with tronvillain's evaluation of the sources in the longest version: they're almost all either self-published (e.g., the virusmyth website) or generally unreliable (e.g., the student newspaper), and what's left is too little to support a claim to notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to HIV/AIDS denialism#North America and Europe, which mentions the book. It lacks notability, i.e., there are insufficient sources to write an article. TFD (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to "John Lauritsen" as a technicality. The article, such as it is, has two sentences of content. The "Reception" sentence could reasonably be copied across. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a technicality with a brief mention at the author's article, or delete. Sources are not sufficient to demonstrate independent notability from the author. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly merge to author's article as suggested by Insertcleverphrasehere. - Scarpy (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no interest in voting keep, delete, or merge, but I do have a couple of comments. Firstly, the accuracy or lack of it of Lauritsen's ideas is irrelevant to whether the article should be deleted or not, as is the date his book was published. Secondly, the Virusmyth source mentioned by WhatamIdoing is summarizing a published book by Peter Duesberg and Bryan J. Ellison, Why We Will Never Win The War on AIDS. I actually agree with WhatamIdoing that the Virusmyth website is not a good source to use, and I had planned to replace it with a direct citation to the book the site was summarizing, though that's irrelevant now. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to John Lauritsen (first choice), or Delete (second choice). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nom said about a redirect, why bother? A bad book with a MS Word document cover, and the author article may not be needed either. Nate • (chatter) 06:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't delete articles on books based on judgments about whether the book is bad, and suggesting that the article should be deleted because of the book's cover is bizarre. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to have been a comment on a redirect over simple deletion ("As the nom said about a redirect"), not whether or not deletion is justified. --tronvillain (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed it was a 'per nom' comment; the author's only purpose is to write ad hominems against common knowledge things, and the book is a questionable quackery tract that I don't see has a purpose being here. Nate • (chatter) 19:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: If it is verifiable then it has a reason for being on wikipedia. I don't think it warrants a separate article (because it isn't independently notable), but it is still worth pointing out on the authors page that he did create a book that is a "a questionable quackery" where the author's "only purpose is to write ad hominems against common knowledge things". Would you suggest that wikipedia should not record this information so that readers who learned of his book are not informed of the quackery therein contained? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with John Lauritsen, which is the only context this book would be notable (by WP standards) in - that is, the context of the beliefs and total body of work of the author. I vote for merge mostly as a technicality, as I think the author's page should go through the AfD process as well, but that's irrelevant to the current discussion. Nanophosis (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as first choice, merge and redirect if people feel strongly that there's content there worth saving. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:20, 25 August 2018 (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.