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 Keep. As with any debate with this passioned and extensive of a response, it deserves some explaining as to why this was closed this way. After reading all of the arguements, and looking at the weight of the concerns, especially over the very real concerns by the "delete" side of the arguement over BLP issues, it seems that consensus seems to be that those concerns, and any others can all be met by normal editing and dilligence on the part of good editors who patrol the article and keep it up to snuff. Otherwise, there seems to be consensus that this list is appropriate as conceived, so long as the criteria for inclusion in the list are very narrowly managed. Jayron32 15:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of HIV-positive people[edit]

List of HIV-positive people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are multiple issues with a list of HIV positive folk. Firstly, with the over 40 million people in the world whom have this disease, I fail to see the encyclopaedic value of listing even a small subset of those people. Secondly, I don't think this is the right thing for a responsible project to do... listing folks HIV status, even if it is in a source. It is otherwise, a deeply private matter. Thirdly, not all of these people are public figures. I do want to pay special call to the good, hard work the volunteers have done to the page, otherwise. Notwithstanding the hard work, the issues I mentioned above deserve discussion. Thank you for your time and attention to this request. Warmly, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Featured Article cannot be deleted. First, they must be de-certified as Featured...". Is this policy? If so, where? Wikipedia's priority should be article content, not bureaucratic formalism, as I see it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of this, and even if it was a rule, it doesn't seem like we would be required to pay attention to it if the consensus was to delete, per WP:IAR. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen featured article reviews and it is very extensive. So this probably had very extensive review and was granted the featured status. The level of consensus to reach featured status is very, very high, much higher than AFD's. Therefore, it can be said that there is consensus to keep. I realize that HIV is very controversial so this AFD will be so, too. Also, I confess having come here because there is an advertisement of sorts on ANI. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, with the over 40 million people in the world whom have this disease, I fail to see the encyclopaedic value of listing even a small subset of those people. -- I would guess that this has more "encyclopedic value" than List of Pokemon characters. Maybe someone is writing a book on AIDS survivors, and is looking for inspirational people to include. Maybe someone just got AIDs and wants to see other notable people who have had AIDS and how they dealt with it. Maybe someone is trying to see if anyone has successfully played professional rugby with AIDS. I don't know why people look up Pokemon characters, and I don't know why people would want to find notable people with AIDS. But I'm sure they are out there, and I'm sure this list would have every bit as much encyclopedia value as the Pokemon list would to anime fans.
  • It is otherwise, a deeply private matter. -- I'm not sure how one can say that something is a "deeply private matter" after it's been published in the New York Times or an equally widely distributed publication. I understand that it would be wrong to publicly "out" someone who wished to keep it private; but if we are doing what we are supposed to, and only discussing things that have been published in mainstream reliable sources, then they have probably already been viewed in those sources by far more people than they ever will be in this list. I don't see this as a violation of people's privacy.
Again, I admire everyone's sensitivity, but I don't think that deleting this article is protecting anyone, and took issue with these two particular arguments. Best wishes. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jrtayloriv, I think you are confusing things we can do with things we should do. I'll not bother with trivialities like Pokomomon characters, but instead ask whether you actually think it is Wikipedia's responsibility to compile a complete database about any and every 'fact' we can source about 'notable' persons, regardless of what it has to do with their notability? Is there any part of none of our business that you don't understand? AndyTheGrump (talk)

Is there any reason you are acting like a dick to me for expressing a different opinion than you? I'm not confusing what we "can"/"should" do. I'm saying I think we should have an article on this, for the reasons I cited above, and that we can. I don't think it's anyone's "responsibility" to compile a list or to do anything else on Wikipedia for that matter, but I think that some people chose to, and I think that many readers will find it useful. I also think that nobody will be hurt by it because the information has already, in many cases, been published in newspapers with millions of readers, and is by no means "private" information. Anyhow, I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me, but it would be great if you could drop the condescending tone (i.e. "Is there any part of none of our business that you don't understand?") -- I haven't done anything to you to deserve it. Maybe try to respond to the points I made, if you don't agree with them for some reason. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. ... and see my response below regarding my feelings on notability. I agree with you and DustFormsWords that the only people on this list should be those that are notable for being HIV positive, not just people that are notable AND verifiably HIV-positive. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, apologies for the rather strongly-worded comment earlier, Jrtayloriv. It was a reaction to your comparison with an article on Pokemon characters that I was reacting to, I think, but I should clearly have replied in a calmer manner. In response to the point about listing people notable because they are HIV positive, I think that this goes to the heart of the issue. I am now looking into this, and will reply later when I have investigated further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies accepted, and thanks for explaining. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, Andy, it is certainly our business to incorporate notable information into this encyclopedia. It is certainly none of our business to judge what notable information is right to include and what notable information is wrong to include. That would be a violation of WP:NPOV. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable to me. I agree that the list should be people who are notable for being HIV-positive (i.e. Magic Johnson, etc.). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now, that seems extremely unreasonable to me, and your example demonstrates why. Magic Johnson is not notable for being HIV-positive, he is a notable person (a basketball superstar) who is HIV-positive. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I take the above back, as I think I misread your comment. Magic Johnson was initially notable for being a basketball superstar but is now a notably HIV-positive person as well. Understood. Oops :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Many of the people who are notable for being HIV-positive will have been notable for something else beforehand. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I'm unsure why so many people think that if it is information it ought to always be on Wikipedia unless there is some clear cut policy that says otherwise. WP:BLP is enough for me. This information of little value in an encyclopedia but has the potential to cause a lot of harm. You can say that this isn't a policy rationale, but I'm pretty sure others will agree that it is. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm quite aware of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and it says nothing about such lists. Perhaps you feel it is worthless data, but others disagree and as I've noted above, the information is useful to some. Colin°Talk 23:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colin, the fact that closers don't always listen to me doesn't make me wrong.  :) Griswaldo, BLP is a reason to prevent harm to living people by fully protecting the article. You've got from "BLP" to "delete", but I don't see that. It relies on your idea that the information is of "little value in an encyclopaedia", which is (a) an opinion statement which you've not yet supported by reasoning or evidence, and (b) appears to fly in the face of the majority opinion, as evidenced by clear consensus at the three discussions here, here and here.

    For the avoidance of doubt I do not believe that featured content is protected from the AfD process. But I do believe that when dealing with featured content which has undergone significant scrutiny over an extensive period of time, the bar for a "delete" is set somewhat higher than usual.—S Marshall T/C 23:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not wanting to be sued was part of it. Showing basic human decency towards other people was part of it too. Just because a list can be made, doesn't mean it should. Trebor (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Surely if the list topic is appropriate, but the content does not match content policy, the appropriate outcome is Keep and Edit, rather than Delete? (I note you also have an argument that the list topic is also invalid, but you'd almost have to be wrong about that, as there are people on the list who are verifiably notable for being HIV positive, and there's nothing in principle wrong with a list of people who are notable for the same thing.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, my argument is that the list content, if reduced to the few people who are notable mainly for having AIDS, would likely be so small as to make a standalone list unnecessary. You can disprove this contention by removing all other people from the list and adding a sourced explanation to the remaining entries about how these people are notable for having AIDS. Even if this leaves a list of ten or so entries, per WP:BLPCAT, we would need a compelling reason for keeping this reduced list either as part of an article or as a standalone list. Such a compelling reason can only be that reliable reference works have decided to publish similar lists of AIDS-infected people – that is, that the topic of this list itself is notable. I don't see any evidence for that.  Sandstein  00:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're underestimating how many entries on the list are valid entries as people notable for being HIV positive. For example: Rock Hudson, Ilka Tanya Payán, Robert Reed, Vasily Aleksanyan, Sean Strub, and the entirety of the AIDS Activists and Criminal Transmission sections are all valid listings. That's 35 names, and I've stopped before I've gotten more than a fifth of the way down the current list. Yes, it needs a trim, but there's no question there's sufficient content for an encyclopaedic list. I'm not going to trim it now as it would be a substantial and controversial change to an article under discussion, and hence impolite, but I'm more than happy to do it after it gets kept. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree: Hudson and Reed are mainly notable as actors, Payán and Strub as AIDS activists, Aleksanyan for his legal and political issues. None of these people would be notable (that is, get an article) only because of the fact that they are or were infected with HIV. Only Payán and Strub might conceivably feature in a dedicated list of AIDS activists, while with the other three the link between the disease and their notability is too tenuous. I suppose that this needs to be determined case by case, but the only way for us to do this easily is a field in the list that explains why a person is on that list. Even if there should be many such entries, which I continue to doubt, my other argument about BLPCAT requiring its deletion because reliable sources do not publish similar lists still stands.  Sandstein  01:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biographical lists are not limited to only those facts for which their subjects are notable (i.e., why they have articles). The guidelines say what they say, but they expressly note that there are exceptions, and the overwhelming practice and documented consensus in AFD after AFD is supportive of lists that document significant biographical facts regardless of whether they are why the subjects have articles. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of kidney stone formers for a recent example of a medical condition list. postdlf (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC for the "encyclopedic" comment. In what way, exactly, is it meant to be "still very relevant"? Trebor (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Providing the article is CAPABLE of being well-referenced, and would still have valid entries after having unreferencable entries removed, AfD doesn't care how well sourced it is. Adding and checking references can be done through normal editing; AfD is not for cleanup. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some keep voters are arguing that there's no BLP hazard due to excellent referencing - I'm simply pointing out that isn't true. Even with the care that's obviously been taken here, some entries are poorly or invalidly referenced. With the best will in world, that's unlikely to change with a list that includes so many subject that scrape into Wikipedia's notability for reasons unrelated to HIV, and thus the sole source for their inclusion in this article is some chance passing remark on some website or archived news article. The article is a liability.--Scott Mac 01:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There will always be small slips. This was a dead link which was fixed in 10 seconds. This list is better referenced then many of the individual articles. Garion96 (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An unsourced accusation that someone has HIV is not a small slip. Trebor (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very true. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That a link changed from http://www.rebekkaonline.com to http://rebekkaonline.net is a small slip. Garion96 (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[1] - a number of dead links, some of which have been so for a long time. Trebor (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So? This example was fixed. But that a New York Times article is now a dead link, or a Reuters article is not so bad. The link should be removed but the reference can still stand. Garion96 (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has had problems the entire time its been up. But those issues aside a master list of people with HIV/AIDS not appropriate. It is not encyclopedic and it is not ethical, plus it is a major legal liability. It doesn't matter if you defamed someone for two second, two months or two years, it was still libelous; and even when not libelous it still presents legal issues. I don't see how anyone could seriously argue otherwise. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC) For those making the BLP argument, this isn't a biography page. It is a listing of people with a medical condition. I think most people don't have an issue with including a person's HIV status on a biography page, when it is well referenced (interestingly I found a number of biography articles where a person who does not have HIV was said to have it). However a master list of people with HIV/AID, strikes many here as unethical. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Absolutely agree. You can sue someone for that kind of slip. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, some kind of glitch duplicated my comment; it was not aimed as you. Trebor (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I did it accidentally trying to fix an edit conflict. Sorry. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about closure moved to talk page.--Scott Mac 09:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the articles contain this 'factoid' and the list has the 'factoid' then if the 'factoid' is actually a 'lietoid' there are now two places where the information has to be removed from. Experience shows that is unlikely to happen, which is why databases try to ensure that each piece of information is only recorded in one place. John lilburne (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well the same is true of articles and articles. Would we say the article on the famous wife of a famous man with HIV was unable to mention this "factoid"? There's no policy against duplicating information, even sensitive information. Colin°Talk 13:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument about list maintenance doesn't hold either. I help to maintain "List of vegetarians" and the "pooling" of the claims makes it much easier to maintain the integrity of the information. Names are commonly added without sources and I can either track a source down or remove the name; similarly, names are sometimes pulled without reason. I can reverse this straight away. Everyone on the list has an article on Wikipedia, but some are poorly sourced and not maintained; I daresay such claims are added and removed from articles at whim. Having a list is an efficient way to maintain the integrity of this particular type of information and apply a common standard to referencing, something which I personally could not do if the list was deleted and each and every claim had to be maintained on the individual articles. I would say in relation to something as contentious as HIV, a list could be very helpful if you are going to include this information on the respective articles. If claims are made on articles then they should be added to the list, and if the claim doesn't hold up for whatever reason on the list it should be removed from the article. If an editor wants to add a claim to the article, the person may already be on the list backed up by a high quality source which can be ported into the article. So if this information is to be recorded on individual articles it is well worth keeping a list since I believe they do reinforce the integrity of information. Betty Logan (talk) 09:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk 14:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Collin: I am not threatening legal action myself. I am pointing out that libel was committed on the page. I am also pointing out that people who are on this list, have a right to know. So I am informing them so they can either take legal action or lodge a complaint with wikipedia. This is common decency. And I am sorry but in this case, US LAW trumps WIKI GUIDELINES.Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. No true BLP issues. Like every article dealing with persons, this needs special attention and problems can always lurk. But like in many cases, people ask for deletion as an easy-but-destructive solution for something that can be fixed by much more constructive means: what we need is to watch the article and keep all entries well sourced and double-checked. That's it. Once that is done, let us remember that BLP allows us to write about potentially negative stuff if such stuff is properly sourced. Some entries may be contentious and some pruning may be in order, but we do not delete what we can fix by editing, per deletion policy.
  2. Once entries are sourced, ethical concerns also become moot, since if someone is publicly known to be HIV positive, issues of privacy etc. become irrelevant.
  3. No policy or guideline-based deletion rationale
  4. Inclusion criteria are clear-cut. Entries are well sourced (and if some entry is not, it can be simply removed without putting into discussion the existence of the list).
  5. List is a strong navigational aid and has real-world use, as also above mentioned. The list provides a context that categories can't provide; moreover it provides a much better centralized place to check for sourcing than categories.
  6. Procedurally, it is true that consensus can change, but as someone has stated above, the review standards for FA go usually deeper than discussion at AfD; I feel therefore not proper deciding do delete a featured list at a simple AfD. If policy doesn't provide a mechanism for dealing with this kind of special situation, perhaps we should create one. --Cyclopiatalk 16:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have addressed all the policy based reasons for keeping the article, very well I might add. However, I don't see the "right thing" or the problematic aspects towards living people addressed at all here. Not everything is policy based, that is, policy is not a hard, fast rule. Does the article comply with Wikipedia based policy, yes, for the most part. What say you to those concerns I addressed in my request at the very top of this AFD in my deletion rationale? Warmly, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regaring your first two points in your rationale. Do you mind Category:Deaths from AIDS-related illness and Category:HIV-positive people as much as this list? On this list at least it is all well sourced and it is much easier to maintain than a category. Regarding your third point. According to Wikipedia these are all public figures since each entry has a corresponding Wikipedia article. I had a hard enough time to keep red links of this list. Garion96 (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Well, here we go:
  1. I fail to see the encyclopaedic value of listing even a small subset of those people.: WP:UNENCYC is a known fallacy. I personally find such lists exactly the kind of stuff that encyclopedia articles should contain -a structured compendium of information linked by a common thread. That you do not like it is not a reason to remove it for everyone.
  2. I don't think this is the right thing for a responsible project to do: A responsible project should balance the need of protecting living people with the need of providing a comprehensive documentation, including navigational aids like such lists. A responsible project therefore can for sure discuss which entries can belong to the list or not, be sure to check thoroughly the status of the entries related to living persons etc. but also shouldn't fall prey of moral panic and decide of pre-emptively remove everything because it could be remotely dangerous. There is also a duty towards our readers to provide information, an ethical duty as well.
  3. Also, ethically, we don't act as a responsible project by imposing our personal choice of ethics on others, wildly, but by compromising the tensions between opposites on a consensual set of rules that describe a shared set of norms. That's what civilized societies do and that's what also WP does. That's why we painstakingly discuss here, why we painstakingly build consensus to have policies and guidelines and we attempt to follow them, even if nobody of us agrees 100% with all of them. Therefore sticking to policy is not a mere legalistic shortcut, it is the way to ensure that what we do is following the most consensual path.
I hope it helps. --Cyclopiatalk 16:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, there's certainly no ethical duty to our readers to provide this list. Ignoring policy for a second, this fundamentally comes down to what sort of project we want to be. This list can be made, sure, and it can be sourced reliably, but that doesn't mean it should be made. Remember, this particular collection of information does not exist outside of Wikipedia, we are choosing to group these people together because they share a particular virus. And we are grouping them irrespective of whether having HIV is what makes them notable or not. Wikipedia is full of information, which we can arrange in a thousand million different ways; I'm yet to be convinced that this is a good idea. Trebor (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding because I'm not sure I'm explaining myself very well. Wikipedia is full of articles about notable people, the vast majority of whom don't have HIV. The world is full of people who have HIV, the vast majority of whom aren't notable. We are drawing a Venn diagram, with a circle for notable people and a circle for people with HIV, and creating a list out of the bit which overlaps. Why is this bit notable? The people are notable, and the virus is notable, but that doesn't mean the people with the virus are notable and should be grouped. The article should really be titled "List of people who Wikipedia considers notable, and who also have HIV". Because that's the standard for being on it. Trebor (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this particular collection of information does not exist outside of Wikipedia" Not true, although I suspect this is the largest and best sourced of such lists. Colin°Talk 19:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, there's certainly no ethical duty to our readers to provide this list : Your opinion. Mine is that once a sound,good,informative articles/lists like this one, that even went to featured status, have been provided, it is an ethical duty to our readers to maintain and take care of them, not to remove them.
  • but that doesn't mean it should be made. : But we're not asking for reasons for it to be made, we are asking for reasons it shouldn't be made.
  • I'm yet to be convinced that this is a good idea. : And I'm yet to be convinced that this isn't. Example: If I want to research, say, how the AIDS epidemic impacted the visual arts, having available a list of HIV-positive visual artists could be very useful as a start point (e.g. to see how their life/work was impacted by the disease). Being useful is normally not an inclusion criteria, but lists are different: they're meant to help the reader navigate the encyclopedia information. --Cyclopiatalk 18:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The article should really be titled "List of people who Wikipedia considers notable, and who also have HIV". Because that's the standard for being on it." Yes, that is the standard for this list, and many other biographical lists, and it's only a matter of naming convention that they are not titled "List of notable people who..." List of people from California only contains people who merit articles, as does List of Georgetown University alumni, List of kidney stone formers, List of people born in 1920... The fact that no one is notable for being born in 1920 does not mean that there's no encyclopedic value to listing together those who were. Further, the creation of lists for real life groups that do not wholly consist of notable members, but are limited in practice only to members that merit articles, is in fact done across the board in Wikipedia: lists of companies, films, websites... That this is an appropriate practice and standard has been discussed ad nauseum, both in repeated AFDs and in numerous policy and guideline discussions regarding lists and notability criteria. They function both as navigational indexes of articles grouped by shared significant facts, and as supplemental subtopics to the fact (here, HIV) that the list is organized around. postdlf (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do either of you think there's a limit to what we should list? Would either of you find anything wrong with the article List of rape victims, for instance, or List of people who have had miscarriages or List of child abuse victims? Trebor (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, no. Could you elaborate on why such articles should be intrinsically "wrong"? --Cyclopiatalk 20:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) Okay, it's clear we won't agree on this then. It comes down to a matter of personal standards. If you feel that BLP is only about covering ourselves legally, then those kinds of lists are fine (assuming they're maintained properly). Personally, I feel we should be setting ourselves a much higher standard. I think that, wherever possible, we should be trying to avoid doing any harm. And I think it's highly likely that some of the people on this list will not be happy with what we've done. The idea of having an ethical duty to our readers is rubbish; this is a community governed by consensus, so if the majority don't want to do something (for whatever reason), we don't do it. The decision will be made by the community, not the readers. If the consensus is that this kind of stuff is fine, then I can't do anything about it. Trebor (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think at all that BLP is only about covering ourselves legally. I think BLP means that we have to take more care in doing stuff when it deals with living people, because doing things wrong in this case can have direct real life consequences. This is fine. But we should not cry BLP when there are no real concrete BLP issues. There is a lot of stuff in our biographical articles that surely makes their subjects unhappy, but it stays and it is fully BLP-compliant, because it is properly sourced, verifiable and relevant to the article. If we only want to "do no harm" we then should shut down Wikipedia for good. As your opinion that "having an ethical duty to our readers is rubbish", I'm baffled: if you don't care about our readers, what are you doing here? --Cyclopiatalk 17:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the legal issue. Someone said its moot for some reason. We know of one person (Naomi Russell) who was on the list for 2 days). Whether or not wikipedia has sourcing guidelines, this woman was subject to a libelous claim within the article for two full days. That is not something for us to gloss over. The fact that it was up there at all was a major problem. And ther reason it stayed so long, was because the person who added it, sourced it. However, the sourced article contained no mention of her. Editors simply didn't bother checking the source. And this is just scratching the surface. If we did a thorough review, who knows what would turn up. - - Also, I don't see the encyclopedic value of the list. This information can already be included in individual articles. But having a master list just creates two opportunities for innacurate material. The argument that its a valuable reference source is bogus, given that wikipedia articles themselves are not a proper source. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also was put a few times on the Naomi Russel article. Shall we delete that too? Wikipedia articles are not a proper source but of course are a valuable reference. Otherwise we could just shut down Wikipeida if it's not a valuable reference anymore. Garion96 (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off, wikipedia is not, nor has it ever been a reliable source (in fact the founder has made such a statement himself). Second, there is a big difference between innacurate content in a biography page, and a master list that is clearly going to be an ongoing problem because 1) Ethical issue of having a People with aids list, 2) the legal issue that arises, because the liklihood labelling someone as having AIDS/HIV is greater than on other pages (because the focus here is people with the virus). Others have noted the problem of devoting a list to people with HIV. Most of us are fine with that info being on a biography page. We're not okay (morally or legally) with a master list of who has the disease. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for it being a valuable reference, I don't think so. You shouldn't reference wikipedia articles while working on other wikipedia articles. There is a very good chance that the reason it ended up on her biography page twice, is becuase it was listed on the Whos got HIV page.Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1 and 2 I don't know for sure if I agree or not. That's what this debate is about. Regarding Naomi Russel. No, actually I think it was the same anon IP who did it on both pages. And the person did not sourced it. The IP just put a irrelevant newspaper article to it. Basically vandalism, not sourcing. That you shouldn't use Wikipedia as a source does not mean it is not a valuable resource. Those are two completely different things. If you don't see Wikipedia as a valuable resource, what are you doing here? It just is not a reliable source (like using it as a reference) which btw, I never said it was. Garion96 (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the ethical conlusions I am making are subjective, but I honeslty think they reflect the feelings of most people. Imagine tomorrow there is a NYT article that wikipedia has a list of people with HIV/AIDs. What do you think the reaction would be? I think there are serious ethical problems with such a list. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few of those lists have been used as a reference for this list actually. Garion96 (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Garion, that is sourcing it. It may be a flawed source, but for all intents and purposes, when people visit the page, it looks sourced. It wasn't until you followed the link that you realized there was a problem. And it wasn't the only item on the list with a questionable source (see discussion on the page for more). Further I don't think it was vandalism. It was innacurate, but I think it was from someone who simply believed the internet rumors were true, and the rumors were based on the article he included as a source (the rumor started because she retired soon after or around the time that the case in the article occured). Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could as well state myself a billionaire and use the forbes list as a reference. That also is sourcing? Garion96 (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is bad sourcing. But it is sourcing. The requirement isn't just that an item be sourced, but that the source be reliable and relevent. However, when someone opens the page and sees an item is sourced, they rarely check to investigate the later two points. And this is exactly how Naomi Russell was listed as HIV positive on this page.

If you do think my example is also considered sourcing. Than it's safe to way we will have to agree to disagree. :) Yes, the requirement is that the source be reliable and relevant. Ergo, there was no sourcing in this case. Garion96 (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if a listing of people who have suffered from something unfortunate is encyclopedic, we might as well start a list of notable peopl who have suffered miscarriages. Or notable people who had colon cancer. There is something very sinister about list of People with HIV/AIDS. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Lists of people by medical condition. Tried to AFD some but didn't worked. Garion96 (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because these pages exist, that doesn't mean they should. I for one believe they should be deleted. However, given the stigma associated with HIV, it is clearly even more problematic (and as a real world editor, I can also say confidently unencyclopedic). Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict)Deliciousgrapefruit, could you elaborate what's "sinister" about such a list? It's not like we're outing people, it is meant to be a list of already publicly known HIV infected people. About your editorial experience, well, WP is quite different from a classical old-school encyclopaedia and in any case WP:UNENCYC is a known fallacy. --Cyclopiatalk 20:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is sinsiter about it? If you have to ask then maybe that sheds light on the problem. You have a disease that has a serious stigma attached to it, and you are creating a master list of all known people with the disease. Imagine if the new york times ran an article "100 people with HIV". If you can't see the difference between that and simply including it as an additional fact in someone's biography, I don't really know what to say. And again, the additional issues of people being on the list who shouldn't be are an issue. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't be treated as a BLP page, and editing didn't do a good enough job in this case. Someone was on here for two days who doesn't have the disease. That is a major problem. Not a minor one. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You probably want to say that this should be treated as a BLP page -and indeed it has to be. But yes, what happened is a major problem, I fully agree. It is called vandalism and unfortunately it can have bad real-life consequences. However when the John Seigenthaler page was vandalized, in the most known incident that led to current BLP practices, we didn't react by deleting his page. This is a publicly editable site, so every page is a potential hazard. If you think that shutting off hazards is the only way, then you want to shut off WP for good. --Cyclopiatalk 20:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant to say it shouldn't be treated as BLP. It is a list, not a biography. A biography can express nuance (such as "it was reported that so and so has HIV"), but a list like this is binary: the person is listed as simply having the disease. Sure every page is a potential hazard, but one specifically intended only to list people who have HIV is going to be more problematic. And again there is no encyclopedic need for the list, nor is ethically advisable to have such a list. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- And no, that wasn't vandalism. Doesn't even come close. I am assuming the person who posted that believed it was correct, and believed the article was an adequate source. It wasn't vandalism, it was bad editing. Something that is frankly, all too much the norm on wikipedia.You guys keep citing wikie guidelines, I will continue to reference US law. When my magazine trends into libel, I don't show prosecutors my style guide. People must begin to understand, this isn't a game. The rules have changed for online publishing. People are subject to the same laws as print publishers now. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it was an honest mistake or vandalism, it's the same. In the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, these things will forever happen. We have to do everything possible to keep open eyes and avoid these situations, but the only way to be sure is shutting down WP for good. In any case, if your fear WP being sued, contact Mike Godwin, Wikimedia lawyer. --Cyclopiatalk 20:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just for reference, Cyclopia, it is not the Wikimedia Foundation who would get sued. They are not liable for editors' contributions (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act). It is the editors themselves, personally, who would be sued, and there is nothing that says the Foundation would have to support them in their defence. The Seigenthaler editor for example was identified eventually, and so have been editors in another couple of cases. Mike Godwin has not been the Foundation's lawyer for a few months. --JN466 23:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You people should be ashamed supporting an article like this. Wikipedia is a terrible source for information, and I can see by the editing guidelines it is destined to remain a third rate source. I am going to make sure everyone on the list has a chance to know abou it. And I will right about it on my wikiwatch blog. Looks like the wikigeeks win again. This has to be the worst encyclopedia I've ever read. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was taking you seriously but not necessary agreeing with you. But after seeingthis edit and this edit it does make that much harder. Garion96 (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm Oh dear, and after these edits he is giving us lessons. Let's stop feeding this troll. Thanks for the heads up Garion96. --Cyclopiatalk 21:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
back in the 1980s and early 1990s there was great interest in AIDS related deaths by the media as a way of outing gays, and disparaging celebrity sexual excesses. SHOCK HORROR Rock Hudson was TEH GAY! Personally I thought we were beyond that by now. You can see that happening in the first name on the list Amanda Blake where the doctor is keen on telling the world it wasn't cancer, and the referenced news article is keen on pointing the finger of blame on her dead husband. John lilburne (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its all quite disgraceful, and I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a pro-tobacco lobby influence in that particular reporting/outing either. John lilburne (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's disappointing how individuals' perceptions of these issues are tainting how they evaluate the validity of this list. "I don't like how this information is used" is not a valid deletion rationale; really no more substantive than IDONTLIKEIT. Where you only see outing and disparagement, many others saw (and see) in publicizing HIV/AIDS victims a vital need to communicate information about the disease, and a need to make its victims visible when much of the world would have rather ignored it or pretended it was a disease only certain kinds of people could get. Or is the AIDS Quilt also an act of morbid media disparagement? Rock Hudson himself disclosed that he was dying of AIDS in a press release, and if you don't know why his case was significant you have some reading to do. postdlf (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If People want to be a poster child to advertise HIV/AIDS then fine. But that doesn't appear to be the case with many on the list, where there HIV/AIDS death was mainly an outing from the pages of prurient celebrity gossip mongers. RH may have made a press statement but he also denied that it had anything to do with him being gay. It was also 25 years ago and I doubt that today there are many people in the at risk groups that know or care who he was. His poster child days were a couple of decades ago. As is most of those on the list how many care about or have ever heard of some daytime American soap actor, or a news anchor from the 1980s? In fact if one scans the list it reads that it was all something that happened 20 years ago - about 25 in the last 10 years. There is hardly any mention of any new modern recruits to the list, which probably reflects that the real world is no longer that interested. John lilburne (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is beside the point. Deletion is a policy-based decision. Colin°Talk 14:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Policy was outlined by sandstein right at the top of this page, which hasn't been countered. Down here at the bottom of the page we are dealing with the BUTILIKEIT brigade. John lilburne (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I disagree (that it's beside the point). Policy is, in theory at least, descriptive of community opinion and debates like this help form it. I don't see anything directly applicable to this kind of article (correct me if I've missed something) in policy yet. The issue is not sourcing, it's that some of us feel that the grouping and listing of people who have HIV, regardless of the significance of HIV to their lives, is inappropriate and could hurt living people. And that Wikipedia should try to avoid doing that, even if we aren't legally required to. You may disagree that the list could be harmful. You may disagree that Wikipedia should care if it is. But I don't think it's fair to say that these concerns should be ignored. (Incidentally, do you feel there are any lists which would be inappropriate?) Trebor (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those concerns aren't ignored; they are the basis for requiring careful sourcing in this list and in any other article. You can justify your deletion opinion out of concern for harm to others all you like, but how is your rationale anything other than "I don't like this list"? You have not claimed that it is POV, or unverifiable, or that the entries are not notable...or any other concern relevant to editing an encyclopedia. You have only asserted a subjective feeling that doesn't support your position any more than its opposite. As noted elsewhere, concern for harm to others could also favor keeping this list, for those who publicly disclosed their HIV-positive status to help educate others and to fight the perception that it was something to be ashamed of, or those who publicize notable victims of the disease to illustrate to a vulnerable and often ignorant public that it can affect any demographic, regardless of sexual orientation, wealth, or other quality.

As for what lists that would be inappropriate, if a fact is noted and verified in most or all of the individual articles for qualifying members and nontrivial to most or all of them, then it is potentially fair game for a list, unless the compiled information is somehow defective, such as for lack of a NPOV definition. We don't restrict lists, or facts in individual articles, only to subjects that don't make us uncomfortable, or to subjects that reflect accomplishments or other positive things. postdlf (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

I would support deleting the other lists as well. Over the last few days I've been thinking along similar lines. There's no way we could ever list all of the people who have ever contracted this disease, nor is there a need to. The list as it is seems to exist for titallations sake, as it is a list of famous people with AIDS not a list of people known for having AIDS.Heiro 00:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except that categories are more often not checked for BLP violations, this is. The result is still the same, with both you have lists. Except this one is referenced, the category entries often not. Garion96 (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really perplexed by the claims that the categories are somehow less BLP-problematic than a list; that the formatting limitations of categories prevent direct sourcing of category tags, nuance or qualifiers in the category name, or annotation of entries on the category page is entirely what WP:BLPCAT is all about. I think this confusion illustrates well why it isn't productive for the BLPCAT standard to leak into other areas of content as some would like, because then it just obscures the concrete concerns that are unique to categories to the extent that some have come to see categories as somehow less problematic than lists, which completely turns BLPCAT on its head. postdlf (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But The Hand... explained it really well, BLPs are watchlisted (listwatched?!) by editors who have a clue about those people whereas a list of HIV positive people is probably watchlisted by editors who have a clue about HIV (ideally). I have some really obscure BLPs watchlisted, people in my very limited field of expertise. Someone inserts Category:HIV positive people to any of them without giving a source, I revert, type "rvv", and warn. Someone does it to any of the lists that fly around, and I won't notice. Of course you cannot add cats that are not supported by the article prose, and a ref. --Pgallert (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I speak from experience. If there are 100's of articles the chance that not all are being carefully watched is quite high. You have no idea how many times I had to remove Category:HIV-positive people from articles when I cleaned up this list. Garion96 (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)We have proof that at least one serious endeavour has used this very list as a reference here. But we can also imagine. Let's suppose I want to study the impact of HIV on the arts. Specifically, I may wonder how the experience of being HIV positive can have changed the perspective of artists and influenced their work. This sounds quite plausible to me -I wouldn't be surprised if such a study already exists. Now, the first thing I'd need to investigate this cultural issue is... a list of HIV-positive notable artists. --Cyclopiatalk 17:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No we do not have proof. We have a reference in a book to the list, but we don't know why it is being used as areferenced. For all we know it could "Some people still insist on marginalizing women by extracting out the fact that they died of HIV/AIDS and list alongside criminals and sex workers."[1] John lilburne (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm struggling to extract an objective principle from this comment. Is it that we shouldn't make lists based on facts that are also true of criminals or sex workers? In which case, this list (which includes Jeffrey Dahmer), this list (which includes Sunset Thomas), and this list (which includes Pretty Boy Floyd) should also be deleted. Or are you saying that HIV/AIDS is and should remain known as a disease defined by criminals and sex workers? In which case, you've helped to personally illustrate why this list is informative and useful. postdlf (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's probably safe to say that being HIV-positive has more impact in the present day than place of birth on most careers and the content of one's work, artistic or otherwise. Unless Magic Johnson retired from the NBA because he was born in Lansing, Michigan; David Wojnarowicz's controversial work is about Red Bank, New Jersey; Rock Hudson was the first major American celebrity to disclose that he was born in Winnetka, Illinois... postdlf (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What has that got to do with the fact that this list is well sourced? The source used for the list is this, definitely a reliable source. Garion96 (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) If there are inadequately sourced entries, fix it. That's not a reason for deletion, not where there are indisputably many entries that are well-sourced and the list as conceived is certainly sourceable. Your other comments (re: "provid[ing] inspiration") are...well, irrelevant to whether the list should be deleted. I'm not going to restate here the myriad reasons why publicization of notable HIV/AIDS victims has occurred, but it clearly has, and it clearly has had great educational and cultural value to a great many groups and individuals. That you personally don't get it is not a reason for deletion. Your observation on the list's demographics indicate either that it is incomplete as far as applicable Wikipedia subjects, in which case (again) fix it, or that those are simply the groups of notable people that were hardest hit (true to some extent; men more than women, certainly; and artists more than, say, physicists). postdlf (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is fixed now. The source on Mason Wyler was a lousy source. The source on this list however was a good source and is now added to the Mason Wyler article. Garion96 (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can find a probably real use case and sound theorical ones above. --Cyclopiatalk 01:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the same token, Dingo, it can be argued that you !voted "delete" because the list isn't useful to you. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 08:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyclopia: I think you would have to agree that your real world case is extremely flimsy when not even Wikipedia would use such a reference. I didn't see any sound theoretical uses unless you count "navigational aid" or "historic and educational use". Perhaps I missed something in all the chatter.
(added later) Ah, now I see your suggestion of a study of the effect of HIV/AIDS on the arts. Yes that might make the list useful as a start point. Of course I couldn't rely on it and I'm not changing my vote because I still believe that there are too many negatives outweighing the positive.
@Erpert: It's not so much that I don't have a use for it, more that I have suspicions of how it might be used. It could be used to target people on the list. I don't think we should facilitate that. Dingo1729 (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what information would that be? Its a mantra often repeated yet not one of the 'keepers' can actually point to a reason why the list is useful. I'll ask you directly why is this list useful? Now I can understand that a HIV/AIDS campaign group may want to keep a list of relevant people that contracted HIV as part of an awareness campaign and in accordance with wishes of those involved. But this list does not even do that, it has people on it that died 20 years ago. Most of the people on it the current at risk group won't have heard of, and inclusion on the list isn't approved of by the people involved. So again WHAT PURPOSE does this list have. John lilburne (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has been asked and answered ad nauseum. For a basic answer, it serves the same function as any other list in Category:Lists of people by medical condition. For a more detailed answer, you can reread any of my comments above. "I don't get it" is not a valid deletion argument; you're not advancing or developing your position by repeating that. postdlf (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Lilburne, you're being disingenous. Examples of legitimate use cases have been discussed above and there is even a real book that probably used this list as a reference. --Cyclopiatalk 15:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the least. The book references the list but we don't know why it does so. The subject of the book is on the marginalisation of women. This list is in itself a marginalisation, a separation of people from the rest of society based on a disease. I may be wrong but I suspect that the reference isn't because the text is praising this list as a good thing. John lilburne (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This list is in itself a marginalisation, a separation of people from the rest of society based on a disease. : Oh dear. Is the war on lists the next battle of politically correctness? --Cyclopiatalk 00:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lists where the notability of the thing listed is directly related to the list GOOD. Lists where the notability of the thing listed is subsidiary to the thing listed bad. So list of Nobel prize winners good. List of people who have spots on their back bad. This list falls into the later group. Yah know that a Google for "list of people with aids" brings up mirrors of this list, sites that say its a horrible and intrusive thing to do, and a site where people are adding names on the bases of "He added me, so I'm adding him". John lilburne (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your last WP:IDONTLIKEIT rant. (By the way, the answers.com link doesn't say anything of what you attribute to it, but even if it did, it wouldn't change anything -we don't delete content because it is considered unpleasant to some). --Cyclopiatalk 22:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closing discussion by sockpuppet of blocked user. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Note: I am striking through the following discussion. It started with a comment made by a banned user, and then continued as a discussion about that user, not about whether the article should be deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vote to delete this article. I vote as decision method in order to decide whether to keep or delete, to be used the strong majority(2/3) decision method. I vote for the keep_or_delete decision to be valid for 12 months then reconsider. I vote for this Vfd poll to be legitimate only if after 7 days voters' participation will exceed 4% of the List of Active Vfd Voters. Iasson3 (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What a curious second edit, particularly when you consider that this hasn't been called Vfd for years. I vote that this is not a vote. postdlf (talk)
      • Vfd should be a call for votes. Otherwise there is no respect for people who participate here. You are saying to them, tell whatever you want, vote whatever you wish, but we decide finally.This is a parody, and this is why Wikipedia has a somehow bad reputation. The way I voted above, is a also a vote. If everyone votes the way I do, a result can be extracted. Iasson3 (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contributions [3] Graham Colm (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you that my contributions are much more than yours. The reason why you cannot see them, it is because I am anonymous, and I change my account frequently. Please read and comment on what I am saying here,and stop spying at my contributions and beliefs, like a secret agent. Iasson3 (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're basically telling us you are a sockupuppet? Cool. --Cyclopiatalk 22:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a sock puppets. Puppeteers are using more than one accounts at the same time. I am using only one account, but because I want to remain anonymous, I frequently destroy the old account it and I create another one. But I use only one account at a time, and I never vote or talk using two or more accounts concurrently.Iasson3 (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iasson. He was then indef-banned for sockpuppetry. This is either an impersonator or a sockpuppet, but either way, the account is indefblocked. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sjakkalle is a liar. Iasson's case closed April 4 2005 and Iasson was banned for just 1 year. Sjakkalle himself, without asking anyone, banned Iasson forever (seen in Iasson's block log [4]). Is there any wikipedia policy that punishes liars? I dont think so. Threat redacted GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Iasson4 (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2011 (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.
  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_HIV-positive_people
More