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 no consensus. Contributors agree that this is a promotional article that should not be retained as it is, but they disagree about whether this should result in deletion, merging or redirection. In the absence of a consensus to delete, I suggest that editors continue to discuss editorial solutions to the problem on the talk page. If a promotionally-minded editor disrupts such discussions, their views should be disregarded.  Sandstein  20:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Public HIV testing in the United States[edit]

Public HIV testing in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Unambiguous promotion. TeenAIDS-PeerCorps (same author) was speedily deleted under G11, this article qualifies as well. The article is pervasively biased to the extent that we should blow it up and start over again. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nom based on it being created by an SPA, i.e. an expert on the topic? We want contributions from experts. Nom based on article being "promotional"? (not a valid deletion reason), and it is not promotional anyhow. Promotional or advertising for what? For a business? There is no business named "Public HIV testing in the United States" as far as i know. And call for wp:TNT is a signal of bias and inappropriate understanding of Wikipedia and its purposes, in my general opinion. "TNT" is justified if there are proven copyvios perhaps, but calling for deletion of past contributions equates to calling for erasing of contributing record. It is a basic tenet of wikipedia that editors are credited for their contributions. And there are 57 sources in article. I have not evaluated them, but it appears to be sourced, to meet wp:GNG. --doncram 17:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant promotion for John B. Chittick and his organization, TeenAIDS-PeerCorps. Absolutely a valid basis for deletion, see WP:DEL-REASON (#4) and WP:G11. And WP:TNT isn't just about copyvio issues. The article is in clear violation of policy, hence even if not deleted it must be stubified. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, replying about Deletion Reason #4, to start. That reason, quoting fully is "Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)", with link to wp:Spam that describes spam as "There are three main types of spam on Wikipedia. These are: advertisements masquerading as articles; external link spamming; and adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced." This article is not advertising anything, no commercial product or service. There is no external link spamming to multiple articles going on, as far as I know. If the references and coverage in this article give undue weight to Chittick, that is a matter for editing, does not require deletion of the article. The topic seems valid. Actually, the apparent "cause" of Chittick, to de-stigmatize AIDS testing among teens in the U.S., seems to be an accepted "good cause", as exemplified by the 501c3 charitable nonprofit status of that Teen organization. I see no commercialism, no means by which this article is promoting commercial enrichment of Chittick or anyone else. Whether the pro-AIDS-testing advocacy aspect of the topic is overly done in the article or not, and should be balanced by more expression of opposition vs. AIDS testing, is debatable, can be addressed by editing and by discussion at the Talk page of the article. I don't mind it being stubbified, but it seems there is documented to be an issue, a cause, or some other term for a notable legitimate topic for wikipedia, from the plethora of references. And, logically, I would expect that stigmatizing vs. de-stigmatizing of AIDS testing for teens would be a controversial topic that is important and covered and legitimate as a topic (though no one slant on the issue should be overly promoted in Wikipedia). But, overall, I do NOT see deletion reason #4 applying, at all. --doncram 20:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ADMASQ: "Articles considered advertisements include ... public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual."
• WP:PROMO: Articles "promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so."
• In response to your comment about this cause being "important," see WP:VALINFO.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, slow down with your blithe assertions of various policy or guideline or essay references that may or may not apply at all, please! :) I'll respond to your 2nd of first two assertions, next, outdented. :) On the indented side, that's bollocks --if i may try to use an expression that i never do use --to assert that i am trying to promote "valuable info". I don't have anything to do with it. I am asserting that the article seems like it is on a notable topic, and that Deletion Reason $4 doesn't apply.  :) --doncram 02:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2nd, replying to the assertion of wp:G11, the 2nd assertion by DrFleishman. The most relevant thing there is: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. If a subject is notable and the content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." I don't think the article is exclusively promotional, and it is right to do some editing maybe, and that is preferable to deletion. Case solved, right? Cheerio. :) --doncram 02:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, because in my view the promotion is so pervasive and widespread that blowing up the article and starting from scratch would be more likely to lead to a neutral, non-promotional article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Starting over" doesn't actually require deletion as a first step. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least Drflieschman acknowledges the validity of the topic for a Wikipedia article. That's part of the problem with anyone invoking wp:TNT; it is an invalid essay itself, and persons using it to try to argue for deletion have to admit, as I believe Dr. Fleischman does, that the topic is valid. Once that is accepted, then there is a minor question of whether the current article needs to be deleted for some reason in order for an improved article to be created. Obviously, no. It is obviously better to edit the current article -- with its many sources already identified and included -- than to delete it all. And keeping it preserves Wikipedia's promise to credit writers under our license terms. And there is no copyvio alleged anywhere or any other legitimate reason to delete. So, keep. And sure, tag for improvements, or actually do some editing to make some improvements. :) --doncram 03:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Article is a jumble, reads like a puff piece. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and fix - All the 'deletion' votes so far are not at all addressing anything but the content, which is not how Wikipedia works. Notability is what we need to discuss, and in my opinion the topic is undoubtedly notable. Now, I detest WP:TNT, it is a ridiculous idea in my opinion, since you can fix things is a myriad of more sensible ways that doesn't require us to waste a week here while people should've been improving Wiki. While I can see this article is to promotion to chittick, it is not as bad as people are making it out to and editing would easily fix that. JTdale ^Talk 16:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of notability isn't the only valid basis for deletion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to John_B._Chittick. There is plenty about this testing technique there. This article is bloated and unencyclopedic. LaMona (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect one bare-bones, non-promotional paragraph about the program, including its "unofficial world record", to the one-paragraph section of Diagnosis of HIV/AIDS#Screening, which covers similar issues of screening teens in another country. (I agree with Doncram and JTdale that WP:Deletion is not cleanup.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too promotional to be worth saving. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the one-paragraph section of Diagnosis of HIV/AIDS#Screening per WAID. As it stands this is PROMO bloat. Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2014 (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.