304:. While AIDS seems the most likely target, it could go to any general article on HIV/AIDS and public health. Sadly, my quick look for such an article or section came up empty. I found public health discussed in local-level articles, only. While there is enough material related to the term to make an article, the article (or section) should be "HIV/AIDS and public health" or some variant with the emphasis on the term "public health", not this neologism which appears in quotes in a number of the articles in which it is mentioned.
351:
three-sentence article; we can build off of what is written, but the text has to be developed into a clear topic rather than a definition. Since this is about public health and there is a paucity of discussion, that might be a good direction to go. Ideally, we can improve the article such that I will change my recommendation to keep and rename. I'll also throw out the idea of another article to which it is related and for which public health is poorly discussed:
229:- I was getting ready to call this a Non-Notable Neologism, but I ran a Google search for the phrase and it came back with a number of reasonably impressive hits. So I will say: as it currently stands, this is written like a dictionary definition, and WP is not a dictionary, etc. However, it would seem that an article on this topic COULD be written, which would imply that this should be kept and not trashed. Color me neutral.
404:
The exact reword would depend upon the article. For AIDS, it might be "Special status in public health". While I listed AIDS as a default target for a merge, it is possible that there is a better fit and would support such if anyone can find it. My ongoing search isn't coming up with anything. I struck the "and rename" aspect out of my recommendation to avoid further confusion. This discussion should suffice.
1270:
article is already large (129 KB), the lone paragraph here isn't going to send it into critical mass. Ideally, people will consider spinning out an article about society's reaction to AIDS; I'm surprised it hasn't happened already, but the lack of any other merger target and the considerable size of
403:
The goal of renaming after a merge is avoiding jargon; the obscure term should not appear in the section header, and, thus, the table of contents. If you saw "HIV exceptionalism" as a section header, would you have any idea what the section is about if you didn't already know the meaning of the term?
251:
1126:
You mean it should be expanded? That's not the issue here. The problem is that it is not notable enough for a separate article and there's no evidence of it from the text in the artice either. If you can give more references and improve the article, ok. In the present state of the article a merge
505:
This is IMO a valid topic, but it's just a small piece of it. Specifically for HIV, there's a big push for exceptionalism, which results in odd behaviors (e.g., a legal requirement to "counsel" a sophisticated AIDS activist about the test, because he might -- after dozens of tests over the last
1204:
am saying that it should be kept as a separate article because of the clear notability shown by the sources found by the Google
Scholar search linked right at the top of this discussion, which is supposed to be used by people commenting here to help inform their opinions, and because the
350:
No, my vote is for merging, at the present. Currently, there is not enough material written or a distinct enough topic to support a stand-alone article. This is an idea that needs a home, but not necessarily one of its own. I'm not sure that the term "complete rewrite" ever applies to a
506:
decade -- still be as ignorant and panicky as a young teenager). However, HIV isn't actually unique: similar restrictions are put around other subjects, e.g., elective abortions and cancer diagnoses. So I think there's a bigger article here, but I'm not sure what to do with it.
831:
is sufficiently notable to warrant specific coverage. I agree with other comments here that the question regarding whether it warrants an article depends on how extensively this coverage expands. Currently, it does not seem to need a free-standing article. --
254:
673:
that doesn't meet the notability requirements. If you can assert it is notable enough by expanding it with further content and third party reliable sources that prove it is an eligible subject, be my guest. We're talking about the
1271:
the article are both arguments in favor of making an article about the social aspects of AIDS, of which the "exceptionalism" described here-- i.e., treating HIV differently than one would other STDs-- is but one factor.
1127:
seems to be a good choice, and you still didn't answer my question, which was not why you said to keep, but why a merge is "out of question". Please explain yourself a little bit more. Also, why do you sugggest "more
160:
1131:
splitting rather than further bloating."? I didn't understand that at all. What "summary style" has to do here at all?? I mean, the summary style page talks about huge articles, not about stubs, right?
648:, to name a few). So I think this article meets the minimum threshold for notability, but I'm still not sure whether it makes more sense to merge it to a larger topic, or to leave it separate.
700:
gets attention, then the article gets kept -- even if it currently cites zero sources, contains only a single sentence, has massive grammar problems, and other fixable problems. Deletion is
678:
of the article as it stands now, which is not worthy of keeping IMO, not about what may happen someday. I strongly support a Merge to another article, however, as stated in my rationale...
458:
Um, Bearian, do you see that "Find sources" at the top of this page? Maybe you'd like to click on some of those and try again. I suggest you try the "books" and "scholar" links.
154:
115:
247:
752:. The subject has been covered in major sources—more than enough to establish notability. Because it is medical jargon, it should redirect. The only question is where.
1178:
I still don't get the point. Do you mean that the subject of HIV exceptionalism should be under some section in AIDS? For the moment it's not even mentioned there.
277:
774:
as well. You're very right - the only question is where to redirect. Maybe there are other eligible articles but I cannot currently find or think of another one.
718:
I do not think this is a notable subject. Do you have sources that can prove me wrong? Even if it is, I think a merge would certainly be appropriate, at
355:. The article might develop to be a keepable article in a manner that I had not anticipated, so I don't want to commit to a name before the improvement.
381:
or another AIDS-related topic" - it's legitimate too. But if you say "and rename", it's not clear what you mean. I think what you meant to say was "
1016:
I still think this isn't a notable subject per se. It is certainly part of a larger concept. The content can be kept but then should be merged to
120:
88:
83:
92:
1146:
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you just make a habit of not reading comments properly before you reply to them? As I said above,
1064:. The Google Scholar search helpfully linked in the nomination shows that this is clearly a notable, widely studied, concept. Merging to
75:
1020:
or another AIDS- related article. I don't say the article has to be deleted. The content can be kept, but not in a separate article
878:
the term into one of the more general articles. As it stands, I doubt that this term will warrant a separate article anytime soon.
175:
142:
17:
924:. This has no place in a separate article. The only question is whether to merge and where, or delete. Look in comments above
1039:
Pointless made-up concept, probably from some tenured academic, or drug-industry funded activist, with nothing better to do.
325:
Can you please clarify your vote? It seems to me like you didn't actually mean to say "Merge" but rather "Keep and rename to
810:
352:
329:". Am I right? I agree, but then the problem with this is that the article will then have to be completely rewritten.
947:
in the Ghits, but I do not feel there is enough material for a stand-alone article. Prbably merging it with
136:
806:
1306:
36:
1289:
1275:
1236:
1218:
1187:
1173:
1159:
1141:
1121:
1103:
1085:
1054:
1029:
1011:
990:
960:
933:
915:
887:
867:
841:
819:
783:
761:
731:
713:
687:
669:, where the subject of AIDS exceptionalism is discussed. Further, I think the main issue here is that this is a
657:
537:
515:
492:
467:
453:
413:
394:
364:
338:
326:
313:
292:
265:
256:). IMO if this AfD is closed as kept the content should be merged or renamed as I stated in my rationale above.
238:
220:
57:
1305:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1007:
827:: Exceptionalism seems to go hand-in-hand with advocacy - it happens with many conditions to varying degrees.
132:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1128:
1073:
911:
79:
1214:
1155:
1117:
1081:
986:
813:, or something along those lines, where we could integrate this material into a more comprehensive scope.
709:
653:
617:
533:
521:
511:
463:
182:
436:- a phrase only mentioned once in one article 13 years ago. Bearian'sBooties 01:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
1050:
902:
757:
701:
409:
360:
309:
53:
900:
1044:
1003:
801:: I think a lot of good sources have been listed here. It's probably enough for a short article on
192:
168:
48:. Even the nomination supports a merge, discuss on the talk page where to merge and redirect to.
1285:
1232:
1183:
1169:
1137:
1099:
1025:
929:
907:
802:
779:
727:
683:
543:
488:
449:
390:
334:
261:
216:
71:
63:
898:
148:
1210:
1151:
1113:
1077:
982:
956:
883:
705:
649:
642:
635:
628:
621:
610:
603:
596:
589:
582:
575:
568:
561:
554:
547:
529:
507:
459:
288:
234:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
851:
837:
753:
405:
356:
305:
49:
1272:
1109:
1040:
970:
767:
666:
665:
I have actually found some "bigger article" where this can be, and is, mentioned. See
525:
1281:
1228:
1179:
1165:
1133:
1095:
1021:
925:
815:
775:
723:
679:
670:
484:
445:
433:
386:
330:
257:
212:
196:
952:
951:
would be a net benefit to the Aids article which IMO could use some expansion.--
944:
879:
860:
284:
230:
904:
542:
My apologies for the disjointed replies. There's plenty of sources out there for
109:
1002:
The topic is evidently notable and deletion will not improve our coverage of it.
693:
896:
833:
895:. This term is covered extensively in a number of respected medical journals
1069:
736:
Click on "scholar" in "find sources". The first page includes articles from
1094:
Why is it out question? Can you explain yourself a little bit more please?
645:
638:
631:
624:
613:
606:
599:
585:
578:
571:
564:
557:
550:
592:
1209:
article is already too big, so no more content should be merged there.
595:(and many more). There are also some on "Stem cell exceptionalism" (
854:
to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
377:
to merge the article. But you can also generalize to say "Merge to
246:
Seems like much of the Google hits point to a single person called
696:
has nothing to do with the current state of the article. If the
1299:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1267:
1263:
1206:
1197:
1147:
1065:
1017:
974:
948:
921:
771:
480:
378:
208:
920:
But, is not notable per se. It should be anyway merged to
805:. I guess in an ideal world, we'd have an article like
105:
101:
97:
609:), a current discussion on "Research exceptionalism" (
167:
1196:
are saying that this should be under some section in
385:. "Merge AND rename" is just impossible to make. :)
859:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
528:. I'm not sure that's the best option, though.
524:, could perhaps be merged to the general article
250:who apparently coined the term back in 1991 (see
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1309:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1200:, by your repeated calls to merge this article.
1068:is out of the question, as that article, at 129
373:Well, it would be helpful if you could specify
1223:Sorry, I was confused by your first comment "
278:list of Medicine-related deletion discussions
181:
8:
195:, seems like original research or perhaps a
272:
1266:. Although Bridger is correct that the
1076:splitting rather than further bloating.
276:: This debate has been included in the
1227:". I thought you meant something else.
1225:needs some more summary style splitting
444:It was in 1991. So 19 years, not 13 :)
7:
977:article, at 129 KB, could certainly
472:Um, OK, I was at a bad computer :-)
1150:is the "huge article" in question.
750:The New England Journal of Medicine
520:This article and the similar stub,
811:Public health response to HIV/AIDS
24:
720:the current state of this article
46:Keep and probably merge somewhere
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
476:. 13:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
1:
1290:23:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
1276:23:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
1237:23:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
1219:23:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
1188:23:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
1174:23:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
1160:22:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
1142:20:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
1122:20:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
1104:19:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
1086:19:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
1055:11:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
991:19:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
742:Archives of Internal Medicine
58:17:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
807:Policy responses to HIV/AIDS
353:Sexually transmitted disease
211:or an AIDS-related article.
1164:Sorry, I didn't notice it.
1030:10:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
1012:19:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
961:02:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
934:00:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
916:23:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
888:19:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
868:17:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
842:04:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
820:19:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
784:19:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
768:Exceptionalism#Separateness
762:19:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
732:19:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
714:18:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
688:17:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
667:Exceptionalism#Separateness
658:17:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
538:16:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
516:16:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
493:13:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
468:19:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
454:10:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
414:20:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
395:19:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
365:19:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
339:18:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
314:18:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
293:17:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
266:16:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
239:15:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
221:15:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
1326:
327:HIV/AIDS and public health
483:? Wouldn't it be better?
1302:Please do not modify it.
1264:AIDS#Society and culture
616:), and a fair number on
32:Please do not modify it.
943:. I've found a lot of
766:I'd suggest a merge to
618:Genetic exceptionalism
522:Genetic exceptionalism
1112:for the reasons why.
383:Merge or Keep/Rename"
973:for reasons why the
981:use any expansion.
1072:, needs some more
941:Merge and redirect
829:HIV exceptionalism
803:HIV exceptionalism
544:HIV exceptionalism
191:Based entirely on
72:HIV exceptionalism
64:HIV exceptionalism
44:The result was
870:
479:Why not merge to
295:
281:
193:one single source
1317:
1304:
1058:
876:Delete and merge
865:
858:
856:
282:
186:
185:
171:
123:
113:
95:
34:
1325:
1324:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1307:deletion review
1300:
1048:
861:
849:
128:
119:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1323:
1321:
1312:
1311:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1280:Well said. :)
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1089:
1088:
1059:
1053:comment added
1034:
1033:
1032:
1004:Colonel Warden
996:
995:
994:
993:
964:
963:
938:
937:
936:
890:
872:
871:
857:
846:
845:
844:
822:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
764:
660:
526:Exceptionalism
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
456:
439:
438:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
398:
397:
368:
367:
342:
341:
317:
316:
296:
270:
269:
268:
189:
188:
125:
121:AfD statistics
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1322:
1310:
1308:
1303:
1297:
1296:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1274:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1258:
1257:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1130:
1129:summary style
1125:
1124:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1074:summary style
1071:
1067:
1063:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
998:
997:
992:
988:
984:
980:
976:
972:
968:
967:
966:
965:
962:
958:
954:
950:
946:
942:
939:
935:
931:
927:
923:
919:
918:
917:
913:
909:
908:Peter Karlsen
905:
903:
901:
899:
897:
894:
891:
889:
885:
881:
877:
874:
873:
869:
866:
864:
855:
853:
848:
847:
843:
839:
835:
830:
826:
823:
821:
818:
817:
812:
808:
804:
800:
797:
785:
781:
777:
773:
769:
765:
763:
759:
755:
751:
747:
743:
739:
735:
734:
733:
729:
725:
721:
717:
716:
715:
711:
707:
703:
702:WP:NOTCLEANUP
699:
695:
691:
690:
689:
685:
681:
677:
676:current state
672:
668:
664:
661:
659:
655:
651:
647:
644:
640:
637:
633:
630:
626:
623:
619:
615:
612:
608:
605:
601:
598:
594:
591:
587:
584:
580:
577:
573:
570:
566:
563:
559:
556:
552:
549:
545:
541:
540:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
519:
518:
517:
513:
509:
504:
503:
494:
490:
486:
482:
478:
477:
475:
471:
470:
469:
465:
461:
457:
455:
451:
447:
443:
442:
441:
440:
437:
435:
431:
427:
426:
415:
411:
407:
402:
401:
400:
399:
396:
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
371:
370:
369:
366:
362:
358:
354:
349:
346:
345:
344:
343:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
321:
320:
319:
318:
315:
311:
307:
303:
300:
297:
294:
290:
286:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
252:
249:
245:
242:
241:
240:
236:
232:
228:
225:
224:
223:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
184:
180:
177:
174:
170:
166:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
134:
131:
130:Find sources:
126:
122:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1301:
1298:
1259:
1224:
1211:Phil Bridger
1201:
1193:
1152:Phil Bridger
1114:Phil Bridger
1108:Please read
1078:Phil Bridger
1061:
1036:
999:
983:Phil Bridger
978:
969:Please read
940:
892:
875:
862:
850:
828:
824:
814:
798:
749:
745:
741:
737:
719:
706:WhatamIdoing
697:
675:
662:
650:WhatamIdoing
530:WhatamIdoing
508:WhatamIdoing
473:
460:WhatamIdoing
429:
428:
382:
374:
347:
322:
301:
298:
273:
248:Ronald Bayer
243:
226:
204:
200:
190:
178:
172:
164:
157:
151:
145:
139:
129:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1049:—Preceding
434:not notable
155:free images
754:Novangelis
746:The Lancet
692:Actually,
406:Novangelis
357:Novangelis
306:Novangelis
302:and rename
50:Beeblebrox
1273:Mandsford
1070:kilobytes
1041:Bluehotel
671:neologism
285:• Gene93k
199:. Either
197:neologism
1282:Spatulli
1229:Spatulli
1180:Spatulli
1166:Spatulli
1134:Spatulli
1096:Spatulli
1022:Spatulli
926:Spatulli
852:Relisted
816:MastCell
776:Spatulli
724:Spatulli
680:Spatulli
646:11508189
639:17543059
632:20556868
625:20588076
614:20694909
607:16578940
600:20461647
586:15923478
579:16885092
572:16914699
565:17626924
558:17678423
551:19451406
485:Spatulli
446:Spatulli
387:Spatulli
331:Spatulli
323:Question
258:Spatulli
213:Spatulli
116:View log
1110:WP:SIZE
1051:undated
971:WP:SIZE
953:Kudpung
880:Nergaal
863:JForget
825:Comment
799:Comment
770:and to
698:subject
663:Comment
593:9556470
244:Comment
231:Carrite
227:Comment
161:WP refs
149:scholar
89:protect
84:history
1037:Delete
748:, and
430:Delete
201:Delete
133:Google
93:delete
1260:Merge
945:WP:RS
834:Scray
809:, or
375:where
348:Reply
299:Merge
205:Merge
176:JSTOR
137:books
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
1286:talk
1268:AIDS
1233:talk
1215:talk
1207:AIDS
1198:AIDS
1192:No,
1184:talk
1170:talk
1156:talk
1148:AIDS
1138:talk
1118:talk
1100:talk
1082:talk
1066:AIDS
1062:Keep
1045:talk
1026:talk
1018:AIDS
1008:talk
1000:Keep
987:talk
975:AIDS
957:talk
949:Aids
930:talk
922:AIDS
912:talk
893:Keep
884:talk
838:talk
780:talk
772:AIDS
758:talk
738:JAMA
728:talk
710:talk
694:WP:N
684:talk
654:talk
643:PMID
636:PMID
629:PMID
622:PMID
611:PMID
604:PMID
597:PMID
590:PMID
583:PMID
576:PMID
569:PMID
562:PMID
555:PMID
548:PMID
534:talk
512:talk
489:talk
481:AIDS
474:Keep
464:talk
450:talk
410:talk
391:talk
379:AIDS
361:talk
335:talk
310:talk
289:talk
274:Note
262:talk
253:and
235:talk
217:talk
209:AIDS
169:FENS
143:news
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
1262:to
1194:you
1047:)
979:not
704:.
546::
283:--
207:to
203:or
183:TWL
118:•
114:– (
1288:)
1235:)
1217:)
1186:)
1172:)
1158:)
1140:)
1120:)
1102:)
1084:)
1028:)
1010:)
989:)
959:)
932:)
914:)
906:.
886:)
840:)
782:)
760:)
744:,
740:,
730:)
722:.
712:)
686:)
656:)
641:,
634:,
627:,
602:,
588:,
581:,
574:,
567:,
560:,
553:,
536:)
514:)
491:)
466:)
452:)
432:-
412:)
393:)
363:)
337:)
312:)
291:)
280:.
264:)
237:)
219:)
163:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
1284:(
1231:(
1213:(
1202:I
1182:(
1168:(
1154:(
1136:(
1116:(
1098:(
1080:(
1057:.
1043:(
1024:(
1006:(
985:(
955:(
928:(
910:(
882:(
836:(
778:(
756:(
726:(
708:(
682:(
652:(
620:(
532:(
510:(
487:(
462:(
448:(
408:(
389:(
359:(
333:(
308:(
287:(
260:(
233:(
215:(
187:)
179:·
173:·
165:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
140:·
135:(
127:(
124:)
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.