381:
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 Knowledge). But, overall, I do NOT see deletion reason #4 applying, at all. --
694:- All the 'deletion' votes so far are not at all addressing anything but the content, which is not how Knowledge 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.
473:, 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. :) --
52:. 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.
300:. 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
598:
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
441:
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
304:
is a signal of bias and inappropriate understanding of
Knowledge 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
380:
that describes spam as "There are three main types of spam on
Knowledge. 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
599:
to delete it all. And keeping it preserves
Knowledge'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. :) --
169:
442:
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. :) --
595:
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
282:
163:
95:
90:
99:
82:
122:
129:
569:
231:
86:
305:
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
413:: Articles "promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Knowledge to do so."
184:
151:
759:
and redirect one bare-bones, non-promotional paragraph about the program, including its "unofficial world record", to the one-paragraph section of
78:
70:
260:(same author) was speedily deleted under G11, this article qualifies as well. The article is pervasively biased to the extent that we should
816:
795:
776:
751:
726:
704:
682:
658:
629:
615:
581:
558:
521:
507:
489:
458:
434:
397:
367:
325:
289:
273:
245:
223:
64:
145:
764:
141:
191:
17:
610:
484:
453:
392:
320:
407:: "Articles considered advertisements include ... public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual."
157:
835:
40:
763:, which covers similar issues of screening teens in another country. (I agree with Doncram and JTdale that
654:
498:
the article and starting from scratch would be more likely to lead to a neutral, non-promotional article. --
772:
722:
625:
517:
503:
430:
363:
269:
831:
804:
760:
679:
286:
257:
36:
372:
Umm, replying about
Deletion Reason #4, to start. That reason, quoting fully is "Advertising or other
714:
339:
351:
177:
742:. There is plenty about this testing technique there. This article is bloated and unencyclopedic.
376:
without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)", with link to
650:
768:
718:
621:
605:
577:
554:
513:
499:
479:
448:
426:
417:
387:
359:
355:
315:
265:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
830:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
593:
Well, at least
Drflieschman acknowledges the validity of the topic for a Knowledge article.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
812:
747:
739:
702:
668:
539:
495:
404:
335:
205:
410:
209:
377:
373:
241:
219:
55:
791:
470:
347:
343:
338:
and his organization, TeenAIDS-PeerCorps. Absolutely a valid basis for deletion, see
306:
301:
261:
201:
600:
573:
550:
474:
443:
382:
310:
116:
808:
743:
695:
671:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
542:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
236:
214:
786:
494:
No, because in my view the promotion is so pervasive and widespread that
350:
isn't just about copyvio issues. The article is in clear violation of
512:"Starting over" doesn't actually require deletion as a first step.
416:
In response to your comment about this cause being "important," see
824:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
283:
list of United States of
America-related deletion discussions
112:
108:
104:
176:
678:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
549:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
649:: Article is a jumble, reads like a puff piece. --
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
838:). No further edits should be made to this page.
807:per WAID. As it stands this is PROMO bloat.
570:list of Business-related deletion discussions
232:list of Medicine-related deletion discussions
190:
8:
568:Note: This debate has been included in the
281:Note: This debate has been included in the
230:Note: This debate has been included in the
567:
280:
229:
354:, hence even if not deleted it must be
79:Public HIV testing in the United States
71:Public HIV testing in the United States
7:
784:Too promotional to be worth saving.
713:Lack of notability isn't the only
469:2nd, replying to the assertion of
24:
803:to the one-paragraph section of
805:Diagnosis of HIV/AIDS#Screening
761:Diagnosis of HIV/AIDS#Screening
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
817:19:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
796:19:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
777:19:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
752:22:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
727:17:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
705:16:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
683:06:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
522:19:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
65:20:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
659:11:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
630:03:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
616:03:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
582:18:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
559:23:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
508:04:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
490:02:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
459:02:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
435:22:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
398:20:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
368:17:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
326:17:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
290:23:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
274:19:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
246:16:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
224:16:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
204:, with primary function of
855:
765:WP:Deletion is not cleanup
256:: Unambiguous promotion.
827:Please do not modify it.
715:valid basis for deletion
264:and start over again. --
32:Please do not modify it.
334:Blatant promotion for
200:Article created by
258:TeenAIDS-PeerCorps
48:The result was
685:
584:
561:
292:
248:
63:
846:
829:
740:John_B._Chittick
700:
677:
673:
613:
608:
603:
548:
544:
487:
482:
477:
456:
451:
446:
395:
390:
385:
336:John B. Chittick
323:
318:
313:
195:
194:
180:
132:
120:
102:
62:
60:
53:
34:
854:
853:
849:
848:
847:
845:
844:
843:
842:
836:deletion review
825:
696:
666:
611:
606:
601:
537:
485:
480:
475:
454:
449:
444:
393:
388:
383:
321:
316:
311:
137:
128:
93:
77:
74:
56:
54:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
852:
850:
841:
840:
820:
819:
798:
779:
754:
732:
731:
730:
729:
719:Dr. Fleischman
708:
707:
688:
687:
686:
675:
674:
663:
662:
661:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
622:Dr. Fleischman
564:
563:
562:
546:
545:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
500:Dr. Fleischman
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
427:Dr. Fleischman
423:
422:
421:
414:
408:
360:Dr. Fleischman
329:
328:
294:
293:
277:
276:
266:Dr. Fleischman
250:
249:
198:
197:
134:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
851:
839:
837:
833:
828:
822:
821:
818:
814:
810:
806:
802:
799:
797:
793:
789:
788:
783:
780:
778:
774:
770:
766:
762:
758:
755:
753:
749:
745:
741:
737:
734:
733:
728:
724:
720:
716:
712:
711:
710:
709:
706:
703:
701:
699:
693:
690:
689:
684:
681:
676:
672:
670:
665:
664:
660:
656:
652:
651:FuriousFreddy
648:
645:
644:
631:
627:
623:
619:
618:
617:
614:
609:
604:
597:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
583:
579:
575:
571:
566:
565:
560:
556:
552:
547:
543:
541:
536:
535:
523:
519:
515:
511:
510:
509:
505:
501:
497:
493:
492:
491:
488:
483:
478:
472:
468:
460:
457:
452:
447:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
432:
428:
424:
419:
415:
412:
409:
406:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
396:
391:
386:
379:
375:
371:
370:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
345:
341:
340:WP:DEL-REASON
337:
333:
332:
331:
330:
327:
324:
319:
314:
308:
303:
299:
296:
295:
291:
288:
284:
279:
278:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
252:
251:
247:
243:
239:
238:
233:
228:
227:
226:
225:
221:
217:
216:
211:
207:
203:
193:
189:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
143:
140:
139:Find sources:
135:
131:
127:
124:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:
72:
69:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
826:
823:
800:
785:
781:
769:WhatamIdoing
756:
735:
697:
692:Keep and fix
691:
680:NorthAmerica
667:
646:
594:
538:
514:WhatamIdoing
297:
287:NorthAmerica
253:
235:
213:
199:
187:
181:
173:
166:
160:
154:
148:
138:
125:
57:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
620:I don't. --
164:free images
496:blowing up
418:WP:VALINFO
262:blow it up
58:Sandstein
832:talk page
574:• Gene93k
405:WP:ADMASQ
356:stubified
342:(#4) and
206:WP:ADVERT
37:talk page
834:or in a
736:Redirect
669:Relisted
540:Relisted
411:WP:PROMO
210:WP:PROMO
123:View log
39:or in a
551:Natg 19
378:wp:Spam
170:WP refs
158:scholar
96:protect
91:history
809:Jytdog
782:Delete
744:LaMona
698:JTdale
647:Delete
596:valid.
471:wp:G11
352:policy
348:WP:TNT
346:. And
344:WP:G11
307:wp:GNG
302:wp:TNT
254:Delete
202:WP:SPA
142:Google
100:delete
801:Merge
792:talk
757:Merge
185:JSTOR
146:books
130:Stats
117:views
109:watch
105:links
16:<
813:talk
773:talk
767:.)
748:talk
723:talk
717:. --
655:talk
626:talk
578:talk
555:talk
518:talk
504:talk
431:talk
374:spam
364:talk
358:. --
309:. --
298:Keep
270:talk
242:talk
237:Cirt
234:. —
220:talk
215:Cirt
212:. —
208:and
178:FENS
152:news
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
787:DGG
738:to
607:ncr
481:ncr
450:ncr
389:ncr
317:ncr
192:TWL
121:– (
815:)
794:)
775:)
750:)
725:)
657:)
628:)
612:am
602:do
580:)
572:.
557:)
520:)
506:)
486:am
476:do
455:am
445:do
433:)
425:--
394:am
384:do
366:)
322:am
312:do
285:.
272:)
244:)
222:)
172:)
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
811:(
790:(
771:(
746:(
721:(
653:(
624:(
576:(
553:(
516:(
502:(
429:(
420:.
362:(
268:(
240:(
218:(
196:)
188:·
182:·
174:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
144:(
136:(
133:)
126:·
119:)
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.