Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super AIDS

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to HIV/AIDS. L Faraone 06:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Super AIDS

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

Sensationalist title for a non-notable, unscientific topic that should be merged into South Park episode page and AIDS. While this topic might just have been notable around the time of the South Park episode and a brief splash about multi-drug-resistant HIV, it's not a term used in science and it's very rarely used beyond at the time. I don't believe the term is now notable enough for its own article and the sensationalist nature of the title seems (to me) both unencyclopædic and POV. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to HIV. Content fork. Non-encyclopedic wording. Carrite (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per OB and Carrite, except perhaps that target should be HIV/AIDS. -- Scray (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HIV/AIDS not HIV, because this is about a disease and not any particular HIV strain. The coverage of this topic seems limited. The sources which exist use this term as slang. Discussion of "super AIDS" does happen but because there is little information available I do not think this article should stand alone at this time. This certainly is not a defined medical condition. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-- rather than delete leaving redirect, is it worth salvaging some of the content to mention on the relevant page? Lesion (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HIV/AIDS. THe content about South Part can go in the South Part article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should not make redirects without explaining the term on the destination page. This requires transfer of at least a definition/description to HIV/AIDS if this page is deleted. Lesion (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment I'm not sure the term itself needs explaining; it was used colloquially for a short while, but the topic is actually about multi-drug-resistant HIV, that's the term we should be using. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 09:44, 30 November 2013 (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.