Deletion of List of human diseases associated with infectious pathogens

Comment: As stated in the article, "A disease is said to be associated with an infectious pathogen when that pathogen is found more frequently in patients with the disease than in healthy controls." This makes it slightly different than List of infectious diseases, which is all about diseases that have been proven to be caused by certain infectious agents. This is a slight but key difference. A cap reading ''This is a list of human diseases suspected to be caused by infectious pathogens. For a list of human diseases known to be caused by infectious pathogens, see List of infectious diseases.'' should be enough. As for the sources, I fail to see how http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17276369 government websites publishing academic papers, like this one can fail 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: The article is based on cherry-picked, speculative, primary sources scattered throughout the literature. It contravenes  and eight. It plays down established aetiologies and gives the impression that "association" means "cause". It is not encyclopedic, it is tantamount to original research and will tarnish the good reputation that Wikipedia has for its medical content
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:MEDRS||WP:W)

Comment: information about any "association" to appropriate article about the infectious organism.  Putting aside the clear |sourcing issues already stated above, the fact that this is a list format means that important information to place each "association" in context is not present, making it one big  violation.  Random or trivial associations are placed alongside actually important associations without any context whatsoever
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:MEDRS||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: to the infectious diseases list or '''Repurpose.'''  There are also some serious cleanup issues here, with a lot of this based on "primary" sources (i.e. research results, not |review articles), and honestly it appears like there are rampant problems with .  I'm looking at the article ''as a list'', not the caveats and article at the top, because it claims to be a list, not an article.  The whole "associated with" and the problem of cum hoc ergo propter hoc|"post" hoc fallacies means that this article and list could be ''very, very easily misunderstood''.  A list of pathogens "associated with" diseases might be useful (this content is already sort of there in this article), with the heavy caveat through formatting of specifically having an "associated with" and "proved to cause" distinction.  There are some major gaps in the content, as there are all sorts of infections are "associated with" HIV (e.g. HHV-8, T. pallidum) and aren't listed here, so this list comes across as "infections that might cause disease" and I have a healthy wariness towards speculative content.  One possibility is simply to retitle the article and have an article on infectious agents (pathogen implies that it causes disease, which is not known for some of these bugs) associated with disease and have a bunch of examples rather than having a list
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:MEDRS||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: Article has a serious  issue. It portrays a bit of evidence regarding infectious causes of disease out of context off all the other causes. These issues should be dealt with on the pages that pertain to said disease
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:DUE)