Deletion of List of HIV-positive people

Comment: I honestly don't care for or about the "let's do the right thing and let people have their privacy" arguments advanced above. The "McCarthyism" complaint is particularly rich -- unlike McCarthyism, these people are verifiably beyond-any-doubt HIV sufferers. This isn't persecution, it's fact. Indeed, deleting this list on that basis is a plain violation of  -- such a deletion would be tantamount to saying "our point of view is that this list represents McCarthyistic persecution, and is not merely a list of notable persons infected with a notable disease." That's practically a political position. We also have existing precedent in similar lists: List of autistic people, for example. It is a cop-out to say that because a great many people are HIV-positive, HIV-positive status among notable persons is not in and of itself notable. It stretches the limits of common sense to advance that position, in my opinion. HIV is, for better or worse, a disease with powerful and occasionally stigmatizing connotations. Regardless, I advance these notions in concert with the more strictly policy-based arguments DFW notes above
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: on the basis that names should only be appearing on the list where they are notable ''for being'' HIV positive (eg Ryan White and Rebekka Armstrong), per , rather than merely being notable ''and'' being verifiably HIV positive.  There would be nothing wrong with a list formed on this basis.  I realise that  takes a different approach, allowing for the creation of lists of notable people sharing a verifiable but unnotable characteristic, but I believe that  is the practice more recently followed by the community at AfD (see the recent debates on race/profession interesections).  In the event that I am wrong about this approach to list selection criteria, and that a list of notable people sharing an unnotable characteristic is theoretically a valid list, I would change my vote to delete based upon the list having no encyclopaedic value
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:LSC||WP:NLIST||WP:LSC)

Comment: on the above "No policy or guideline-based deletion rationale" - it is not a collection of ''notable'' information. The fact that X or Y is HIV positive is not notable enough for a separate article (which, in essence, this is as there is also no encyclopaedic reason for having such a list, again for reasons of notability, these people don't congregate or associate any more than any other group of people. In fact they are not a defined ''group'' anyway.) The policy arguement, or at least mine, is 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABLE)

Comment: This list has an educational and historic value which I believe is encyclopedic--it illustrates the widespread nature of the disease, and (in some of the cases given) the fact that it is caught by children and others who engaged in no risky behavior.  standards, as I have been finding out the hard way on the related noticeboard, are usually interpreted to protect privacy of the "barely notable" against disclosure of disturbing information. There may be a small number of living people who should be deleted who did not themselves disclose their condition, are not AIDS activists or involved in a significant litigation, etc. Otherwise, there is no need to protect the dead (many of whom died in the 80's and 90's) against the information, nor avoid disclosure of people who have become prominent (or secondarily prominent) in connection with the disease
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: per -nightmare
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: A number of people are citing . Indeed it seems to be the only policy issue raised. However, it is a false argument. If Wikipedia articles can claim person X has HIV then this information can also appear elsewhere, such as a list, provided it is sourced. As I noted above, categories are unsuitable for this very reason. Where is the policy that says sensitive information can only appear in the main biography page? It has been suggested this is a privacy issue, but the article is cites published sources so the information is already public. We don't cite hospital records. But more fundamentally, if this list is to be deleted because it is a list of information that may "suggest that the persons included in the list or template have a poor reputation", for example, then it would imply we delete all lists of possibly negative information. If we can claim people are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Scientologists|members of a UFO cult then this is small beer. I would certainly be keen to open up a community RfC if that were the case as it has big implications
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: partly per The Hand That Feeds You (particularly in his later comments on why a cat would be better than a list), partly per : Everyone dies of something; we don't have List of people with high blood pressure or anything of that sort. We do, but that's another issue. I would support deletion of most of these lists as well.  What illness certain notable people have (had) is in all but a few cases totally irrelevant even if it can be referenced. For the majority of the entries HIV was not the reason for encyclopedic inclusion, and if this list was trimmed to those, it would still need a new name
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: The list currently contains a link to an entry that is a clear BLP1E violation - Veronica Prego.  If her entry is correct, then the event is clearly notable, but per , she should not have a biography.  The fact that her birthdate was not specified on the list tipped me off, rather obviously, to check out her entry.  If the list is so vigilantly patrolled for BLP issues this kind of thing should not be missed.  Cheers
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: HIV scares the hell out of me, but a list wouldn't have acquired featured status if it weren't notable. It seems like all the delete !votes, though well-intentioned, are based on . '''Erpert
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Not a relevant biographical stand-alone information. It maybe relevant to explain, for example, the early death of a person, and in this case, the information should be given in the article about the person. The only exception would be people who have made their HIV infection a central aspect of their public image, so a list of HIV-posivive HIV/AIDS activists may be possible with regard to the |BLP guideline.&nbsp;&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: BLP was created by Wales for save himself of being sued. The list is encyclopedic and according to its star in the corner, well-written. It is recently at AFD for a simple issue of a stupid kid who was playing and/or attacking someone s/he hates, it's ridiculous nominate it for that issues, if the problem is "BLP issues" indef-protect the page and put it |an orange lock
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Protection policy (WP:ORANGELOCK)

Comment: per . It says that lists of people require that "the person's membership in the list's group is notable in some way (in other words, a person should not be included in a list merely because they happen to be a member of the list's group)." Nearly all entries on this list violate this guideline, because they are about otherwise notable people who happen to have (had) AIDS. Suffering or dying from AIDS is unfortunately so relatively common that the list of people who are (mainly) notable ''for having AIDS'' is probably very short, and can (if it is at all necessary) be integrated into the main AIDS article or a subarticle thereof. In addition, the following caution in , part of the policy , must be borne in mind: "Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation ... These principles apply equally to ... lists". This caution applies here because in many parts of the world having AIDS is still a severe stigma and/or is widely associated with sexual practices that are considered objectionable (see the list's introduction and AIDS#Stigma). Our BLP policy therefore provides another good reason not to have a list article about this topic unless it is absolutely required for encyclopedic completeness. Our |notability rules are an appropriate yardstick for answering whether this is the case. While AIDS itself is obviously notable, the topic "List of HIV-positive people" does not seem to be – I don't see references to reliable sources dedicated to this specific topic –, and so Wikipedia can do without it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:LISTPEOPLE||WP:BLPCAT||WP:BLP||WP:N)