Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Research Foundation to Cure 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Research Foundation to Cure AIDS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

They seem never to have actually discovered or even developed anything, but have a license to use a patented technology to do so. The article serves mainly to hold links to the notable scientists who have actually worked in this specific area, and to discuss the need for the treatment they hope to eventually commercialize, and to say why the potential treatment would be important if they ever do commercialize it. In other words, this is pure PR DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • Note There seems to be a fairly heavy dose of WP:BLUDGEON by the article creator here... I don't have any good reasons to waste my time and go and collapse most of it, so tread with care. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an experienced Wiki user and didn't remember to sign my name to the edits above, so I'm copy-pasting them and adding them again including my signature below.

--- This organization is the first and only research organization with a license to cutting edge biotechnology in the field of curing AIDS. Curing AIDS is a new endeavor. There are a small number of groups in this areas, and this is the only one where it's creators, including myself, decided to move forward on a charitable basis. That is notable not only in the field of curing AIDS, but as a new model for medicine. Practically each sentence is backed by references and citations. If there is anything that is in a PR tone, then that should be corrected. However by disappearing the article, a notable if early-stage effort of significant dimensions will be eliminated.

The following statement is taken from guidelines on Wiki about deletion of pages, two such references are provided further below in satisfaction of this requirement to keep pages: "On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source."

The following two newspapers and magazines have reported reported on the subject of the wikipage for "Research Foundation to Cure AIDS," one of them in English and one in French, providing international recognition:

1) In Le Temps: https://www.letemps.ch/sciences/patient-berlin-inspire-nouveaux-traitements-contre-sida 2) Newsday: https://www.newsday.com/news/health/timothy-ray-brown-berlin-patient-focus-of-symposium-at-columbia-university-on-cure-for-hiv-1.10414465

KambizShekdar (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)KambizShekdar[reply]

The Notice about deleting this page includes the request to "Find sources", as listed below:

"Find sources: "Research Foundation to Cure AIDS" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR "

In response to this, I clicked on the "scholar" tab and searched for "Research Foundation to Cure AIDS" and the following entry appeared:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10529-021-03101-5

KambizShekdar (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)KambizShekdar[reply]

You say, "if there is anything that is in a PR tone, then that should be corrected", but that would involve rewriting the whole article. It seems that some editors here are so used to PR-speak that they can't tell the difference between promotional and neutral writing. You also use the phrases "cutting edge" and "early-stage". Wikipedia only covers established knowledge, not the cutting edge at an early stage. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The technology I referred to above as "cutting-edge" is established, it is not new. It was invented in 1999. What is new is that it, and years of research results using it, was published for the first time in 2021. The reason I referred to it as cutting-edge is because to me, that term means innovative and significant. Perhaps to you it may mean untested and unknown, but that is not the case. Also, "Early-stage" is a relative term. In 40 years of AIDS, a cure has not been the focus of efforts. In the last few years, it has been, and about a week ago, the FDA approved ots first-ever clinical trials to cure AIDS using a CRISPR based method. All efforts in the field of curing AIDS are early stage. And so what? Does that make then not notable? In fact, it makes them possibly the most significant new advance in this field in decades. KambizShekdar (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)KambizShekdar[reply]

I think you have chosen the wrong site on which to advertise your research group. Not only do we not accept advertisements (which this is, as can be seen by the incessant dropping of irrelevant names and other promotional techniques used here) but we also don't aspire to cover current, uncompleted, research. I'm sure there are many places that would happily publish your advertisement, but Wikipedia is not one of them. See WP:NOT#PROMOTION and WP:NOR. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of the Nobel Prize winner who co-founded this organization and the two celebrities who served as founding board members is not name dropping. These people were involved in the organization and are listed similar to how other sites about organizations list people who have wiki pages. If you would like to give me tips about advertising, thank you but I do not need them. Research Foundation to Cure AIDS was formed in 2014 as a 501(c)3 public charity. This page is about the existence of the only public non-for-profit organization, its underlying cutting-edge cell engineering technology, and the people who created it with a mission to develop a cure on a pro bono basis.

KambizShekdar (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)KambizShekdar[reply]

Re my comment above, I meant: This page is about the existence of the only public non-for-profit organization with its own biotechnology (as opposed to a non-profit that raises funds to fund other groups), its underlying cutting-edge cell engineering technology, and the people who created it with a mission to develop a cure on a pro bono basis.

KambizShekdar (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)KambizShekdar[reply]

I have addressed each specific criticism cited and provided evidence why this organization is an established U.S. public entity formed 7 years ago, that it has an unprecedented royalty-free license to a biotechnology in its field, and with notable founders. In my comments here, my use of the term cutting edge and early stage was criticized as PR speak. I explained my use. If any other specific instances are raised for clarification, either in my comments or in the article, that would be helpful so that they may be corrected. The purpose here is to evidence a long-standing public organization that has been the first one to introduce a model to develop a bro bono cell therapy cure. This is in good faith and subjective accusations that it is PR are unfounded.

KambizShekdar (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)KambizShekdar[reply]

[[:cat=T Science and technology]]

Is there any way to ensure that editors and commentators with no connection to HIV/AIDS or prior edits to HIV/AIDS related topics are reviewing and adding to this discussion? I ask because there is significant risk or bias here. AIDS activists are highly influential. A coalition of leading AIDS activists adopted the following erroneous statement in favor of PrEP and stigma reduction efforts and opposed to a cure: "we now have the means to end the global and U.S. HIV epidemics, even without a vaccine or a cure, by dramatically reducing new HIV infections and eliminating AIDS deaths." This statement is not valid. AIDS activists are known to control information about HIV/AIDS, including policing what words are used, for instance by advocating that the term "mother-to-daughter transmission" of HIV/AIDS be replaced by "vertical transition," in an effort to reduce stigma. Based on my observations, these efforts to minimize the need for a cure and to change our language are well-intentioned efforts to reduce stigma, however they come at the risk that information about a cure for AIDS are suppressed, by AIDS activists. The group is known to be influential. The page I wrote about an organization working on a cure is at risk of attack. A problem with open-edit platforms like wikipedia is that content can become a matter of political tug-of-war. Therefore, to try to reduce the risk that this is the case here, I am asking if there is a way to engage additional reviewers who are not connected to the topic to review the concerns raised about this page. In my view, any perceived problems with this page should be flagged and corrected, but deletion of information about the existence of an established group focused exclusively on developing a cure should not be deleted due to any risk of agenda-setting by any AIDS activists.

KambizShekdar (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)KambizShekdar[reply]

I have no such preconceived view on AIDS-related issues and I'm pretty sure that DGG, who is an administrator and former arbitrator here, doesn't either. Just look at our respective editing histories. To assume that anyone who disagrees with you must be doing so for political reasons can only lead people to think that you are the one editing for political reasons rather than just trying to keep promotion out of Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing about your background, though not necessary. I am not assuming or suggesting that any commentators here have or do not have a connection with AIDS advocacy and I respect your contributions. My concern is that the AIDS patient advocacy space is indeed a heated space, with many AIDS activists publicly taking positions against a cure for AIDS and in support of current, existing drug therapy and prevention strategies, as if this is a this-or-that war. I wanted to make it clear that there is a risk that information about a cure is suppressed. I don't know the inner workings of wiki and how pages are considered for discussion. For my part I will try to improve the article as best I can and attempt to address concerns raised here. In addition, if possible, I think a review of this discussion for input from a greater number of individuals who are not involved at all in the topic of HIV/AIDS would be helpful to try to avoid bias given the heated field.

KambizShekdar (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)KambizShekdar[reply]

Phil Berger - I am not sure why you took my comment personally. In my original statement, I simply said the following to help avoid bias, without suggesting you or anyone posting here is biased, based on the heated nature of this field:

" Is there any way to ensure that editors and commentators with no connection to HIV/AIDS or prior edits to HIV/AIDS related topics are reviewing and adding to this discussion? "

and, after explaining my concern, adding:

" Therefore, to try to reduce the risk that this is the case here, I am asking if there is a way to engage additional reviewers who are not connected to the topic to review the concerns raised about this page. "

Please be assured, I have no idea who you or other commentators on this page are or your backgrounds, and no reason to accuse you of anything. I simply want to ensure that those making the decision on deleting the page are non-interested and non-involed in the HIV/AIDS space.

KambizShekdar (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)KambizShekdar[reply]

CORRECTION - In my point #6 above, I meant to end with:

How can we be sure that No ONE on the Arbitration committee with an interest or involvement in HIV/AIDS advocacy is involved in the decision to ban this page?

Thank you, KambizShekdar KambizShekdar (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This seems to be a blatant WP:COI as well as WP:PROMO. Looking at KambizShekdar's talk page, it's evident that this isn't the first time this article in various forms has been created, and it has been repeatedly refused. This isn't the place for self-promotion or advertising. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I successfully submitted wiki requests for comment here, both for "sci" and "style", and both were deleted. This should not be the case. Who deleted these requests?

It will be helpful to have additional reviewers review this page so that a consensus can be reached.

KambizShekdar (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also: WP:WALLOFTEXT and WP:BLUDGEON. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KambizShekdar: If you had looked at the history for this page you would have seen that I removed the three {{RFC}} templates. At the best of times, using three in the same discussion is two uses too many; but this is an AfD, and the RfC process is not for deletions. The AfD process in use here is, by its very nature, a request for comment - of a specialised kind. I also removed the single instance of {{RFC sci}} - because it does not exist; and for the same reason, I am removing the two instances of {{RFT}} above. Please do not try to subvert the AfD process again. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My affiliation as Founder of Research Foundation to Cure AIDS is fully disclosed and public and on my username page bio. The identify of any editors and their own involvement in AIDS advocacy is what has not yet been addressed, and the risks of this, as described above.

KambizShekdar (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did address that, and I was one of only two editors who had disagreed with you at the time that you asked. Please just stop looking at this through a totally unjustified political prism and accept the obvious that your article is written completely promotionally. If you want to know which sentences are promotional then it's sentence one, sentence two, sentence three and so on until the last sentence that you wrote. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to figure out how to add requests for comments from sci and style editors to the page. I hope that all can agree that having more editors review the disputed and subjective claim that this article is PR is a healthy thing to do when the purpose here is to reach a consensus. I have stated above how the AIDS advocacy space is heated, including activists who publicly aim to diminish a cure. I am all for improving the article. What I think we should all be for as well, is ensuring that those who are in a position to delete this page have no COI of their own: No one who is involved in or has an interest in HIV/AIDS advocacy should be included as an Arbitrator making a decision about deleting this page. No one has cited one single factual error with any of the content in this page. It should be possible to improve any perceived faults without deleting the page altogther.

KambizShekdar (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phil - sorry about that - I meant making sure that the "Arbitrators" deciding on whether or not to delete the page are free of COI. No issue on my part what so ever if people hostile to a cure are commenting here - what I think we should all care about is that no one opposed to a cure is making the deletion to delete this page.

Thank you, KambizShekdar (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I am not hostile to a cure. Please don't imply that I am. But I am hostile towards advertisements on Wikipedia. Surely, with your PhD, you have enough intelligence to see that this article is an advertisement from start to finish? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:ORGSIG. Yes, the topic is significant (AIDS), but that doesn't guarantee that the organization is. I see no significant coverage by 3rd parties. Additionally, perusal of the IRS tax returns shows that the organization does not have any significant activity going on, so there's no hope that this could be made into a notable topic. Form 990 . shows that the organization is spending $10-15,000/year.

rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 21:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following statement is taken from guidelines on Wiki about deletion of pages: "On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source."

The following two newspapers and magazines have reported reported on the subject of the wikipage for "Research Foundation to Cure AIDS," one of them in English and one in French, providing international recognition:

1) In Le Temps: https://www.letemps.ch/sciences/patient-berlin-inspire-nouveaux-traitements-contre-sida 2) Newsday: https://www.newsday.com/news/health/timothy-ray-brown-berlin-patient-focus-of-symposium-at-columbia-university-on-cure-for-hiv-1.10414465

Additionally, Phil, once again, I didn't mean to imply you have any bias re curing AIDS. The only point I am making in this connection is that we should ensure that no person with any interest or involvement in HIV/AIDS advocacy is the person making the decision to delete this page.

Hope that helps, KambizShekdar (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

REQUEST FOR HELP FROM EXPERIENCED WIKI USERS:

I am learning more about wiki but still a relative novice. Does anyone know if there is a committee or persons who review for good faith activity in discussions to delete a page? I ask because the most vocal critic here, Phil Bridger, has ended each and every one of his comments with a personal attack or negative statement about me. Also, his main criticism is a subjective one and when asked to provide any more detail so that the article can be fixed, his response is that the faults start with the first sentence and with every sentence after that until the end. I believe that if this page is up for discussion, then the commentators should take care to make their comments in good faith. This does not to me seem to be good faith. Is there a panel or person at Wiki who can review the process used to delete this page here?

Thank you, KambizShekdar (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:KambizShekdar Please read WP:BLUDGEON and follow the advice there. Thanks. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 22:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Responding (piling on?) here because of a malformed notice at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming following the addition of the RfC template to the article page. This page is like a poorly formatted brochure seeking supporting donations, talking about AIDS in general, the need for treatment, focus by the NIH, etc. But we're not here to attract venture capitalists, and having the page be created by the subject org's founder is blatant and unacceptable WP:COI. Further, the organization doesn't seem to have done much, but, boy, someday... well, we can wait. Fails WP:ORGSIG in that sources are not writing in-depth stories about the foundation. Les Temps includes about 1-1/2 paragraphs (generously measured) on it in the middle of a longer piece about the science; the Newsday source mentions it only in reference to the symposium, with some quotes of Shekdar and another RFTCA worker. It'd be nice if the foundation achieved something, someday, but it hasn't yet (except maybe getting their malformed brochure on our online encyclopedia). — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 22:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I removed it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  For the possible benefit of the closer and because KambizShekdar pinged me due to concerns I might !vote without recognizing their flurry of changes on 26 September: I am more convinced than ever that the article should be deleted, for WP:PROMO and the other reasons already mentioned. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 02:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment would seem superfluous at this point. but I think it's necessary to alert the contributor to the fact that even once the article is removed, as it surely will be, this discussion will remain visible indefinitely. When the organization does have an approved product, it will very likely be notable, and I suggest that they use a professional PR agency for their PR; any responsible person in PR will tell them that they should wait for a WP article until someone unaffiliated with the organization writes one. We have quite a few experienced editors who are not likely to miss a notable discovery in this field.

But I do have a question for him: I'm certainly aware of activists who want to ensue that we continue and improve and make more available existing methods for prevention and treatment of AIDS in the interval before a cure or vaccine is available. I am not aware of anyone who suggests that trying to find a cure is undesirable., rather than merely unlikely in the immediate future. So what are you referring to? It would be good to get some actual information out of this discussion. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Without repeating the full context which is provided above, I note that:

1) no one has addressed my simple question about whether and how we can ensure that the person or persons who ultimately decide to delete this page have no conflict of interest in this space and no interest in HIV/AIDS advocacy;

2) no one has disputed a single statements made in the wiki page for Research Foundatino to Cure AIDS;

3) the subjective critism of PR tone are disputed;

4) Wiki guidelines say that deletion of a page is done only in extreme situations, providing several alternative measures, one of these is to invite additional requests for comments by others, but when I tagged and inserted wiki requests for comment for "style" and "science" categories inviting such comment, these tags were deleted;

4) While Wiki guidelines provided above say that pages are only deleted in severe instance and suggest a number of alternative methods to improve a page, including inviting others to review and comment, my attempt to engage additional users was deleted and no other attempts have been made here.

I realize that a fault with open edit platforms like wiki is that they can become political tug-of-wars and a human numbers game. I hope that this message reachers expert wiki users who may help to improve the article instead of the massive effort we are seeing to delete the page based on subjective and disputed criticisms.

Thank you, Kambiz KambizShekdar (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the political intrigues and conspiracy theories and try to WP:AGF. If anyone here has a conflict of interest, it is you, the person who founded the organization about which you then wrote this article. When you are concerned that someone here may have aninterest in HIV/AIDS advocacy with the implication that it will affect the outcome of the deletion discussion, then you are suggesting that some Wikipedia editor(s) don't want HIV/AIDS to be treated/cured/improved. And that, sir is rubbish. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 00:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a simple question - I still see no response to it from anyone:

Is there any process to ensure that the person or persons who ultimately decide to delete this page have no conflict of interest in this space and no interest in HIV/AIDS advocacy. Please see above.

KambizShekdar (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We know that at least one person in this discussion has a conflict of interest - you. As for the rest, the principle is that enough people look at AFDs that it's unlikely they ALL have a COI, and those who do will be obvious. There is no single arbiter who makes a decision, on wiki we work based on consensus - which does not require unanimity. So far, among the three people who have added a specific "!vote" (specialized wiki terminology), there happens to be unanimity.

I will mention a concern you need to address; your own access to Wikipedia. You have been consistently violating standards of conduct in this discussion, which puts you at risk of being blocked. In the discussion above, numerous wikipedia policies and essays have been pointed out to you, notable among them: WP:AGF, WP:COI, WP:PROMO, WP:BLUDGEON, WP:WALLOFTEXT, WP:ORGSIG, WP:NOR. Take them time to read them all. In addition, read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA because I've seen indications that you are heading in that direction - which will be an even more direct path to getting blocked. Also please read WP:TALK, guidelines on how to use a talk page, you've already repeatedly violated those on this page. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MAJOR CHANGES MADE TO THE ARTICLE in response to the criticism of PR tone, the article is not cut by half by myself and I noticed at least one other editor.

MAJOR CHANGES MADE TO THE ARTICLE in response to the criticism of PR tone, the article is not cut by half by myself and I noticed at least one other editor. KambizShekdar (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MAJOR CHANGES MADE TO THE ARTICLE in response to the criticism of PR tone, the article is **now** cut by half by myself and I noticed at least one other editor.KambizShekdar (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added several more citations, either focused on the foundation that is the subject of the page or on its underlying technology, including the following, as well as the piece authored by myself published by the MIT public-interest science publication Undark:

https://together.mofo.com/diversity/mofo-gets-an-introduction-to-the-research-foundation-to-cure-aids/

https://sidewalkkilla.com/rftca/

https://www.biophysics.org/profiles/kambiz-shekdar

https://undark.org/2019/02/21/trump-pledge-to-end-hiv/

Additional citations were added too. Please let me know if any of the statements need any further substantiation and if the criticism of PR tone has by now been addressed. Thank you KambizShekdar (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

discuss User Tarl N., you said that three people have already voted to delete this page, but this was before the changes and additions above. Will these changes and additions be considered in case they do indeed improve the article and address the criticism of PR tone? Also, is it possible for me to cast a vote? If yes, how do I cast a vote? Thanks, KambizShekdar (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Shekdar, the job of the closer is to assess what consensus, if any, has been reached in this discussion. You have made your position very clear, so it should not be necessary, but if you wish to make it even clearer you can prefix one of your comments with '''Keep''', which will put your opinion in bold. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC) User:Phil Bridger thanks for that tip. I'll try to add that Prefix. Also, do you know who the closer ultimately deciding about deleting the page is here if that is publicly available information?[reply]

Thanks KambizShekdar (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The closer could be anyone who has not taken part in this discussion, and usually happens when a discussion has been open for at least a week. When a discussion is at all contentious then it is usually recommended that the closer should be an administrator. If the close goes against the consensus reached here it can be appealed at WP:DRV. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[[User:KambizShekdar|KambizShekdar]] ([[User talk:KambizShekdar|talk]]) 16:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC) [[User:DDG]] [[User:rsjaffe]] [[User:Redrose64]] [[User:Phil Bridger]] [[User:Tarl N.]] Hello All, thank you for your comments. I tried to make a best-effort to improve the article, including by deleting about half the content in an effort to address PR tone and by adding several new citations some listed above. I can't see who voted to delete it but wanted to let you know about the changes in case you can take a look again to see if your concerns are addressed. If there are still issues with the article, I would appreciate any input what remains to be corrected. Thanks, Kambiz [[User:KambizShekdar|KambizShekdar]] ([[User talk:KambizShekdar|talk]]) 16:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC) KambizShekdar (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I am tagging you twice - not too familiar with the coding here and if I did it properly the first time - in case you may have already voted on deleting this page, I wanted to alert you about the significant changes I made, as described above, in an attempt to improve it. Also, for the Closer, please note, I tried to highlight my final comment directly above as "Keep". Thanks all for your review and consideration. User:DDG User:rsjaffe User:Redrose64 User:Phil Bridger User:Tarl N. User:JohnFromPinckney User:Shellwood KambizShekdar (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG I had a typo in your user name. As you initiated the discussion to delete this page, I wanted to let you know about my attempts to improve it, esp if you already voted to delete. Please see above. Thanks, KambizShekdar (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of note, RFTCA's work is not limited to its science and technology. RFTCA, the subject organization of the page proposed for deletion, has also made significant contributions to help prioritize the development of a broadly-applicable cure as part of the US national effort, as now noted on the page. I wanted to comment on this as someone spoke about the organizations accomplishments to date and helping to achieve high-level national support for a cure is a significant and noteworthy achievement in and of itself. KambizShekdar (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yes, you have greatly clarified what the foundation does; but in doing so, you have demonstrated that it is not notable. The two patients mentioned were cured of Aids through bone marrow transplants, but the transplants were administered to cure other diseases, and the work of the foundation had nothing directly to do with them--except that their cure indicated a direction for further directly relevant scientific work to follow, work which the foundation supports. (They are not the only organization working along these lines) . The efforts of the foundation have not led to any actual therapy so far, but rather are based upon promoting a patented technology developed entirely independently of the foundation and long before it was even started, but assigned to the foundation by its very notable inventor. Many organizations advocate finding a cure for AIDS, and it is true that this cause has been somewhat sidetracked in public visibility by the Covid pandemic. All the specific work that the foundation has done, besides accepting a gift and applying for a grant, has been 1. a discussion with Bernie Saunders in which he supported finding a cure for AIDS, 2. Hosting an advocacy symposium to promote the search for a cure, and 3, sponsored an afterparty at the NYC Village Halloween Parade. (all 3 supported by very weak sources, and I think there are better--but no source could make any of these 3 significant ) . In other words, the foundation has done nothing noteworthy so far. The only reason they might have for an article here is a desire to promote their work. I did make a mistake in listing this for AfD. I should have listed it for speedy deletion it as G11, entirely promotional. (or even deleted it myself, but I think it's generally better to ask another admin to confirm) Possibly I was impressed by the famous names, and didn't realize how little they had to do with any actual work of the foundation. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every single group that is working to develop a cure for AIDS is most highly notable. 18 months of COVID and we have multiple vaccines. 40 years of AIDS and the disease festers. The deletion of even the existence of a wiki page for a public US 501(c)3 charity with biotechnology in this space would be a mistake and an abuse of the wiki process. KambizShekdar (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be saying we have to keep the page about your noble-minded foundation for moral or health reasons, because otherwise, cures might not be found (or found as fast). Am I reading you right? But here's what you seem to be missing: we are an encyclopedia, not an organization intent on fostering biotechnological advances. And your RFTCA is a research foundation, not an encyclopedia. Theabuse of the wiki process is IMO you trying to preserve an article about a non-notable organization (in part by badgering the participants here). Let the wiki process play out, and when the RFTCA has results and attention which do qualify it for inclusion here, somebody (else!) will be sure to write an article about it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 06:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article can't even source content about the organization instead relying on NIH, Presidential candidates and the notability of HIV research.Its most "notable" act is co-hosting an event (Also, please do something about the walls of text, editing on mobile close to impossible due to page size) Slywriter (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note KambizShekdar has been blocked from further editing of this AfD discussion page for 2 weeks. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Admin comment per this AN thread (courtesy @Rsjaffe:), I have blocked KambizShekdar from this page so that the discussion may continue. The editor is welcome to make improvements to the article but has made their case sufficiently here Their COI has been brought to my attention, as such they're also pblocked from the article for the same window of time, but are welcome to use the Talk. I have not read through this discussion and am acting only on the bludgeoning, so have no opinion as to the discussion's outcome. Should this not be deleted, suspect longer partial block may be warranted. ETA: jinx, you owe me a Coke Rsjaffe Star Mississippi 17:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as pure PR per nom. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 18:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Recommend Salt/Further Blocking Admin comment should this close as delete since editor created this out of process after an AFC decline and indicates they will be pursuing all available mechanisms on wiki to request a review of this decision which does not inspire confidence that they'll respect consensus. Star Mississippi 22:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There are insufficient independent third party sources profiling the organization. The sources are mostly about general efforts to cure AIDS, routine event announcements, or blog posts written by the article creator. This is not a victim of bias, but simply an WP:NCORP and WP:GNG fail. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above.4meter4 (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and WP:NOTPROMO RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt, per Tarl N. and Star Mississippi, respectively. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt clearly fails WP:GNG, and author has already said he'll recreate it if deleted. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2021 (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.