Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Change for the Cure

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 Ashley Kirilow. There is no consensus to delete outright. Normal editing can now determine what, if anything, from this article's history should be merged to Ashley Kirilow, or if that article should instead be moved to this title. postdlf (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change for the Cure

edit
Change for the Cure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to pass notability criteria. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which doesn't apply, as the subject of the article isn't a person. Surely you aren't suggesting Wikipedia can't have articles about WP:ORGs founded by still living people simply because such articles might make the people involved look bad, are you? -- Kendrick7talk 02:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said, a misguided attempt to get around WP:BLP policy. Fortunately, policy doesn't permit such transparent Wikilawyering - WP:BLP policy applies whether an article is about a real person, or a fictitious organisation - what matters is the content, not the title. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kendrick, the article is not about a charity. There was no charity....just a fraud. The title is misleading, and the article creator even added the charity stub. Seriously. Taroaldo ✉ 02:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What organisation? There was no organisation. The fraud consisted of her telling people she had an organisation. Nothing more. There was a facebook page: big deal. How is any of this notable? Taroaldo ✉ 02:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Round and round we go. The proper notability guideline is WP:ORG. Obviously, the vast majority of modern day organizations are made up of living people who are otherwise non-notable. That shouldn't automatically make articles about such organizations non-encyclopedic. -- Kendrick7talk 02:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I declined the speedy--there appear to be two major reliable sources, & that makes enough of a claim of importance to pass speedy. If they are not adequate for one reason or other to meet the notability requirement, this needs to be a community decision to delete after full discussion DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable attention seeker. It made the news because of how reprehensible the act was; nothing to do with the person or the specific act of fraud. Taroaldo ✉ 02:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the organization is both non-notable because it has sought attention, and yet notable for its reprehensible behavior? Your second vote here doesn't make a lot of sense, frankly. -- Kendrick7talk 02:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A simple Google search for this organization and its bad behavior gets over 23 million hits on Google.[1] I know some are arguing that we should ignore WP:ORG, and that we can't have articles about poorly run organizations made up of otherwise non-notable and still living people, per WP:BLP1E. But we're an encyclopedia, and the proverbial cat is long since out of the bag. -- Kendrick7talk 03:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, here's the deal - I'll remove any references to Kirilow per WP:BLP1E, and you write the article about the 'organisation' based on sources that don't mention her - there must be a few amongst the 23 million that don't ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was around when WP:BLP1E became policy. Its original intent was for Wikipedia to not have articles about random internet users who, due to no fault of their own, became memes on 4chan or the like.[2] A noble if rather worthless goal thanks to that other wiki. I even think it's fine and reasonable not to create articles about one-off criminals of little notoriety. But with your interpretation, the slope has slipped quite enough for me. The policy wasn't created to protect organizations which have deliberately committed real-money fraud and are widely notable because of it. -- Kendrick7talk 03:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was part of it The other part was to avoid detailed coverage of unrelated minor criminal incidents in the lives of people, except where the people (like political figures or well- publicized sports & entertainment figures) were such as that all aspects of their behavior were considered by the public as important, It was not meant to prevent the discussion of criminal behavior by people noted for being criminals. BLP of course does apply to articles about other things than people, as indeed it should, but among the things that it does rightly require is that when we do cover criminal behavior, we try to use a non-personal name for the article subject. Frauds can be notable, as I think this one is, and the name of the organization is a fair heading for the article that covers it. The individual responsible can be discussed also, as any other other criminal. BLP has to be used very careful to avoid becoming censorship of the unpleasant. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you read your own sources? The articles clearly make reference to her soliciting all payments in "cash and rolls of change". There were no cheques to be cashed and there was no organisation, except in her mind. There are "millions" of hits because a few stories were done by CP or TorStar and a bunch of other news outlets picked them up. Taroaldo ✉ 05:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WhatI was saying above, was they we could indeed cover it under her name, but that it is an appropriate use of discretion to use some other title,. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC) before a com[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 16:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ashley Kirilow article. I don't think this deserves status as a separate article. It was a figment of Kirilow's imagination and should remain as part of that article. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just a quick search on Google and found nothing. The subject has only a mention in all the sources provided, and there seems to be no considerable third party coverage, except some passing mentions. Usmanwardag (talk) 04:46, 11 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Change_for_the_Cure&oldid=1179990000"