Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Change for the Cure


 * 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)

Change for the Cure

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not seem to pass notability criteria. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Should be a speedy. No credible assertion of notability. Taroaldo    ✉   01:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup. Speedy delete - there is no evidence whatsoever that this 'charity' has any notability independent of the individual concerned - this looks to me like a misguided attempt to bypass WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure how BLP would come into play here. This article is about a charity. -- Kendrick7talk 01:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you read WP:BLP policy then - it applies to any material relating to a living person on Wikipedia, whether in a biography or other article, or indeed on a talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific? Which aspect of the BLP policy is this stub violating, WP:V, WP:NPOV, or WP:NOR? -- Kendrick7talk 01:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * There's no such thing as an organization set up primarily to commit fraud? Pfft (although I apologize for my utter inability to properly WP:STUBSORT). -- Kendrick7talk 02:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * I wholeheartly agree it is about the content. So, again, which content policy, per my list above, are you accusing this article of violating? -- Kendrick7talk 02:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E, as I have already said. Your 'list above' is incomplete... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I'm not the slightest bit interested in your Wikilawyering bullshit - the only sources cited refer to Kirilow - any mention of the 'charity' is made in passing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * What second vote is that? You are beginning to make it difficult to keep assuming good faith when you start making ridiculous accusations. Taroaldo    ✉   02:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are correct, I miss read your pro-speedy delete comment as a pseudo vote. Stricken. -- Kendrick7talk 04:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep A simple Google search for this organization and its bad behavior gets over 23 million hits on Google. 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. 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)
 * 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)
 * Have you got any evidence that 'an organisation' ever existed, other than in Kirilow's imagination? If so, please provide sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources suggest that it did. Please bring forth your sources that suggest that checks made out to Change for the Cure were cashed only in anyone's particular imagination. -- Kendrick7talk 05:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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
 * DGG, I'm really surprised you're falling for this bogus article. The Toronto Star article clearly spells out what she was doing. Look closer.  Taroaldo    ✉   05:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Information - A fairly large userspace draft on Ashley Kirilow was written by Geo Swan in the 2010-2012 time frame. He turned it into a redirect to List of cancer victim hoaxes (which was deleted yesterday via this AFD) before moving it to Ashley Kirilow.  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashley_Kirilow&oldid=496906504 here] is the last draft before he gutted it.  Ashley Kirilow now redirects to Change for the Cure. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  05:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge with and redirect to a restored Ashley Kirilow, restored to the last "full" version as it existed when it was a userspace draft. Then clean up and reduce the size of the restored Ashley Kirilow page and make sure it is WP:BLP-compliant. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  05:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep but expand. I think an argument can be made that the organization Ashley Kirilow set up, called "Change for the Cure" was notable, hers was not the only charity or bogus charity to use the phrase.  Another organization that used it was the very successful Susan G. Komen charity, which distributed "Change for the Cure" jars for years.  The article should cover all organizations that use the slogan.  Geo Swan (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There should be a single article that deals with "Change for the Cure" and "Ashley Kirilow". I agree with DGG that the article should be at Change for the Cure; Ashley Kirilow should be merged into and redirected to it. The primary topic should be the charity fraud. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge with Ashley Kirilow. However, there's really no information in the article to merge apart from a couple references, so a merge here is, in effect, a delete.  Marechal Ney (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment about where to merge if we do merge. The primary notability for both the person and the organization is the criminal behavior. Our BLP policy is unambiguous that in ordinary circumstances when there is a choice of names we do not use the personal name of the criminal for the title, so if there is any basis for an article at all it belongs under the organization name. I am rather startled by some of the comments above that I am too credulous about accept the positive material here. I very much accept the negative material, and the way to cover it is under the present name.  DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Merge the two articles, making Ashley Kirilow re-direct to the charity. --Soman (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Ashley Kirilow; this subject has neither the lasting effects nor the duration of coverage required by WP:EVENT.  Mini  apolis  14:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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.