Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cancer victim hoaxes


 * 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. There seems to be a consensus here that this does not meet the community's expectations for list articles or coverage of living people. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

List of cancer victim hoaxes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:N. List of cancer hoaxes, really? AldezD (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Seriously? I know someone who pretended to have cancer. Her hair grew back while she was supposedly still having chemotherapy. Does that mean that she qualifies for a Wikipedia article? ö   Brambleberry   of   RiverClan  22:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Was there lots of newspaper coverage of the person you mention? That can be a distinguishing difference between those who should be included and those who should not. Edison (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: I've alerted WP:MED to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as WP:BLP1E violation etc. I've just removed Craig Shergold from the list on the grounds that (as the article makes clear) Shergold had cancer. I've also removed Shona Holmes on the basis that there is nothing in the sources cited, or in the article about her, to support the assertion that she ever specifically claimed to have cancer. This leaves us with a list of individuals with no Wikipedia article - and established policy is that lists of people only include individuals meeting notability guidelines. I've not looked into the sourcing for these individuals yet, but give the piss-poor sourcing for the two I have looked into, but will now do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I accept that the three excisions you made were in good faith, but I disagree with them, as I explained on the talk page, and I suggest that there are strong reasons why those reading an afd discussion should choose to either voice an opinion -- or edit the article -- but not both.
 * You wrote in this edit summary: "Removed Craig Shergold - what part of Wikipedia policy justifies putting a genuine cancer sufferer in a list of hoaxes? Utterly insane"... While Shergold is a genuine cancer survivor, elements of his compelling story have been incorporated into many hoaxes. The many other hoaxes based on Shergold's story, supported by RS justify retaining this entry in the list.
 * You wrote in this edit summary: "delete Shona Holmes - none of the sources cited state that she specifically claimed to have cancer". That simply isn't true, the most prominent part of Holmes story is that she appeared in US ads claiming the Canadian health care system was going to leave her potentially fatal "brain cancer" untreated.  Holmes falsely claimed to have cancer, and was caught in that false claim, strongly supported by RS, which I suggest justifies retaining this entry.
 * You wrote in this edit summary: ''"remove Jessica Vega per WP:BLP - 'allegations', but no conviction. In fact the existing references confirm Vega had been convicted and sentenced.
 * I restored that material, and added some additional references. Geo Swan (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed Craig Shergold again. There are no circumstances whatsoever where it would be appropriate to add the name of a cancer victim to a 'list of cancer victim hoaxes'. This is a gross violation of WP:BLP policy. It is utterly irrelevant whether there have been hoaxes using Shergold's name - he doesn't belong on the list, as he has not perpetrated a cancer hoax. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding Shona Holmes, I note that the only place in our article on her that the word 'cancer' occurs is amongst the references - in an alternate name for a medical centre. If, as Geo Swan suggests, Holmes claimed to have cancer, why doesn't our article state this? Where is the source for this assertion? And where is the source for an assertion that this was 'a hoax'? Holmes certainly had a medical condition with potentially-serious consequences, and nothing I've seen suggests that she was attempting to profit from her claims. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment If there are proper refs keep otherwise don't. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. Why not List of real estate hoaxes or List of inheritance hoaxes or List of academic hoaxes? Artificial assembly of unrelated events as if they are a single coherent and interrelated social phenomenon. Carrite (talk) 04:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * When RS cover a new hoax they draw parallels and comparisons to earlier hoaxes. There are RS that speak about the general phenomenon of cancer victim hoaxes.  If there are RS that cover the general phenomenon inheritance hoaxes and academic hoaxes, then I would support an article listing them.  The Wall Street crisis of 2008 was a giant real estate hoax, where shifty brokers "commodatized" bad mortgages.  Geo Swan (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems like an encyclopedic list. There have been numerous widely covered cases of someone claiming to have cancer, either as a con game or because they had mental issues, who were subsequently exposed as frauds. Some of those cases had widespread news coverage, as when large sums of money, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars, were collected to treat the "cancer." The cases are hardly unrelated. A Google news archive search for "cancer hoax" reveals (in addition to some phoney cancer cures)  numerous well publicized instances of such hoaxes: .   It seems appropriate to create a Cancer victim hoax article (edited to change "cancer hoax" to "cancer victim hoax.") describing how some people nave imitated cancer patients, shaving their heads and eyebrows and starving themselves to look like they are wasting away, and then collected thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars from kindly strangers, been the beneficiaries of fundraisers, or had collection boxes on store counters, gotten media coverage and thousands of internet posts or get-well cards, gotten off from criminal charges, gotten time off from work, or whatever benefits their scam was set up to gain them. Then a few of the most notorious cases (where there were admissions or convictions) could be included as illustrations. Cancer scares many people, so they are easily taken in by these nutters (edited to add:) mentally challenged persons or crooks.  Edison (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that it is appropriate to refer to people with mental health issues as 'nutters'? If the individuals are or were mentally ill, it is one more reason not to name them. This is not the 17th century, and Wikipedia is not intended to provide some sort of stand-in for tours of Bedlam. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia persons who are annoying or mentally challenged are often called "trolls." Do you object to that? I changed the term to a more politically correct one. Do you object to having an article about the cancer victim hoax rather than a list of those who inflicted it on the public? Edison (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if one could find a way to name a hoax without naming the 'hoaxer', there is still the problem that we are compiling a list of events which individually do not meet general notability guidelines - see my reply to Garrondo below. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There has been reliable secondary coverage of cancer victim hoaxes, such as fake cancer victim email hoaxes. There appears to be the basis for a general article on cancer victim hoaxes. Some are attempts to con people out of money, some just seek to get emails forwarded to many people, others are sad but annoying attempts to get attention.  This would be better than a mere listing of some cases. Edison (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you can find sufficient sources to establish that 'cancer victim hoaxes' as a specific subject merit an article, there is nothing to prevent you writing one. Note though that sources that discuss e-mail hoaxes in general, and merely cite 'cancer victim' ones as instances without suggesting that they are in any way distinctive, are unlikely to be sufficient to meet notability guidelines. If you do find the sources, WP:BLP1E policy etc will of course still apply. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Edison, I have a mental illness, and would prefer not to be called a "nutter", but "mentally challenged" is worse. In the final-year undergraduate course that I am about to finish in number theory and mathematical logic I have received 100% marks in all of my assignments, and am confident of getting close to that in the exam on Friday. Hardly mentally challenged. This is a matter of basic courtesy, not political correctness. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Whist the subject itself may be notable, none of the examples have blue linked articles, they are not notable. For this article to exist it would need notability for each entry similar to that required for a full article, otherwise we are in danger of creating one huge BLPVIO that would make a lot of solicitors very happy and rich.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 06:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Another contributor, removed entries that wikilinked to blue-linked articles from the list. Geo Swan (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * When the article was nominated there were two blue linked articles. One had cancer as a child, and most definitely did not hoax anyone about it. The other was someone who had a tumor. Neither deserved to be in the list.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your description of the original Craig Shergold entry. I don't agree it was about the individual who, thank goodness survived cancer, who had requested strangers send him get-well cards, so he could be named in the Guiness Book of World Records.  That entry in the list was about hoaxes where the hoaxers took the more heart-rending elements of the real boy's story, and altered them, for nefarious purposes, like harvesting addresses for building sucker lists.
 * I accept, at face value, that those who voice concerns like yours, genuinely could not recognize that no one was accusing the real Craig Shergold of being affiliated with a hoax. I re-introduced the entry, where I tried to take your confusion into account, naming the entry after the variants of Shergold's name used in some of the hoax variants: Craig John, Craig Shelford, Craig Shelton Craig Sheford, Craig Sheppard, Craig Sherford, Craig Sherwood.
 * If Shergold is notable enough for a whole article, then how could we be violating his privacy by mentioning him in passing in a paragraph of another article? Geo Swan (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 *  Keep if : if sources are notable and explicitely talk about the cancer NOT being true. The relevancy here would not be marked by an article saying they have cancer, but if there was later an article indicating that this was actually a hoax. If this condition is fullfiled I do not understand howe it can breach BLP policies.Moreover: the individuals do not have to be notable (so they do not need to have an article), notability is about the hoax. If there are refs for the hoaxes they are notable even if the person is completely unknown.--Garrondo (talk) 07:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a long-established Wikipedia principle that inclusion on a 'list of people' requires that the person involved meets notability guidelines. I fail to see how one can separate the 'hoax' from the person involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If I read correctly the list is titled: list of cancer victim hoaxes, so the list is not about the individuals but about the hoaxes. I would say that as a simple rule: if there is a published source on the hoax the hoax is notable, which is quite independent of finding a source for the person being involved in the hoax which may or may not be notable. As an example: we could have a list of (notable) robberies to banks, which does not mean that those that carried them out were notable (some are even unknown, and the robbery is still notable).--Garrondo (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How are you proposing to identify such hoaxes other than by the name of the individual perpetrating them? In any case, per Notability guidelines, we need evidence that coverage of such hoaxes "was not a mere short-term interest" - and I've seen nothing to suggest that individual hoaxes get anything beyond short-term media coverage. And by the way, a single source is very rarely sufficient to establish notability: "Multiple sources are generally expected". Regarding your 'bank robbery' analogy, you will note that we have a List of bank robbers and robberies, which makes clear that only notable instances are included - with the exception of a few redlinks (most of which provide at least some evidence of notability - I'll check the remainder) - this is the norm for lists: see Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists, which makes clear that 'indiscriminate lists' are discouraged. When one takes into account WP:BLP1E policy, it seems evident that any 'List of cancer victim hoaxes' would have to establish notability on very strong grounds - enough that any living individual included as 'hoaxer' would meet notability grounds for an individual article, and the evidence for that simply isn't there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with you regarding notability only being short term... I change to delete unless clear notability is shown.--Garrondo (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump wrote above: "It is a long-established Wikipedia principle that inclusion on a 'list of people' requires that the person involved meets notability guidelines". In a later comment AndyTheGrump seems to be claiming WP:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists is the authority for this claim.  I am sorry to say I believe this is an instance where a policy or guideline is being misinterpreted.  That section of the MOS refers to three different kinds of lists.  (1) Lists where all entries are blue links; (2) lists where none of the entries have blue links; (3) lists that aim to include all elements of a class.  AndyTheGrump's claim that [[WP:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Common selection criteria|

the MOS's Common selection criteria]] prohibits lists like this one is not supported by the MOS itself.
 * Without regard to what the MOS recommends, hybrid lists, where some entries have blue links, and others don't, are common here. I am not aware of any problems with lists that contain both blue links, and notable elements that have (so far) fallen short of the notability sufficient for anyone to have written standalone articles about them.
 * The MOS also contains a subsection devoted to lists of people, which explicitly says: "An exception to this requirement may be made if the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met." I suggest the people on this list, who don't have blue links, are people "famous for a specific event" -- being caught faking cancer.  Geo Swan (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Famous' people are the subject of enduring interest - and the list fails to demonstrate this. The individuals named have received interest from the media for a short while, before fading back into obscurity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, but include only notable entries. If that eliminates the entire list, then delete. Lesion  ( talk ) 20:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: As the article stands, there are now no cases in the list with associated articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Jessica Mydek Geo Swan (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why the fact that you have just created a new article on a single hoax letter should make the slightest bit of difference - I shall of course be proposing it for deletion on the basis that it lacks notability as a subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 *  Keep Convert to non-list article This is a notable topic. RS have commented on what cancer victim hoaxes have in common.
 * Note: Nominator's sole justification was to ask "really?" I'll remind nominator that, on a multinational, multicultural project, nothing is "obvious".  So I strongly encourage them to explicitly state their arguments in future.  Geo Swan (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If this is a 'notable topic', can you cite a source which provides an in-depth analysis of the subject? None of the sources cited in the article appear to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The following book devotes dozens of pages to analyzing what it characterizes as "sympathy hoaxes" -- most of which were cancer hoaxes. It is merely one of many fine references that provide in-depth analysis of the subject.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The source you cite discusses "sympathy hoaxes" as a form of e-mail hoax. It does not appear to consider 'cancer hoaxes' as a specific category. And nor does it appear to discuss non e-mail hoaxes: hence it cannot be said to cover the subject of the entire list - see my comment on synthesis below. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The source you cite discusses "sympathy hoaxes" as a form of e-mail hoax. It does not appear to consider 'cancer hoaxes' as a specific category. And nor does it appear to discuss non e-mail hoaxes: hence it cannot be said to cover the subject of the entire list - see my comment on synthesis below. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete this is a clear WP:BLP1E violation: the living people on this list are not known for anything but being caught out while pretending to have cancer. Given that people who invent serious illnesses often are actually suffering from psychological problems (though I don't know whether this is the case for any of the people listed here) this is a major violation of their right to privacy. I note that Geo Swan, who is the article's creator and primary editor, has a long history of violating WP:BLP1E by creating articles on people held at Guantanamo Bay, and came close to being banned for creating a list of living 'alleged terrorists'. Nick-D (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The individuals on this list engaged in public fund-raising efforts. I suggest this puts them in the class of public figures, who are covered by WP:WELLKNOWN, not WP:BLPPRIVACY.  Major Nidal Malik Hasan the shooter on that military base a few years ago, and Sergeant Robert Bales who went on an unexplained shooting spree in Afghanistan a year or so ago also may have had mental health issues.  Even so, didn't they sacrifice their privacy when they committed their serious and very public crimes?  Similarly, I suggest these individuals sacrificed their privacy when they made their very public acts.
 * Shona Holmes appeared in several television ad campaigns broadcast across the USA. She was representing herself as telling her real life story in those ads, so didn't she sacrifice her privacy -- so she is a public figure, covered by WELLKNOWN?
 * Did Ashley Kirilow sacrifice her privacy when she managed a mailing campaign where sent out blind letters, requesting funds, to celebrities like Tony Hawk the skateboard guy, who responded with a generous donation? Did she sacrifice her privacy when she arranged large fund-raising events where she told large groups of strangers about her life?  Did she sacrifice her privacy when she did everything she could to get the account of her illness on her facebook seen by as many eyes as possible?  I don't think there is any question she did.
 * Jessica Vega also solicited funds and other kinds of donations from strangers -- and willingly appeared on Good Morning America, after her release from jail -- in her case too I suggest this gets her covered by WELLKNOWN.
 * Martha Nichols? Numerous fundraising events were allegedly held in her honour and tens of thousands of dollars were raised to help pay her medical expenses.
 * Note, the hoaxes built around "Jessica Mydek", "Tamara Martin", "Amy Bruce" and "Jonathan Jay White", are built around fictional individuals. Hoaxsters made them up, weaving together the most heart-breaking details they could think of.  You do realize that fictional characters are not covered by BLP, don't you?  Geo Swan (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Ashley Kirilow, it is clear from the sources cited that she was suffering from mental illness at the time of the cancer claims, and had been hospitalised as a result of the illness. Accordingly, I have now removed her from the list, as a violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump asked, at BLPN, for opinions as to whether excising this section really was authorized by BLPN. The last comment on that thread was left yesterday, and says:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * "If something is well known and widely and repeatedly sourced, privacy concerns etc. are moot. WMF says we have to take into account these kind of issues, not that we have to remove everything that vaguely sounds bad about a person. In this case, taking into account this, we can conclude that the amount of coverage of the case is such that we can't talk about privacy anymore."
 * }
 * I think this comment summarizes the weaknesses in the justification for this excision, and since Andy has had a day to reply, and hasn't done so, I think I should feel free to revert that excision. Geo Swan (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not the least surprised that you 'feel free' to selectively quote only people who agree with you to justify your actions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, you went to BLPN, two days ago, and asked those who monitor that fora for confirmation that BLP authorized your excision. Are you disputing that no one there voiced support for your excision?  Are you disputing you were given every opportunity to explain any policy basis behind your excision?  I am sorry if it upsets you, but, after you had explained your justification I think I saw a serious policy misinterpretation in that justification, and I pointed it out to you.  You have not chosen to try to offer any further explanation.  Shouldn't the rest of us see this as a tacit acknowledgment, on your part, that you now realize you did not have a valid BLP justification for this excision, after all?  Geo Swan (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I stand by my actions in raising the matter for comment there. Given the multiple comments regarding WP:BLP1E that have been made in this deletion discussion, I am clearly not alone in considering this of relevance. That nobody uninvolved chose to comment at WP:BLPN is perhaps unfortunate - but I see no reason to see that as an indication that my interpretation of policy is wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * While you are correct that the fact that no one weighed in to support your interpretation does not mean you were incorrect, I suggest serious misinterpretations of policy were pointed out in your position, and you abandoned trying to defend your position, which I believe is a tacit acknowledgment you now recognize your position is indefensible. Indefensible == incorrect.  Geo Swan (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't give a rats arse what you believe. Given the violations of WP:BLP policy that have been identified as present in the article when this AfD started (i.e. naming people involved in 'cancer victim hoaxes' in complete disregard for the facts), your opinion as to what is 'indefensible' clearly doesn't accord with policy. Incidentally, even if you are correct regarding Kirilow (which at this point I do not accept) that doesn't alter the fact that several other living individuals are named on the list, based on a single source. Where is the evidence that these are 'well known' individuals? Nowhere. And nowhere have you provided a source which even suggests that e-mail hoaxes regarding entirely fictitious 'cancer victims' have anything to do with such individuals - this article is a cobbled-together synthesis, rather than encyclopaedic coverage of a legitimate subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't give a rats arse what you believe. Given the violations of WP:BLP policy that have been identified as present in the article when this AfD started (i.e. naming people involved in 'cancer victim hoaxes' in complete disregard for the facts), your opinion as to what is 'indefensible' clearly doesn't accord with policy. Incidentally, even if you are correct regarding Kirilow (which at this point I do not accept) that doesn't alter the fact that several other living individuals are named on the list, based on a single source. Where is the evidence that these are 'well known' individuals? Nowhere. And nowhere have you provided a source which even suggests that e-mail hoaxes regarding entirely fictitious 'cancer victims' have anything to do with such individuals - this article is a cobbled-together synthesis, rather than encyclopaedic coverage of a legitimate subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Claims for the 'real' individuals being 'famous' might be more convincing were it not for the fact that of the seven individuals named, three (Dribble, Maynor and Corcoran) cite a single source, and one other Nicholas cites two - after I found a source that actually stated that she had been convicted. As it stood, the article included her on the basis of an allegation, contrary to WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Shona Holmes, I have asked that a source be provided that states that she claimed to have cancer. So far, none has been given. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of the 2nd Shona Holmes reference says: The 45-year-old divorce mediator stares into the camera and says she would have died waiting for treatment of a brain tumor in her Canadian homeland. The message: Americans will face the same peril if President Barack Obama gets away with his plan to overhaul U.S. health care.
 * The third paragraph of the 3rd Shona Holmes reference says: Holmes, a Canadian living under that country's single-payer system, has said flatly that her brain tumor would have killed her if she'd accepted her fate in Canada – a wait of four months for one specialist and six months for another.
 * The first paragraph of the 7th Shona Holmes reference says: Holmes tells viewers: "I survived a brain tumor. But if I’d relied on my government, I’d be dead. … As my brain tumor got worse, my government health care system told me I had to wait six months to see a specialist. In six months, I would have died.”
 * The third paragraph of the 4th Shona Holmes reference says: Both CNN and McConnell made a big deal out of Shona Holmes, an Ontario woman who claims she was forced by Ontario's health system to go to the United States for life-saving surgery for a brain tumour. Geo Swan (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You appear to be under the misapprehension that all tumors are cancerous - they are not. If the material you have quoted is intended to be sufficient grounds to include Holmes on the list, it seems clear that her inclusion is invalid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep. And I knew this "brain tumor means cancer" bit would likely come up...considering that it seemed to me that Geo Swan was equating "brain tumor" with "cancer." I felt that Andy would correct anyone on that, but I was ready to comment on that matter just in case. Flyer22 (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As for 'fictional characters', I fail to see why the list should include them at all. Many fictional names are used in hoaxes and scams, but that doesn't make the name used of any significance. It is just a name, and the scammers will no doubt use another one when it suits them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Security experts felt it was useful to identify the individual hoaxes using the name to the hoaxsters used in their hoaxed chain letters. Yes, of course hoaxsters could abandoned campaigns written around one fictional character, and create a brand new hoax campaign, written around a differently named fictional character.  And, when they do I think you will find security experts will identify the new hoax by the name of the new fictional character the hoaxsters create.    Security experts do their best to warn the public, and have them be on the lookout for hoaxes, and one of the easiest characteristics to warn the public to look out for with campaigns like the Jessica Mydek campaign is the particular fictional character the campaign was built around.  While there are other clues that can help one recognize a hoax they are more subtle and easy to miss than the name of fictional character the hoax is focused around.  Geo Swan (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that no source for Holmes claiming to have cancer has been provided, I have again removed her from the list: see also Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This HuffPost article mentions a "brain tumor". Brain tumor usually means brain cancer.-- Auric    talk  03:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, no. Not all tumours are cancerous - and I think we'd need a better source than a Huff Post blog written three years after the event anyway. We need a source that directly states that she claimed to have cancer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Since Auric used the word usually, I don't think that he was stating that all tumors are cancerous. But either way, Andy is correct on the matter of tumors (also noted above). Flyer22 (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Without commenting on the list, I will just call attention to a saying or grim joke that is common among medical professionals: "all brain tumors are benign, and all brain tumors are malignant." This does not refer to their cellular nature; it refers to the fact that any brain tumor can kill you (thus "malignant"), but it usually does so fairly quickly, before it has a chance to metastasize to other parts of the body (thus "benign"). In other words the distinction between "cancerous" and "non-cancerous" in a brain tumor is real but pretty much academic. Also: most laypeople use the terms "tumor" and "cancer" interchangeably, so whether or not she uttered the word "cancer" I think it was clearly what she intended people to think. --MelanieN (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If all brain tumours are malignant, even non-cancerous ones, then what she had was equivalent to cancer. It would be original research to claim she intended people to think she had cancer without a reliable source, and that will be hard to come by unless she says so herself. We cannot claim to know what she intended people to think, it would violate BLP. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - BLP nightmare, no evidence of notable coverage of this topic as a whole, and no individual entries are deemed notable. GiantSnowman 13:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is a terrible concept for an article, there isn't a collective thing about lying about cancer. If there are individuals who are otherwise notable (i.e. the article doesn't exist just because they faked having cancer, I certainly hope there's none of that shit floating around the project), then it is worth a mention in their bios.  That's all. Tarc (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Each hoax seem to be decently sourced (if not, well, let's remove the poorly sourced ones); while maybe none of them qualifies for an article, they justify a list of them together. It is a recurring and noteworthy phenomenon. I'd prefer an article about the phenomenon that a mere list of cases, but I see no reason to delete. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Convert to an article; a list is the wrong format for this content. Few or none of the items on the list have their own article or deserve one, but they are sourced enough to be worthy of a paragraph each, in an article called "cancer victim hoaxes" or something similar. As it is, the content is crammed into a list format where it would be better rendered in prose paragraphs. --MelanieN (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thinking about this list further, it seems to me that it is in fact covering two entirely different topics: the first, fictitious hoax e-mails/chain sympathy letters created with the express purpose of defrauding respondents, and the second living individuals who have falsely claimed to be suffering a serious illness. What they have in common of course is that in both cases a false claim of cancer is involved. But does this common factor justify including the two different phenomena in the same list? I would argue not. E-mail hoaxes are of course a legitimate topic for an article - but surely an e-mail hoax/swindle claiming cancer has more in common with a similar e-mail swindle involving another misfortune than it does with what is quite possibly the consequence of Münchausen syndrome in an actual individual. None of the sources cited in the article appear to cover both types of 'hoax', which makes me wonder if the list is in fact effectively synthesis - the combining of two different topics into a single list, based on an assumption supported by none of the sources cited. AndyTheGrump (talk)
 * Keep The topic is notable. In the above comment even the nom. seems to say that it is in fact so significant it should properly be divided into two articles fro amore appropriate coverage. (I think that unnecessary--a cancer victim hoax is where someone pretends to be such, or pretends someone else, real or imaginary, to be such, for whatever purpose: money or politics or desire for notoriety or Münchausen syndrome, or  the primitive desire to be a troll. Exactly as Andy says,"What they have in common ... is that a false claim of cancer is involved.")  As long as there is sufficient information given in the list to indicate the exact circumstances, the list is justified. All that is necessary for an individual to be included is sufficiently unambiguous coverage. Personally, I think all the instances originally given belong here, though Shergold is a special case.  With respect to BLP, we have long ago decided that to call something a fraud when it's abundantly and publicly proven is not a violation of BLP.   DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: Quite aside from the BLP magnet issues properly cited above, I agree it's not particularly encyclopedic. It's a list of otherwise ephemeral people who would not -- and in all but a single case, does not -- qualify for their own articles.  While DGG argues above that the topic is notable, and that's a defensible argument, this is a list article divorced from any discussion of the topic of cancer hoaxing.  (And that being said, what the merry hell is all the fooferaw below doing in an AfD discussion?  Take the side chats to appropriate talk pages.)   Ravenswing   02:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but did you notice that half the entries in this list are about fictional characters made up by hoaxsters? Fictional characters are not "BLP magnets".  I don't think you noticed that hoaxes, like the hoax about fictional "Jessica Mydek", received on-going coverage -- for decades.
 * As for whether the real life individuals in this article are "otherwise ephemeral people who would not ... qualify for their own articles." I've emboldened part of this quote from WP:Lists of people:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * ''A person may be included in a list of people if all the following requirements are met:
 * The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. ''An exception to this requirement may be made if the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met...
 * The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. ''An exception to this requirement may be made if the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met...


 * }
 * Your comment seems to imply that you seem to think every list entry has to be for someone notable enough to merit a separate article. I think your position contradicts our policy, and I point out to you that afd discussions are full of suggestions that while some individuals have notable elements in their life, their notability does not rise to the level of meriting a separate article -- so those notable elements should be incorporated into a more broadly focused article.  Geo Swan (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but did you notice the phrase "famous for a specific event" in the policy quote? Those aren't words that lend themselves to "hoaxer who got bagged by the local newspaper."  (We'll leave aside, for the nonce, the "an exception ... may be made" phrasing, which assuredly doesn't compel us to do anything.)  The very clear implication is that this addresses BLP1E and NOTNEWS concerns; it's not interpretable as a free pass to any conceivable entry. That being said, I'm sorry that you feel that in order for an article to be a BLP magnet, each and every entry has to be liable.  Judging from this AfD discussion, I'm not the only person who rejects such a definition.   Ravenswing   11:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If people think there are individual hoaxes or hoaxers on the list that are not sufficiently notable to merit an entry in the list I suggest the appropriate thing to do would be to suggest removing those specific entries on the talk page, or, if they are really sure everyone will agree with their explanation, they could go ahead and remove those entries, and leave an explanation on the talk page afterwards. So, can we assume you agree that individual hoaxes or hoaxsters who were covered on other continents do belong in this article?  Can we assume that you agree that individual hoaxes or hoaxsters whose coverage is spread across years, or decades, do belong on this list?  Since many entry's coverage was worldwide, or spanned years, or both, doesn't that address your objection to the article?  Geo Swan (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I honestly reject the whole concept of "BLP magnet" as a reason to delete. BLP doesn't ask us to preemptively delete articles on otherwise notable topics because it is conceivable that they can be misused. BLP only asks us to react to such misuse and to minimize the risk of them happening. This is moral panic. -- Cycl o pia talk  12:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that the article has previously included people who haven't participated in 'cancer hoaxes' (Craig Shergold, Shona Holmes), I think that there is nothing 'preemptive' involved... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, yet my reasoning still stands. I'm sure the article on Barack Obama attracts a lot of people who want to defame him, yet we don't delete it because it is a "BLP magnet". That we need editors watching, putting pending changes or even semiprotection by default etc. on these articles is true. That we need to slash and burn them all because sometimes bad things happen, is not. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice straw-man there, but the fact happens to be -- unfortunately for your premise -- that Barack Obama meets every applicable notability standard by leaps and bounds. Almost no item on this list does.   Ravenswing   00:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if you addressed my point, where I asserted that your "delete" opinion seems to be based on a misunderstanding of policy. While policy requires individuals who are the subject of a separate article meet the criteria in the General Notability Guideline, or that they meet the criteria of one of the supplementary notability guidelines, both policy and long-standing tradition support covering the notable elements of individuals or topics that are insufficiently notable for their own individual article into more broadly focused articles.  Geo Swan (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So, Ravenswing, you just acknowledged that "being a BLP magnet" is in no way a good reason to delete. Good. Now we can discuss notability, and the amount of collective sourcing of these cases seems to demonstrate it "by leaps and bounds". -- Cycl o pia talk  14:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a list of people and events that would fail WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS on a good day. The fact that they're in list form makes no difference whatsoever. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E specifically covers whole article subjects, not content within an article. WP:NOTNEWS is also not relevant, given that continuous coverage is demonstrated above. -- Cycl o pia talk  20:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Hoaxes. Perhaps a single sentence entry could be made under types of hoaxes at Hoaxes using the citations in the lead here. --Bejnar (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a list of people most of whom are not notable enough to have their own articles. It serves no other purpose than naming and shaming, and should be deleted both because Wikipedia is not a directory and because of BLP. The combination of non-notable or low notability individuals and a stigmatizing list is a very bad combination, and the protection of the licing individuals should take precedent, leading to deletion of the list. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: Per WP:BLP1E and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Transient newsworthiness does not equal lasting notability. None of the individuals listed are notable for anything else other than their alleged hoaxes. Agree with Maunus that this amounts to nothing more than "naming and shaming". I fail to see any encyclopedic value in that. Not to mention the attendant WP:BLP issues. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as a BLP violation, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, per WP:NOTNEWS, etc. - it's basically an attack page against all the people listed there. Also, looking at the article, I see one bluelinked person, and that's it (possibly two if the person being talked about above isn't currently in the article). Regardless of all this, there isn't even an article on "cancer victim hoax", so this is definitely not required. There is probably a justification for an article on "cancer victim hoaxes", but NOT for this list. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I relisted this as there is a thorough conversation going on, and it doesn't look like there's yet a clear consensus on what to do with this article.  D u s t i *poke* 18:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete per above. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 18:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Shona Holmes and "brain cancer" vs. "brain tumor"

 * Today, AndyTheGrump and Flyer22, questioned whether I understood that, technically, the term "tumor" is applied to growths that aren't malignant cancer. Actually, I do know this.  I had it confirmed when I took the time to re-read various things when this article was nominated for deletion.


 * I researched Holmes case extensively. I don't remember coming across a single instance in the written record where anyone wrote "Holmes never claimed to have "cancer", she merely claimed to have had a "brain tumor"".  Rather I found much of the coverage of her story, from both those using her case to oppose reform of the US health care system, and those challenging her credibility, conflated these two terms as if they were synonymous.


 * I don't normally do YouTube, due to its insecurity, and usually rely solely on written references. I did not, until today, listen to the YouTube links to interviews with her.  When I listened to one of her interviews on Fox, it starts with the handsome interviewer correcting himself, for a teaser he had made before a commercial break, where he referred to Holmes having "brain cancer".  Apparently, during the commercial break, someone, maybe Holmes, or her agents, or maybe his producers, had corrected him, so he corrected himself and said her story was that she had had a "brain tumor", not "brain cancer".


 * I listened to half a dozen YouTube clips, where she stayed on message, and described her condition as a "brain tumor".


 * However, if you look into her case, you will find lots of medical experts who go on record that what Holmes actually had -- the Rathke's cleft cyst -- is not only not a malignant cancer, it is not a tumor either. A cleft lip has in common with the Rathke's cleft cyst that it is a result of a mistake in fetal development, in utero.  People who have one have had it all their lives.  Asymptomatic cysts are, apparently extremely common.  Asymptomatic cysts are found during autopsies are typically 2mm in diameter or less -- the size of a poppy seed.  Doctors don't know why some individual cysts fill with ordinary cerebrospinal fluid.  No expert describes these sacs as "tumors".  I suggest that Holmes, her agents, and those opponents of health care reform who spent millions to produce and broadcast the advertizement that Holmes appeared in should be treated with skepticism -- even if they were disciplined enough to not refer to her condition as a form of cancer.  It wasn't cancer, and it wasn't a tumor either.


 * Should this case be listed as a cancer hoax? Holmes, and her handlers were careful to refrain from referring to her case as a cancer case.  On the other hand coverage of the case was handled in a way so practically all listeners and readers assumed she had claimed to have cancer.


 * My inclusion of her in this list was a good faith mistake, was not due to my not understanding that tumor doesn't always mean cancer, and was based on the good faith confusion of reporters who misunderstood her story and reported she said she had cancer. Having listened to her being interviews, where she was careful to only use the term "brain tumor" I won't argue she should be on this list -- even though her claim to have had a tumor is also at odds with the proper use of medical terms.


 * Another contributor wrote above that Holmes wasn't participating in a hoax, if she didn't make any money. For what it is worth Holmes has gone on record that neither the specific group who spent millions on the advertizements built around her account of her experience with Canadian health care, or any elements of the US health insurance sector, ever paid her any money.  However, I disagree that someone has to make money to be part of a hoax.  Some hoaxster are motivated by other motives, like revenge, or to cause chaos, or to achieve a political goal.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Medical "hoaxers" are rare, and many are actually suffering from a serious mental illness:  . Falsifying illness itself is classed as a mental disorder (see Factitious disorder and the references at the top such as ). There are major BLP issues with this article as a result: we shouldn't be publicizing the identities of people who's only reason for fame is due to mental illness. Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, Nick-D is right - the list as it stands is 'naming and shaming' individuals who may well have been mentally ill. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware (I have not researched it well) Holmes cannot go on this list because she never claimed to have cancer. She was not a cancer victim hoaxer. She had a medical condition for which she could not get treatment in Canada, and got publicity for that. To claim she is a hoaxer, and then say "Some hoaxster(s) are motivated by other motives, like revenge, or to cause chaos, or to achieve a political goal." implies she was acting dishonestly, and has BLP issues.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If she had a cleft cyst, but made a huge public point of claiming she had a tumor, she was a hoaxer. That is not "implying" she was acting dishonestly, it is SAYING that she was making untrue statements... for whatever reason. (If she had said "I can't get medical treatment for my cleft cyst," it would not have been a hoax - but she didn't, she said "tumor".) However, per the hair-splitting here she was a medical hoaxer but not a CANCER hoaxer. Apparently she was well coached by her political handlers to use the (incorrect) "T" word but avoid the "C" word. --MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump, the concern you voice here for those who may have mental health issues is wildly inconsistent with the disrespectful way you voice challenges to the mental health of those who disagree with you in wiki discussions. On User talk:AndyTheGrump I asked you to reconcile the claims you have made here, that we have to respect the difficulties faced by those with mental health issues, with your characterization that those you disagree with are utterly insane or out of their f*cking minds.  If we take seriously your claims here that you respect the difficulties faced by those with mental health issues then those derisive comments are intolerable.  If we don't take your claims that you really respect the difficulties faced by those with mental health issues seriously then how seriously do you want us to take the rest of your arguments?.  Geo Swan (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please confine comments to the topic at hand - whether this list should be deleted or kept. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nick-D, you are a big participant in the military wikiproject, aren't you? I suggested above that speculation about the cancer hoaxers mental health, and deciding they shouldn't be covered due to that speculation, would be equivalent to deciding not to cover Major Nidal Malik Hasan and Sergeant Robert Bales, due to speculation they had mental health issues.  Personally I have sympathy for the  speculation about the mental health of that Anders guy, in Scandinavia, who killed almost 100, and about several recent killers in the USA.  But should our personal speculation that subject's have mental health issues play any role in whether we cover them?  If I am following your reasoning here, isn't your apparent desire to protect the reputation of these hoaxers, based on speculation, largely, well WP:Original research?  Isn't it at odds with our decisions to cover those killers, even if RS have speculated about their mental health?
 * This is NOR-abuse.
 * NOR applies to making statements as part of articles. We couldn't add a line to the article saying "this person has a mental health issue".  It doesn't apply to editorial decisions; taking something out of the article because the person has a mental health issue is legitimate. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:CRIMINAL says: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." No one is trying to start a separate article about any of those individuals today.  The general principle of BLP1E is that people associated with a single event or phenomenon, who are not notable enough for a separate article, should be covered in an article on the event or phenomenon -- which is what we have here.  Geo Swan (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The 'event or phenomenon' described in each of the instances in the list lacks sufficient notability to merit an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In this comment, left an hour after the comment immediately above, you seem to be acknowledging that a list of "fictitious hoax e-mails/chain sympathy letters created with the express purpose of defrauding respondents" did merit an article. Well -- hoaxsters creating a e-mail/chain letter to defraud people -- that would be a phenomenon.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is entirely possible for a general topic to merit an article, and none of the individual instances contained in a list to do so. Which is what I argued. And note that the 'topic' I suggested merited an article was e-mail hoaxes in general - not e-mail hoaxes involving supposed cancer victims. You have failed to provide a source that demonstrates that these are in any way more than a particular instance of a more general phenomenon, meriting special coverage. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In regards to Geoswan's above comment, I don't think that's a legitimate comparison at all. Both those two people have caused events which had substantial political effects (including on the international relations of the United States in the case of Robert Bales) and attracted long-lasting and substantial coverage in reliable sources around the world. You can't compare such prominent cases to short-lived and largely insubstancial media attention provided to unfortunate people who pretended to have cancer for whatever reason, and such people shouldn't be named and shamed in Wikipedia articles. Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * With regard to "substantial", isn't this determination a judgment call? No offense, but isn't your determination coverage of individuals like Kirilow is not substantial a determination that someone else could challenge, and call an instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on your part?  Kirilow is the adult hoaxster with whom I am most familiar, and I strongly disagree that she did not attract "long-lasting and substantial coverage in reliable sources around the world."  Kirilow's case did trigger world-wide coverage.  Below you'll find 10 links to RS coverage of Kirilow's case in the non-English press.  Kirilow's case did trigger long-lasting coverage. Below you will find 12 links to RS coverage of Kirilow's case more than a year after she was outed.  Jessica Vega, another living hoaxster I spent some time looking into this week, appeared on Good Morning America, and this google search may show coverage of her story was both world-wide and continuing, not a flash-in-the-pan.  Geo Swan (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Ganó miles de dólares tras fingir cáncer"
 * "Løj sig kræftsyg og scorede kassen: Canadisk kvinde, der lod som om, hun havde kræft, snød folk for over 100.000 kroner"
 * "Apgavikų arsenale – ir mirties šešėlis"
 * "Na Facebooku vylákala z lidí tisíce: Lhala, že má rakovinu!"
 * "末期がん偽る募金詐欺、頭剃ってフェースブックに カナダ"
 * "Facebook-Schwindlerin verhaftet: Ashley (23) hatte gar keinen Krebs"
 * "A strâns mii de dolari după ce s-a ras pe cap şi şi-a smuls genele"
 * "Păcălea oamenii spunând că are cancer"
 * "Les femmes de la semaine"
 * "Acusada de fraude una joven que ganó miles de dólares tras fingir que padecía cáncer"
 * Kirilow's fraud was exposed in August 2010, the references in this list show her crime was considered sufficiently substantial that she continued to receive on-going coverage.
 * 2011-08-03 Both the Crown and the defence took more than an hour to argue reasons behind their recommendation for no jail time, citing Kirilow's mental state and her increasing need to seek attention after a troubled upbringing where she was shuffled between the homes of her separated parents and her grandparents for years.
 * 2011-10-13 Ashley Kirilow to face shoplifting charges
 * 2011-10-14 But Ashley is more psychiatric patient than criminal. And like so many others with mental health issues, she has firmly wedged herself into a system where it is quicker and easier to get inside a jail cell than a psychiatrist’s office.
 * 2011-10-14 Maybe Kirilow didn't get the help she needs
 * 2011-10-22 Ashley Kirilow, the 24-year-old Burlington woman who received a 15-month conditional sentence in April for a fraud involving her faking cancer, was sentenced to one day of jail after pleading guilty Friday to theft under $5,000.
 * 2011-11-10 Judge firm but gentle with Kirilow: Convicted fraud artist gets 30 more days in jail
 * 2012-02-08 Kirilow appears in court for breach
 * 2012-02-08 Cancer faker Ashley Kirilow appeared briefly in a Milton courthouse Monday for allegedly breaching her probation a second time.
 * 2011-12-06 Canada saw a wave of cancer fraudsters this year, including their photogenic queen, Ashley Kirilow of Burlington, Ont., who was convicted of raising $12,000 from unsuspecting marks.
 * 2011-12-11 Nicholas isn't the only person to have allegedly faked cancer for financial gain. In 2010, Ashley Kirilow, a Canadian woman, pleaded guilty to one count of fraud after she lied about having cancer to raise money, according to CBC News.
 * 2012-01-05 There is always the possibility of abuse of Internet fundraising, as evidenced by the case of Ashley Kirilow of Burlington, Ontario, who in 2010 faked having cancer and used a Facebook page to help raise thousands of dollars.
 * 2012-03-01 Cancer faker Ashley Kirilow jailed for latest breach

Removal of sections based on assertions of lapses from BLP
Another contributor left a comment, above, that they removed the article's coverage of Ashley Kirilow's case, on BLP grounds. While that contributor informed us here, that heads-up is buried in the middle of this discussion, where it could easily be overlooked.

Another contributor started an article on Ashley Kirilow, back in August 2010, when her story first came to light. That article was nominated for deletion a couple of weeks later. I am going to quote User:Sandstein's delete comment in Articles for deletion/Ashley Kirilow quoted blp1e and went on to say: "This means that this event can be covered in the context of an article about scams against charities, even if that article has yet to be written, but not as a BLP."

The contributor who made the excision did leave a comment on Talk:List of cancer victim hoaxes, and I asked them to quote the passage from BLP whose authority they were calling upon.

The phrase "naming and shaming" has been used to justify removing coverage of cases like that of Kirilow. That characterization overlooks key reasons why coverage of Kirilow's case is not just beating up on someone who appears to have mental health issues.

I am sure other hoaxsters used facebook and other computer tools in their hoaxes, prior to Kirilow, but, for various reasons, it was Kirilow's that really captured the attention of the Canadian public, the Canadian press, and the legitimate Canadian charity sector. There was considerable speculation that Canadian's strong revulsion over Kirilow's use of computer tools like facebook and mailing lists in her fraud would frighten potential donors to legitimate Canadian charities from making online donations. Geo Swan (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Why do you think that Sandstein's comment in particular merits discussion here? As for the remainder of your comments, once again you are making assertions without the necessary citations to back them up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Because Sandstein, an experienced administrator, endorsed the position that while Kirilow wasn't notable enough to merit a separate article, notable elements of her story could be incorporated into relevant articles. You haven't really explained why you think you were justified in deleting this section.  And I quoted an uninvolved third party recognized, three years ago, that it made sense to incorporate elements of Kirilow's story into other relevant articles.


 * Please bear in mind that the extra protections we give to private individual, who end up participating in a notable single event by accident don't apply to WP:WELLKNOWN people. Kirilow, and the other people on this list, made every effort they could to become WP:WELLKNOWN.  Geo Swan (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Judging by the lack of sources, regardless of whether Kirilow is 'well known' or not, the others clearly aren't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 16 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,  D u s t i *poke* 18:05, 16 June 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.