Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cancer victim hoaxes: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:26, 6 June 2013

List of cancer victim hoaxes

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

WP:N. List of cancer hoaxes, really? AldezD (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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? öBrambleberry of RiverClan 22:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
Note: I've alerted WP:MED to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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: [1]. It seems appropriate to create a Cancer hoax article 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 or crooks. Edison (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.Martin451 (talk) 06:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 * '''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. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 04:10, 6 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 [http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2009/05/01/melaniechen.html 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: [http://www.google.com/search?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&tbm=nws&gl=us&as_q=cancer%20hoax&as_occt=any&as_drrb=a&tbs=ar%3A1&authuser=0].  It seems appropriate to create a [[Cancer hoax]] article 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 or crooks.  [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk: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 [[Bethlem Royal Hospital#Public visiting|Bedlam]]. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 13:26, 6 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.[[w:User:Martin451|Martin'''<font style="color:#FB0">4</font><font style="color:#F00">5</font><font style="color:#F60">1</font>''']] ([[w:User talk:Martin451#top|talk]]) 06:31, 6 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.--[[User:Garrondo|Garrondo]] ([[User talk:Garrondo|talk]]) 07:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)