Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Breast Cancer Foundation

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 keep‎. ✗plicit 14:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

United Breast Cancer Foundation

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No significant coverage can be found for this organization. What news can be found is either in the form or press releases, or negative coverage about their questionable fundraising practices and costs. But even then, they are not especially notable as a bad charity; it's just that that is the only thing they are even minorly notable for. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Medicine, Maryland, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google News search suggests that the group is notable. Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Criminal_acts may be relevant. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is doubtful that Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Criminal_acts is relevant. UBCF has received coverage as a "bad charity", but only in the context that there are many bad charities, and UCBF is one of them. No coverage about their poor fundraising practices has focused solely on them and any particularly heinous criminal act. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, we could build a case for notability. They do charitable things [1] and have a somewhat questionable public image [2]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Appears to be just enough to pass GNG [[3]][[4]] User:Let'srun 21:28, 27 July 2023 (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.