Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlene McMann (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. The discussion is insufficient for informed consensus: On the keep side, many assert notability but do not argue why the subject is notable or indeed make any argument at all. On the delete side, many cite WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE but do not link to any place where a deletion request by the subject might be documented; or argue why the subject is not notable. I recommend a renomination after some time with a discussion that is more focused on the underlying question of notability. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is only useful as a tie-breaker in case there is no consensus about notability, but the request would need to be documented.  Sandstein  14:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charlene McMann

Charlene McMann (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)

Article is about a person, while doing admirable work in raising money for cancer research does not seem to meet the WP:GNG for notability. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This article reads more like a resume or LinkedIn page. While alluding to notability, there is nothing substantive enough to establish it or really justify an encyclopedia entry. In light of the notability and BLP issues present in this article, I say delete it. -- John Reaves 16:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE amongst other things, as documented on ANI and elsewhere. I don't mind articles being kept with a cursory amount of sourcing provided WP:BLP is being met, but when the coverage begins to become severely negative, we should take a different stance. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, only because restoring proper balance to the article makes me feel icky, but we cannot maintain a hagiography for someone who indisputably stole money from a charity. Marginally notable, so willing to defer to WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, but the hypocrisy and emotional blackmailing by the subject's alleged friend doesn't sit well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am mostly in agreement with Floquenbeam. One thing to note is subject also goes by the name of "Charlene McMann-Seaman", and has written a book on surviving cancer. It would also appear she hosted a TV show on a weekly basis, but I have no idea how long the show lasted? [1] --Cahk (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have seen nothing to change my mind since I nominated this for deletion five years ago.—Chowbok ☠ 17:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's should be obvious, though, that if this article is kept, the information about the arrest be restored.—Chowbok ☠ 22:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: It should be restored now. As in right this second. That it isn't there is insulting. --Tarage (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obviously per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE - the sooner this is deleted, the better, in my opinion. --Ches (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral; the page either needs to stay with all its information or needs to go. The sources seem to be there for notability(barely) but the cited request policy would seem to be relevant here. We can't give in to legal threats and keep the page without her conviction (where apparently she pleaded guilty so I'm not sure what the source of all the trouble is) which may be what the user doing the removal of it wants, but deleting the whole page seems a reasonable compromise, even if the notability is there to keep it. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the comment below by Jbhunley, I would tend to want this kept until/unless a proper request is made, as we should not give in to legal threats and this person seems notable enough for a page. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with the above, especially that we should delete the article if it can't demonstrate notability and neutrality without the contested parts. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This subject has received significant recognition in reliable sources both before and after the criminal conviction as easily evidenced by simple googling, the article's been around since 2010 without issue and when nominated for deletion before the consensus was a unanimous "keep". The extensive news coverage since then, regarding the criminal issues moves this further from "marginal" notability than it was even before. Now that it's been updated with well-sourced, non-contentious information about a criminal conviction we're in a rush to delete it because someone claims "she's suicidal and it's Wikipedia's fault". BLP requires strict application of policies and guidelines, not fearfully nuking whole articles so we don't have to include negative content, just because the subject is upset that the information is included. Sheesh. The may be the worst case of BLP-creep-induced hysteria and censorship I've ever witnessed. Swarm ♠ 23:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - as a deletionist and per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. This article should have been deleted the first time around. Everyone wants articles about themselves or their friends when things are going good, but the instant negative press occurs suddenly they want privacy and think they're no longer notable enough. Part of me wants to keep this just to prove that point, but that would be POINTY I guess. Just delete this as a correction to a past mistake. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - This is certainly an uncomfortable situation, although I believe that deleting this on the basis of the legal threat could set a bad precedent and perhaps even lead to a chilling effect. As it stands, the article is too promotional and CV-like, and while the disputed content (ironically) adds to notability, I also cannot agree with excluding this well-sourced material. I think 331dot has made a solid point overall. GAB^Hello! 01:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As the original patroller who made the reverts, and subsequent reports here and on ANI, I feel the edit pattern of the user is consistent with pressure tactics that cannot be reconciled as a 'friend' in distress. I know I can be wrong, but if Wikipedia is to remove negative information simply because 'friends' demand it, I feel Wikipedia would have lost its purpose.--Cahk (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's not a massive amount of notability here; also, the article claims that she is still "co-founder and Chief Executive Officer of the Chicago Blood Cancer Foundation, a non-profit committed to curing lymphoma, leukemia, and myeloma", an organization which appears not to exist any more, which was only mentioned in the part of the article that was removed. If consensus is to not delete this, the part about her conviction needs to be restored, or otherwise the article is simply an unbalanced hagiography. Laura Jamieson (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia should not and must not bow to editor threats. --Tarage (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It seems the article in its whitewashed state is below the bar for notability, but coverage of the criminal proceedings do seem enough to tip the balance in favour of notability; I feel that the hagiographic version also serves to prevent the article seeming like a WP:BLP1E violation—the subject isn't known solely for one thing, just most prominently for it. GRAPPLE ^X 12:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think it would be helpful if I went into more depth about the sources and explain why I'm sticking with !voting delete:

A news search right now brings back the Chicago SunTimes, WQAD and NBC Chicago sources covering the arrest, and a cursory bit about the book as mentioned above.

Three things strike me as being insufficient to make a WP:BLPCRIME article stick. Firstly, they're local sources, not national. No New York Times, no USA Today. Okay, the Sun-Times has got the 8th highest circulation in the US, but it's still a bit of a red flag that this is not a major national news story that deserves a footnote in the history of all human knowledge. In particular, what does strike me as odd is that the headline doesn't even mention her by name, merely describing her as a "west Chicago woman", finally getting round to naming her in the second paragraph. How much more "not really that notable actually" do you want? Secondly, the sources seem to all be repeating the same press release from the court, which is pretty typical for these sorts of reports, and we generally discourage writing something that cites effectively the same source multiple times.

Thirdly, there's not the sustained news coverage that I would expect from a genuine BLPCRIME article. Now compare and contrast this article with Adam Johnson (footballer) who's mugshot was all over The Sun and The Daily Mirror when I popped into the local shops this morning over the rather more severe charge of child rape. As you can see, there is an impeccably sourced three-paragraph section with sources spanning the past month, including heavyweights such as The Guardian, The Independent and BBC News, all of which are unquestionably about him directly and name him straight up in the headline ( i.e.: "Adam Johnson this...", "Adam Johnson that....", "Adam Johnson the other...."). THAT is the sort of coverage I want to see before I think about including serious criminal activity in BLPs. If you spin back a year or two, you should find that we were well behind the broadsheets, let alone the tabloids, in documenting the full extent of Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris abuse scandals, and by the time they deserved a place in Wikipedia, they weren't really telling anyone anything they didn't already hear about from anywhere else. That's nowhere near what we've got here - I suspect if I got a room full of you and said "hands up everyone who heard of Charlene McMann" outside the recent dramafest?" not too many hands would be going up.

Sorry, but disregarding everything that's happened on ANI (and we should as it's not really relevant for an AfD debate after all) this looks like a typical WP:BLP1E, not much different from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Stierch (2nd nomination) all things considered. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As has been said elsewhere, if the subject was notable before, then this would NOT make her less so. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  17:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment BLPREQUESTDELETE is only applicable if the subject of the biography makes the request. There is no OTRS ticket linked here saying the requesting account is the BLP subject nor do they represent themself as such but rather as a "friend". Until and unless the request is made by the subject and the requestor is verified BLPREQUESTDELETE should have no bearing. Jbh^Talk 19:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Notice than I am not “voting” to keep or delete. I just want to bring up something that we should keep in mind when examining cases like this one. It is the statistical concept of “Selection bias”. If we keep deleting “borderline notable” BLPs that have “soured” (conviction, scandal, job loss, etc.) then we would be introducing “Selection bias” into BLPs. In this case, Wikipedia would be giving a “rosier” picture of society than it is in reality. Wikipedia should reflect society in a truthful and unbiased way. Tradedia^talk 02:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There appears to be inside conversations and potential animus based upon in the back and forth between editors. Objectively, it appears that notability is lacking in the first instance and the article exists solely as an attack piece. This is not appropriate for an online encyclopedia. A clear delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Followthefortunes2016 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Why hello there, mysterious new editor whose only other contribution is also related to the subject of this article. GRAPPLE ^X 20:18, 11 March 2016 (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.