Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlene McMann (3rd 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. There is a fair argument for the only claim to notability being the BLP1E issue of the conviction. But a) after an extended debate there is no consensus on this point; and b) this is essentially a replica of the preceding debate from last month. A "no consensus" result does not preclude a subsequent nomination, but please wait a credible amount of time in order for a new consensus to evolve. Otherwise we will be repeating this discussion, with the same result, ad nauseum. Euryalus (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Charlene McMann
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was started as a PR piece by the subject's husband, but escaped deletion - his article,, did not. Neither did his other article. For most of its life this article has been differently wonderful, laden with peacock terms and sourced to YouTube videos and the like. The first real sources covering the subject turn out to be about her defrauding the charity, and she has fought tenaciously to water down any coverage of that.

In the end this is someone who ran a minor charity, engaged in a lot of self-promotion and over-entitled behaviour, got caught, and is now back to being an average Jane. I think that an article on the charity and its demise might be supportable, but a biography on a minor one-time criminal, which is what this is, seems to me to be a very bad idea. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Given the last AfD only closed 3 weeks ago, I wonder if it is likely that we will achieve a consensus this time around? --Cahk (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and speedy reject: Seriously? I'm pretty sure a felony is not a minor crime. It's far too soon to be having this discussion, and again, I am against bowing to the legal demands of editors. --Tarage (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. We have two sources about the charity which are marginal at best—I think it's reaching a bit to call this "significant coverage"—and a few news articles on her sentencing, all of which seem to be the attorney general's press release lightly rearranged. The embezzlement alone would absolutely not meet the WP:CRIM guideline; I don't think adding the minimal coverage of the charity pre-scandal really makes this a notable biography. (Contra the previous poster, in the 21st Century, the range of crimes classified "felonies" is so broad as to confer no particular distinction; might I suggest we consider the question of the article's notability strictly on its merits, rather than making this some kind of demonstration of You Can't Threaten Us?) Choess (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as I said at the AfD a few weeks ago. If the furore about the sockpuppetry and Ms McMann wanting the article removed did not exist, this would be a simple delete on notability grounds. Laura Jamieson (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This has nothing to do with the sockpuppetry and all behind this, but the simple fact that Ms. McCann does not seem to meet the standards for notability. This was my reason in the previous AfD, and it remains still. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per my last vote and the first time I nominated this. I do sympathize with the viewpoint that we shouldn't bow to threats, but keeping an article on that basis alone is kinda pointy.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  14:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: If we're only going to have another AfD discussion in a month or so if this results in an NC or a keep which seems to be reason we're here again, why not bow to the pressure of McMann and the socks and just delete the thing now and get it over with. After thinking long and hard on this one and checking out the information about more than two AfD nominations and how extremely rare this procedure should be, I agree with Liz below. The first AfD was a keep which IMO SHOULD have ended it, (notability is not temporary re: WP:GNG) the second was an NC. I realize it is bad publicity for the subject and there are extenuating circumstances pressures to bin the article (various threats and the like)... but enough is enough. She was clearly notable in 2011 being a Jefferson Award winner in addition to her office with the charity and with the felony conviction of multiple (<-THIS is what I believe would negate the BLP1E claim as this happened over two years) abuses of that office to the tune of over $40,000, she is not less notable now. We have more important things to do. I have a difficult time with the argument that this was a minor charity. Over $2 million had been raised, hardly a minor amount of money. Regards,    Aloha27   talk  18:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure this Jefferson Award is a local thing like a local emmy in her case -- not really that special in terms of notability. This debate reminds me of Articles for deletion/Howard Press (3rd nomination) (2009).  Howard's son wrote an article about him, and it was teetering, but then some enemies of his dad, or really friends (or children of friends) of his dad's enemy who had saved them in Nazi Germany in the 1940s (no joke!), descended on the article to add cites about some criminal convictions.  Finally the son rightfully begged to delete the article unless his mother commit suicide over the whole thing.  Just so here.  She's a two bit criminal, frankly, people embezzle money all the time, its not an unusual crime conferring notability.  In her work, she was simply a competent professional, aimed at brushing her credentials.  I am a super inclusionist, but articles like this one really hurt nonbodies who thought they were somebody.  So I beg anyone reading this to listen to this evil inclusionsist, and let Charlene go.  See also Articles for deletion/Darrin McGillis (2010); Articles for deletion/Louis J. Posner (2014).--Milowent • hasspoken  04:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Milo, you have voiced your opinion below.I'm not sure that expressing it again over top of others (a la Dr.Chrissy [here]is helpful. I would suggest cutting your further argument above and pasting it where your vote is below. Regards,   Aloha27   talk  12:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I put it there because I sensed your !vote is important to the outcome of this discussion. I can only hope you and others will consider my points.--Milowent • hasspoken  13:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Be VERY careful here Milo. VERY careful indeed. You've been around more than long enough to know that you're real close IMO to violating WP:CANVASS, if you haven't already done so. I am also having a difficult time with the possible confirmed (and blocked) latest McMann sockpuppet  attempting to put an edit here in your comment. Coincidence? Perhaps, but it also seems clear to me that you have a dog in this fight given your repeated rebuttals of others' opinions. In addition, I have a serious problem with the fact at the latest sockpuppet account was created at 13:19, your last edit was at 13:31 and the sockpuppet posted in your message at 14:02. Sock also posted at 15:45 on another talk page. If you have a COI here, now would be the time to 'fess up. DUCK? Regards,    Aloha27   talk  14:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Be VERY careful..."? lol, please be assured I am not socking nor canvassing for this poor ass woman. I go on rants at times when I see something I believe is going wrong, I used to be active in AFD but am rarely in this neck of the woods these days.  If people think some puffery and a local award + a felony conviction make her notable, she's arguably getting what she deserves.  But she's also a non-notable human being now stuck with the first google result for her lifetime being her conviction.--Milowent • hasspoken  23:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG - Chicago Sun-Times, NBC, Fox all in the references. Unused references include the Daily Herald and The Examiner.  Radio host and author.  In 2011 there was a KEEP AfD, and this was before there was the additional notability of the criminal activity. WP:CRIME does not apply, as the notability was granted for the work as a philanthropist before any accusation .  Scr ★ pIron IV 20:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No amount of repetition of facts in news reports turns the information into secondary source information. Lots of newspapers saying the same thing points to WP:NOTNEWS.  I examined the sources, and did further source searching, and they don't meet the GNG.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But might you lean towards refactoring as an article about the (short-lived) charity? That is, after all, the context for all the coverage. I'm mindful here that the pre-conviction article, as written by her husband, was blatant promotion (in fact I would have acceptef a WP:CSD if it had been so tagged). Guy (Help!) 22:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment The 1st AfD resulted in Keep, the 2nd was No consensus and, if anything, McMann is more notable than she was in 2011 when this article was kept. I also don't like follow-up AfDs, hot on the heels of an earlier AfD, that seeks a different resolution. Liz  Read! Talk! 23:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've made some minor adjustments to the citations. I should also mention an AIV thread is in parallel to this Afd.--Cahk (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep on procedural grounds as we just had a discussion on this; Keep on the merits as the sources seem to be there and further we should not cave to legal threats made in this case. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But should the article be about the charity, rather than a biography? That would be much less problematic, IMO. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If that would help, I could live with it, but I think she is more notable than the charity, though admittedly I probably don't know everything about the charity. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would add that if she made a proper request for the article to be removed(as stated in the previous AfD) I could live with that as well- but this person seems to only be interested in legal threats(and has been blocked for said threats). 331dot (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: The only thing she is notable for is the crime, which is BLP1E. As for other comments - "I'm pretty sure a felony is not a minor crime." If everyone convicted of a felony was notable, get ready for 10 million new articles overnight.  Even much more reported on criminals like Articles for deletion/William Swanberg (2nd nomination) (2009) get deleted.  If there is an article on blood cancer fundraising charities as a topic, perhaps this minor sordid affair can be mentioned once. --Milowent • hasspoken  03:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete If the "now-defunct Chicago Blood Cancer Foundation" is not sufficiently notable to warrant an article, the only reason to have an article on a co-founder is to highlight the conviction. There is no prospect of developing the article and key biographical information is unlikely to ever be available. Given that Wikipedia is not a directory of convictions (and WP:BLP1E), there is no encyclopedic purpose to this article. Johnuniq (talk) 07:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's true now, originally the purpose was to build her personal brand (her husband started the article and most of the edits have been rather obviously connected). Guy (Help!) 09:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep While she wasn't notable when she was promoting the article herself, now that she has been convicted of a crime major enough to hit the mainstream media, she has become notable. I'd say congratulations to her, her article has become notable, as she initially desired. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:BASIC (pretty significant coverage if we combine all the sources) and WP:ANYBIO (recipient of a notable award) Rentier (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Sadly lots of people get convicted of embezzlement, or taking kickbacks. There are currently 13 Detroit Public Schools (my primary employer) employees indicted on charges of taking kickbacks. McMann's contributions on the cancer fight are minor and do not rise to the level of making her notable. The additional information on the embezlement guilty plea does not move her from being a non-notable local voice in anti-cancer research fundraising to somehow being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The last discussion closed "no consensus since people were not really discussing the right issues", so to keep on procedural grounds makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Looking at the original deletion discussion it did not close as keep because of any good arguments, but because of weak ones that actually argue for deletion. One is "the local NBC affiliate is a source" which to me sounds like "only local coverage, not enough to pass GNG". Another is "we have articles on porn stars and athletes, we should have ones on philanthropists as well", which does not in any way address notability arguements and amounts to "other stuff exists". We should not let weak articles on living people sit around because they were allowed to sit around 5 years ago. Wikipedia has too many promotional articles on living people and too few on historical people who actually had significant impacts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact that her husband started the article should make us more likely to delete it. We have stringent guidelines on creating articles on yourself or immediate family members because doing so is normally a form of unmerited promotion and also because it leads to even worse systemic over-coverage of some areas (read the US) and undercoverage of other areas (read Uzbekistan, Bolivia, Mali and the Democratic Republic of the Congo). If we are serious about combating systemic inequities in coverage we will delete all borderline articles created by relatives.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - After a spin around the Google, I find the BLP-1E argument to be compelling. Take that away and this is a GNG fail. Carrite (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Jefferson Award for Public Service sounds like a pretty big deal. The "Nobel Prize for Public Service", they call it. The conviction just adds to the notability. Rentier (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In the WP piece McMann is only listed as one of about 75 members of the "Board of Selectors." The piece notes there are national Jefferson Awards, which seem to be a big deal, and local awards, which do not. In searching CHARLENE MCMANN + JEFFERSON AWARD, I do easily find THIS published source of presumed reliability dealing substantially with the subject (NBC Channel 5, Chicago), which combined with the copious coverage of the legal issues does seem to get us to the "multiple" sources we need to pass GNG. So I will strike and start again. Carrite (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - per the above, passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no evidence she won a national award (she is not listed on the Jefferson Award for Public Service article) -- it appears to be a local version, a nice thing but one of many such awards any community has, and the linked article says she was a "finalist" for it, so its not even clear what she won. Her puffery of her self-worth should not deceive us now that she's also a felon.--Milowent • has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  13:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not the award itself, it is coverage related to the award — which when combined with the legal matter defeats the BLP-1E argument, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, she did win the award in 2008. NBC 5 News--Cahk (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Cahk, thanks for that link. But there's no evidence this is the national award, correct?  The channel of that youtube channel is "JeffersonAwardsChicago".  This video on the same channel  says she was one of five people to be honored, and NBC5 (Chicago) (the source of the video) hosted the awards.  They aren't independent of them.  And at the end of that video, the host forgets who won it (lol), and correct himself to say it was Charlene. But it seems to be a local award only.  And other than NBC5's obligatory coverage as the sponsor, I'm not finding any Chicago news outlet coverage of her winning the award.  Indeed, I've searched the archives of the Chicago Tribune and can't find that they've ever mentioned Charlene McMann, which is highly unusual if she is a notable figure in that city.  The Sun Times did cover her conviction plea-deal in one article, but that's it. (And a one sentence blurb in the Sun Times in 2010 noted that she was chairing the 2010 event.) (You know these videos we cite were uploaded in 2013, five years after Charlene won, I bet she helped get them uploaded.) Typically when I'm trying to save articles at AFD, I do it by finding local coverage in newspaper archives; here I'm finding the opposite.  My primary point, however, is that I think this local Jefferson Award is small potatoes based on a review of the coverage, and should count minimally towards notability, regardless of the fact that its unlikely I'm going to sway the AFD outcome at this point.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  13:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - This was only nominated a month ago.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: On the grounds that the 2nd Afd only closed very recently with NC. Nothing significant has changed between then and now. If anything, Ms. McMann is trying (in vain, may I add) to sway the vote to delete the article despite multiple user socks and IP socks.--Cahk (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Chicago Blood Cancer Foundation <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I closed this AFD as no consensus at first, but then was alerted that the nomination had already been closed and then later undone less than 24 hours ago. Hence why I'm relisting this. — Omni Flames  ( talk   contribs ) 08:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: We just had one of these.142.105.159.60 (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: this is POV pushing. one AfD was held less than a month ago. this person passes per WP:GNG. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes WP:GNG. Subjects of article do not get to dictate to Wikipedia whether or not they have articles, even less so if they are convicted criminals. Suggest permanent semi-protection will go a long way towards preventing any COI issues. Mjroots (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mjroots. I second the semi-protection. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 14:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Does this article pass WP:GNG? Yes. Should Wikipedia document notable individuals fairly, despite the sentiments of its subject, or other users? Yes. Is the article biased in its current form? I disagree. Therefore, keep. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 07:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - while a felony is all too common, fraud of this kind and size is unusual. Protection is warranted. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. BLP1E, doesn't meet WP:CRIMINAL, several sources but all a primary source news reports, there is no depth of story in any source.  The article is an orphan (disregarding name links).  Wikipedia is not a repository of news-reported criminals.  Wait until there is secondary source material from independent sources discussing the subject in some depth.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Omni Flames  ( talk   contribs ) 08:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete The only thing that she is notable is for stealing so much on a cancer charity that she has to pay $. I believe that if this is the only content that could be added then it could never be able to achieve a neutral point of view. Daniel Kenneth (talk) 08:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete BLP1E is reason enough. The BCF is barely notably in of itself.  This article is clearly causing the subject undue stress.  IAR, show some compassion and delete this article.15:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.183.220 (talk)
 * Why hello there IP user whose only other edit to Wikipedia was vandalism.   Aloha27   talk  15:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. (1) If consensus doesn't go your way, you do NOT get to keep repeating the discussion until it reaches the conclusion you want. There are good reasons why nominations of this kind are speedily closed and I'm not thrilled to see milquetoast sysops pussyfooting around with it. (2) If you write an article about your wife and get Wikipedia to publish it, you do NOT get to remove that article just because it suddenly starts to tell the truth.  (3) Our BLP rules prevent us from publishing unsourced negative information about living people.  Well-sourced negative information about living people is just fine, and well within scope for Wikipedia.  I see these reasons as quite overwhelming, and Sandstein's unexplained and unilateral reversal of the previous, excellent close requires explanation.— S Marshall  T/C 16:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable. The delete-camps arguments simply don't hold water. Also, I'm a little concerned about vote stacking here as well. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ironically, the article probably should have been deleted prior to the latest incident -- it was a little light on significant coverage. However, while this incident alone isn't enough to meet notability requirements, it added enough sources to the existing coverage to qualify it under WP:GNG. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2016 (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.