Deletion of Charlene McMann (2nd nomination)

Comment: 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 , but the hypocrisy and emotional blackmailing by the subject's alleged friend doesn't sit well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE)

Comment: 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  violation—the subject isn't known solely for one thing, just most prominently for it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per  amongst other things, as documented on ANI and elsewhere. I don't mind articles being kept with a cursory amount of sourcing provided  is being met, but when the coverage begins to become severely negative, we should take a different stance
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE||WP:BLP)