Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherika L. Hawkins

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 delete. Stifle (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sherika L. Hawkins

[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)

WP:BLP of a city clerk, "notable" only for having been charged with (but not verifiably convicted of) a crime of no nationalized importance. Per WP:PERP, however, this is not appropriate: if a person did not already have a claim of notability that would already have gotten them an article anyway (which "city clerk of Southfield MI" is not), then she has to be convicted of a crime, not merely charged with one, before she can be considered notable as a criminal. Further, the amount of reliable source coverage shown here is not sufficient, either: apart from two pieces of purely local media coverage within the Detroit media market, the referencing here is otherwise entirely to blogs and/or primary sources like a city press release and the actual charge document itself -- none of which are notability-supporting sources. And even if she were to be convicted, it would still take nationalizing media coverage, not just a few pieces of local coverage in the Detroit area itself, to demonstrate that her crime was significant enough to warrant being permanently enshrined in an international encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Compelling argument by nom. Hasn't been convicted and isn't of historic significance per WP:PERP. My initial thought was to merge into Voter fraud in the United States as a mention, but that just redirects to Voter impersonation (United States) which isn't relevant for this incident. Schazjmd (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the previous arguments and request early close, as the content of the article should be removed as soon as possible per WP:BLPCRIME. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with User:Schazjmd (talk)، per WP:PERP. --SalmanZ (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nom states "" only for having been charged with (but not verifiably convicted of) a crime of no nationalized importance. " However, election fraud has been a topic major coverage from the President of the United States claiming election fraud and having numerous misinformation public. This event was covered by a joint press conference of both the Michigan State Attorney General and Secretary of State.

Per WP:Crime " Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." As this is an issue that is getting national press coverage claiming that one party is working to steal election, this is of national concern. Major news network have been reporting on this matter.

Also Per WP:N/CA"As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources." CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NBC also have done reporting on this event.

Per WP:GNG""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" There has been significant coverage of this person and event.

The notable of this will not be temporary, she will be used to show election fraud by both political parties, Foxnews already ran a story pointing out the Democrats gave this person an award, even though the office is non-partisan.

Per WP:POLITICIANS she also meets "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." " A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists"

Even prior to be charged with a crime, this person was written about because she was the first African American elected to the City Clerk in a city with African American population of 70%. Southfield, Michigan

There are many reasons to keep this article, and to delete is only taking away the content of Wiki, plus I stopped editing many years ago because of these hill battles. That Roads are more notable than cemeteries, because more people write about roads then cemeteries. As a cybersecurity professor and lawyer, I took time to write this article and donated my hourly time to this project. So again, these meets so many guidelines its not funny. I can find so many stub articles that should be gone. Yet a article about election fraud during the midterm election of true fraud covered by every major news network. Jsgoodrich (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The event itself may or may not be notable, if it is, then the event may warrant an article, but not the subject of the BLP whose name can't be used unless a conviction is secured.

Can you provide the significan coverage by multiple independent sources to show that the subject is covered by WP:WELLKNOWN?

If not, WP:BLPCRIME applies. Our policy clearly states:

editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured

The information would have to be removed per WP:BLPCRIME. WP:PERP would also apply. and WP:BLP1E probably as well. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read what you quoted again. You stated "BLP whose name can't be used unless a conviction is secured." That is not the policy at all. The policy states "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated" Here her names was given out by the Michigan Attorney General and Michigan Secretary of State in a joint press confrance. No where does it say you can't name a person unless convicted.

"For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured" This is not a relatively unknown person, she is a public official covered in many sources prior to the event. The policy says editors "must consider not including" the level of coverage and the fact that every major news reporting source covered the press conference and gave her name plus her office makes her a public figure. This is not some person who was a one-time unelected poll worker that did something wrong this is a career politician that is alleged to abuse the public trust. You are misreading the False light section of the policy which states "Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light)."

And if you look at WP:WELLKNOWN Under Public figures, which is "A public figure is a person, such as a politician, celebrity, social media personality, or business leader, who has a certain social position within a certain scope and a significant influence and so is often widely concerned by the public, can benefit enormously from society, and is closely related to public interests in society"

"In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Jsgoodrich (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jsgoodrich: You seem to be mixing policies here. I quoted WP:BLPCRIME and you are quoting WP:BLPNAME. Both are part of WP:BLP but are independent. One does not invalidate the other.

What WP:BLPCRIME clearly states is that if the subject is not WP:WELLKNOWN information should not be included unless a conviction is secured. I asked if you could provide the multiple reliable sources with in depth coverage prior to the event. I understood that you claimed that being the first African American city clerk she had "been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists". If that is the case please provide the link to those reliable sources. If not the current RS do not count per WP:BLPCRIME. Please keep in mind that we are building an encyclopedia and not a newspaper and in the case of biographies of living people we must take extra care to ensure policies are followed.

But again, if you do have the required sources with in-depth coverage prior to the event please provide them. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that election fraud is notable as a concept does not automatically mean that every individual allegation of election fraud is necessarily an independently notable event. Notability is not inherited, and that includes individual incidents "inheriting" notability from the overarching notability of a concept they technically fit into — you would still have to show a lot more reliable source coverage than this to make Sherika Hawkins permanently notable to the world or override our WP:BLPCRIME rules. Bearcat (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is kept, it needs to be moved to Sherikia L. Hawkins. As seen at https://www.cityofsouthfield.com/government/city-clerks-office the subject has another "i" in her first name which has been left out of this article's title. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and especially BLP. Not convicted ~~and not a significant crime even if (later) convicted~~. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that despite some recent false statement, election fraud is the US is a rarely prosecuted crime and in doing so to find an official head of the election doing it is even more significant! Voter fraud is a significant crime because of the effect it has on democracy.Jsgoodrich (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Take a deep breath. This is wikipedia. The only great wrong we are trying to right is important information being hard to access. We have standards about how information should be sourced, how it should be presented, and what information should be included to help ensure that we are accurate, easy to read, and have important information. It sounds like you might have enough information here to add to election fraud, or possibly election fraud in the United States, but we prefer to not convict people in the court of public opinion simply because we are often searched on the internet. Rockphed (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Biographies of Living Persons indicates we should not libel people with implications that they have committed crimes. Sometimes people who are only accused end up being notable before the trial is completed, but we set the standard much higher. Yes, the article has Fox News and Washington Times citations, but all of the coverage is over 2 days. It might be a flash-in-the-pan. If there were coverage about this for a couple months (or until conviction/acquital/a plea deal, whichever is shorter), it might be appropriate to write an article about the fraud (or maybe put it in an appropriate list). I would say redirect to Southfield, Michigan, except for the libel issues. Rockphed (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think all of the above "delete" !votes make good points. Election- or voter fraud might well be a "significant" crime in the abstract, but that doesn't automatically override all the policy problems with this particular article. XOR'easter (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Biographies of Living Persons. --SalmanZ (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP and nom. SportingFlyer T·C 03:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP. We should not write articles for people with the thought that they have committed a crime. If the subject receives more coverage in the future (either related to this or another) I am sure WP:REFUND can apply Taewangkorea (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a city clerk in a city the size of Southfield is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2019 (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.