Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherese N. Williams


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Cherese N. Williams

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Comically peacock-term laden biography of an American activist, with no evidence of notability: nearly all the references are to websites of organisations she has worked for.

I haven't seen such a blatant puff-piece for a while,and while it appears that she is someone whose career puts her on the cusp of notability, I don't see any evidence that she is there yet. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete references given do not indicate notability. (some are dead ends or dont mention the person). If this is the best that an advocate for the woman (or herself) can provide to show notability, then she is not. Comment recent vandalism removed some references which show more notability that i at first observed. i restored the section vandalised. i am ambivalent about deletion now, leaning towards keep until we can sort out what is happening. I hate when people remove material during an afd. just wait, or add stuff, or remove absolutely uncontroversial material.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete If you can pick your way through the peacockery (worst I've ever seen; looks like a cut-and-paste of an overblown resumé), she turns out to be a mid-level executive with the NAACP and later with the Progressive Majority. In that type of position she might someday become notable. But so far, independent sourcing about her is unimpressive. --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Looking at the history: the original article was a much more straightforward, encyclopedic entry. The peacockery was added later by a couple of WP:SPAs: first by User:71.246.74.67 and later by User:Cherwil7. Also, a post on the Talk:Cherese N. Williams page, and this User talk:12.186.233.18 response from User:Cherwil7, imply that the subject is no longer working for the Progressive Majority but rather is looking for a job (as of December 2009) - and that she is pointing everyone to this Wikipedia page as support for her job search. --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. After the comment above by Mercurywoodrose, I have looked again the references, and I can see nothing which comes anywhere near WP:GNG's test of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Most of the refs are to organisatiosn with which she was involved, and the few press articles barely even mention her.  Can anybody see anything which might be relevant to GNG's test? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for the record, i tried various google searches: news, name, etc. i cant find any mention of her outside the confines of naacp. her title may in fact be a significant one within the org, but i suspect for our purposes she would have to have some media contact as a spokesperson or public activist. unless someone with more familiarity with her can provide a really solid ref right now, i say delete. no prejudice towards recreation (sans ALL the puffery) if evidence is found later, or of course if she gains more notability after this discussion.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2010 (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.