Kristie Puckett-Williams: The subject has also edited the article themselves.  LynxesDesmond 🐈 (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women ,  and North Carolina .  LynxesDesmond 🐈 (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Haven't decided on keep or delete yet.  But for reference, if you google her, a lot of the sources will be from the 16 Feb firing, e.g. [1] [2] [3] .  There are however also coverages of her previous activities for example from Charlotte Post , Raleigh , etc.  None of these are really good RS.  They do, however, probably count as RS. I think that the biography as it stands is hghly inappropiate and laudatory/undue, and does require a careful rewrite by someone very familiar with BLP.  However, that isn't relevant to notability.  Disclaimer: I was made aware of the discussion off-wiki.  Fermiboson ( talk ) 23:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I noticed a mass-removal of content and sources, along with the addition of a questionable source [4] to the article, ten minutes before this article was nominated for deletion, because of the WP:BLP issues that seem to be presented by the low-quality source added and the sensationalized content; a higher-quality source is available about her firing, i.e. [5] North State Journal , but this contentious event does not seem to be covered extensively in high-quality reliable sources.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 23:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I have gone through the sources and added others (including some mentioned above).  There are features on her conversion from crime to advocate, as well as several stories about her firing.  There is enough consistent and significant coverage for notability.  Delete - WP:BLP policy considerations influence my view on this article at this time, because in addition to low-quality, sensationalized sources about her apparent firing from the ACLU, her WP:BASIC / WP:GNG notability appears to be borderline according to other available sources.  The two independent and reliable sources supporting substantial content in the article are similar: " Without bail money, she pleaded guilty so she wouldn't give birth in jail " ( News & Observer , 2019), and Pulitzer Center - funded reporting " Turning trauma behind bars into advocacy for formerly incarcerated " ( Charlotte Post , 2021).  These sources feature her surviving abuse and addiction, are based on interviews with her, and conclude with a focus on her ACLU advocacy work.  Other sources in the article about her advocacy and activism are news reports with her providing quotes, often in her role as an ACLU employee, which help generally track her career development, although it is not clear based on the sources when she started work at the ACLU nor when she was promoted into various roles.  In February 2023, there was an incident that seems to have been sensationalized , particularly by low-quality sources such as the John Locke Foundation 's Carolina Journal linked above, which does not appear to have editorial standards published on its website , and its reporting on the incident seems particularly poor; the local alternative newspaper linked above does not seem to do much better in supporting contentious content in a BLP. I have added an NPR source that provides some context and seems to offer more neutral reporting on the incident, without using the term "fired," to support one line about her no longer working for the ACLU, which from my view, seems due according to available sources, the size of the article, and BLP policy. Overall, the notability guideline asks us to consider whether we can write a fair and balanced article ; with the available sources - primarily based on interviews and quotes in various news reports, as well as a short-term flurry of sensationalized reporting about her departure from the ACLU - it does not appear possible to do so at this time. Beccaynr ( talk ) 14:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . Beccaynr ( talk ) 15:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: SInce this can't be Soft Deleted, I'd like to see more support before closing this discussion as a Delete. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Incarceration_of_women_in_the_United_States#Advocacy_organizations : in that section, the ACLU and Puckett-Williams' advocacy work more than qualify for a mention based on our existing sources.  Once she receives more coverage that establishes independent notability (and I certainly hope she does!), we can easily revive the standalone article.  Owen× ☎ 23:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not think the available sources will help develop much content at the suggested merge target.  One of the two in-depth sources about Puckett-Williams, The News Observer , only mentions she is a "Regional Field Organizer for the ACLU of NC’s Campaign for Smart Justice, advocating for bail reform" and relies on her statement for the description of the "biggest part of her work" as "changing perceptions about people who commit felonies" - this source is about her biography, not the ACLU program.  The other in-depth source, The Charlotte Post , is also about her biography, and mentions she is the "statewide campaign for smart justice manager at the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina" and states she "advocates for legislation like the North Carolina House Bill 608, Dignity for Women Who are Incarcerated. HB 608 was introduced in April and passed 113-0 in May," and mentions several specifics of the legislation, but the ACLU program is not the focus of the source or discussed in depth.  I think the suggested merge target may benefit from retitling (the programs listed in the Advocacy organizations section appear to be treatment programs, sourced to a 2003 book) and/or further development, but the biographically-focused sources in this article do not seem specifically helpful for developing content in an article focused on programs generally.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 02:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree, which is why I said she and the ACLU deserve "a mention" in the target article based on our existing sources.  The difference between us now is whether or not to leave a redirect to the target from the current page.  I see no reason to prevent someone searching for her name from being redirected to our page about the incarceration of women, where her name would receive a brief mention along with the work of the ACLU.  Owen× ☎ 11:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To clarify my view, the suggested merge target describes direct services for individuals, while the ACLU of NC engages in what could be described as systems advocacy (changing policies, laws, etc).  While the suggested merge target uses the term "System organizations" it then quickly clarifies by describing individual-focused programs.  My sense, based on the content in the article, is that the 2003 book may be referring to a common concept of working with a client as a whole person - there is a holistic form of practice, where addressing multiple issues (i.e. "the system"), including housing, public benefits, transportation, mental health treatment, etc, are seen as necessary components of supporting someone in their reentry, or whatever their presenting issue may be.  This is very different than advocacy for bail reform or legislation.  So the unfortunate reason a merge/mention does not seem suitable is because this suggested target is not describing systems advocacy, a new section would need to be developed, and we do not have sources available from this article to do that.  Also, the NC ACLU Campaign for Smart Justice is not specifically focused on women, so it would not necessarily be a program that would be expanded into a new section at the suggested merge target.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 16:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We are free to add new sections or expand existing ones in the target article as we see fit and as reliable sources allow us.  We already have more than enough to verify the work of Puckett-Williams, and—I believe—to add a brief mention of her work, either in the existing Advocacy organizations section or under a new section in the target.  I understand the distinction you make between system- and individual- advocacy programs.  I do not, however, think our best approach for those searching Wikipedia for "Puckett-Williams" is to leave them with a "No results found" message.  I'm sure we can come up with a sentence or two that are supported by RS about her work, allowing us to turn Kristie Puckett-Williams into a redirect to Incarceration of women in the United States .  Owen× ☎ 17:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] These are some examples of systems advocacy organizations that could be reviewed to determine whether their work includes a focus on issues specifically related to incarceration of women in the United States: ACLU National Prison Project Center for Constitutional Rights / Mass Incarceration Center on Juvenile & Criminal Justice Prison Law Office Prison Policy Initiative The Sentencing Project Vera These organizations, and coverage of their work, may help develop a section broadly discussing systems advocacy in the suggested merge target.  A brief mention of Puckett-Williams participating in advocacy may not be due , assuming a new section is created.  Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a suitable merge target available at this time.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 20:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist, let's get more participation here!  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I was looking for information about Kristie Puckett-Williams as I am a minister writing about the power of people with lived experience acting as advocates.  It is important that articles about people like her remain on Wikipedia.  She has changed many lives in North Carolina and beyond as an independent advocate, which makes her notable!  2600:1700:8434:280:944F:E0B5:80A3:5BB0 ( talk ) 17:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is indeed important that the work of such people get publicized, and as I mentioned above, I truly hope she gains more publicity.  However, Wikipedia is strictly a neutral-point-of-view encyclopedia.  This means that no matter how important and dear to our heart the cause is, we must stick to our objective standards of notability.  Otherwise, the encyclopedia will quickly lose its reputation as an unbiased resource.  Owen× ☎ 18:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , per Beccaynr's analysis of the sources.  She can be mentioned in other articles, but I agree the content covered by the sources isn't direct enough to warrant merging.  It also suffers from promo-speak; if we are going to add material about her anywhere it should be in the words of an independent secondary commenter.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 03:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Beccaynr's excellent analysis of the sources above, which I believe is the most persuasive view in this discussion per our P&G's.  Happy to support the views of JoelleJay etc. that merging isn't appropriate given current state of the content, and therefore deletion is preferred.  Daniel ( talk ) 23:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Beccaynr.  Rusty4321 talk contribs 00:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete largely per Beccaynr.  I agree with their analysis of the sourcing, and I share the same GNG and perhaps more importantly BLP concerns.  I also agree with JoelleJay that a blanket merge isn't appropriate in the circumstances.  Mentioning Puckett-Williams and her activities whenever such content passes WP:DUE is of course fine, I just can't think of anywhere offhand where that would be the case.  Maybe in the future there will be sufficient sourcing to make a fair and balanced article about her, but not at this time.  Sideswipe9th ( talk ) 02:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Beccaynr - somewhat reluctantly; women of colour face intrinsic barriers to getting Wikipedia coverage and we should ask ourselves if we would treat the article in the same way if it were about a white man. (But I think the answer is yes, we would!) Nwhyte ( talk ) 09:41, 19 January 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete