Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catrina Tapley

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. So Why 09:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catrina Tapley

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Résumé-like WP:BLP, referenced entirely to primary sources with not a shred of reliable source coverage about her in media shown at all, about a person whose primary claim of notability is as deputy secretary to the federal cabinet of Canada (which makes her a staffer in the civil service, not a legislator.) This is not a role that gets a person over WP:NPOL, and there's no actual prospect of passing WP:GNG since it's not a role that actually gets any significant media coverage at all -- she literally gets just two hits on Google News, of which one is a press release and the other is basically a same-day rewrite of the same press release. And no, she isn't even the sole or even primary subject of that press release, but just has her existence namechecked in a list of civil servants who got new jobs that day. This is not enough media coverage to get over GNG, and nothing here entitles her to an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of enough media coverage to get over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable government functionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't state it better than the nom. nerdgoonrant (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comparing to similar roles in other countries these people have Articles. Sorry guys just not sure if this is fair to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.219.220 (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. For one thing, those other "similar" roles might have more reliable source coverage than Tapley has, thus clearing WP:GNG in a way that Tapley doesn't. For two, if they don't have that coverage, they might also be deletable articles that just hadn't gotten noticed by a responsible editor yet. And for three, you might also be misjudging how "similar" those other people's roles actually are — for all we know, your control sample could be Ivanka Trump (who's obviously not equivalent in any way.) So unless you show specific examples of what you think you're talking about, we have no way of knowing how they do or don't relate to this. Bearcat (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2017 (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.